Of course, this shouldn't comes a great surprise, because 1) most war vets (of any war) are shaped by what they experienced during war and 2) because humans are, essentially, a collection of their experience. We react to life and its decision points based largely upon our accumulated knowledge and past experience.
Nothing new here. Every knows this as the natural course of things.
This is why I think that John Kerry's Cambodia "mission" and, more importantly, his recollection of it, is precisely WHY he is not fit to be the Commander-in-Chief.
Ok. How?
Look closely at the most stark (and well-documented) example of what John Kerry said about the Cambodia incident:
I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what is was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; The troops were not in Cambodia.
I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that conflict.
That has been the quotes floating around the media (albeit not the mainstream media), but that isn't the whole quote. Kerry added a few more words that actually paint a picture of how bankrupt and hollow Kerry really is. Kerry continued:
Mr. President, good intentions are not enough to keep us out of harms way. The danger here is our support for the Contras. Everyone knows the Contras are our Contras. We have a proprietary interest in the in the Contras. So with that proprietary interest we will raise the stakes, and then will come the commitment of our prestige and worse our pride, our pride. How many battles do we have to fight for pride? (page 6422)
The Congressional record shows that Kerry tells his story (on the Senate floor, no less), about being in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968, being shot at by the Khmer Rouge, realizing that Nixon was lying to the American people and the U.S. soldiers, how he became disillusioned, and all of this was "seared -seared-" into his memory. Liberals have been beating about each of these individual points, but have completely missed why this statement on the Senate floor was really important.
And, for argument's sake, we 1) put aside that fact that Nixon wasn't even President in 1968 (or even the corrected date Kerry of January of 1969 [at least until Jan 20, 1969]), 2) put aside that fact that the Khmer Rouge didn't come into power and start shooting at anyone (including Americans) until 1972, 3) allow Kerry to choose his characterization of his own memory (perhaps his memory wasn't actually "seared -seared-" into his memory but, rather, "etched"), and 4) excuse John Kerry for not remembering the that he may have had some of the facts wrong on an incident that happened many years before. Considering all of that, what are you left with?
You are left with a United States Senator, standing on the floor of the United States Senate be less-than-dishonest about his war experiences and using that supposed experience to be an expert commentator on the current goings-on in 1986.
So, why would he make these remarks on the Senate floor? Why would he exaggerate his experience and paint a picture of his Cambodia experience that, at minimum, has deep factual flaws?.
He was arguing about the situation in Nicaragua.
In the late 80s, Nicaragua's government (the Marxist-Communist Sandinistas) and dictator (Daniel Ortega) were fighting the freedom fighters known as the Contras. John Kerry is using this story to thwart our support of the pro-US Contras. Interestingly, if you continue to read whole passage from the record, Kerry seems to be showing support (though cautious support) for the Contras. He cites his Cambodia experience as a reason to not get involved too heavily with the Contras. In fact, by citing this experience and his "cautious" comments, he is really arguing against support the Contras. A position that Kerry was quite open about only 1 year before. Frankly put, John Kerry's real support for the Contras was quite different.
In 1985, John Kerry (and Iowa Senator Tom Harkin) traveled to meet with Daniel Ortega. The trip was very controversial, of course, because it was in direct opposition to the U.S. government's opposition to the Communist Sandinista government.
John Kerry and Daniel Ortega in 1985
This gesture is no small matter...then or now.
When John Kerry was quoting his Cambodia experience in 1986 as a reason to be cautious of (or measure) our relationship with the Contras, he was speaking, in effect, on behalf of Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas Essentially, was arguing against helping the freedom fighters (anti-communist forces). He was saying that helping the anti-communist forces was wrong, just like it was wrong to have been involved in "secret wars" in Cambodia.
So, when you look at this situation, in context, even if some of the facts can be disputed to some degree, he is still on the wrong side of the issue and, more importantly, on the wrong side of history. He was on the side of pro-communist forces. He stood against the forces of freedom. He stood against the liberation of the Nicaraguan people.
Why would we think that he won't harbor these same cautious concerns now?
He won't even address his support for the Sandinista government in the 80s. Alas, no reporter will even ask him about this incident, even though the "Christmas in Cambodia" comments are directly related to Kerry supporting and arguing on behalf of "not getting involved" in the spread of Communism?
So, what does this all mean?
Here's a logical continuum and results of John Kerry's position, though varied, on fighting for freedom throughout his life...
Instance 1 - Vietnam
Parties Involved: North Vietnamese/Viet Cong/Khmer Rouge vs. South Vietnamese/U.S.
Kerry in 1968/69: South Vietnamese and U.S. Forces
Kerry in 1971-73: Well, let's say anti-South Vietnamese/U.S. Forces (perhaps not pro-North Vietnamese/Viet Cong, but very close)
Instance 2 - Nicaragua
Parties Involved: USSR/Sandinistas vs. Contras/U.S.
Kerry in 1985: pro-Sandinista
Kerry in 1986: pro-Sandinista (and cites his Vietnam/Cambodia experience)
Instance 3 - Gulf War I
Parties Involved: Iraq/Saddam Hussein vs. U.S./Coalition Forces
Kerry in 1991: anti-U.S./Coalition Force retaliation
Instance 4 - War in Afghanistan
Parties Involved: Al Qaeda/Taliban vs. U.S./Coalition Forces
Kerry 2001: pro-U.S./Coalition Forces
Instance 5 - Gulf War II/War in Iraq
Parties Involved: Iraq/Saddam Hussein vs. U.S./Coalition Forces
Kerry in 2002: pro-U.S./Coalition Forces
Kerry in 2003: well, to be fair, anti-funding for U.S./Coalition Forces
Kerry in 2004: again, to be fair, anti-funding for U.S./Coalition Forces and U.S. administration misused authority
Instance 6 - War on Terror
Parties Involved: Global Terrorism vs. U.S./Western World
PENDING
So, in only 1 instance (War in Afghanistan) has John Kerry outrightly, undeniably supported our right as a nation (or the right of another nation) to fight for freedom (and even Afghanistan could be argued because Afghanistan was part of the $87 Billion that Kerry voted against). So, even if you include Afghanistan, outright, and you believe that John Kerry is really serious about the war on terror and has the will to "hunt down the terrorists and bring them to justice", he has shown that 4 out of 6 major conflicts in the last 35 years, he is on the wrong side of history. Not just sort of wrong. There is no nuance to this; he's wrong, bigtime.
Then, take the fact that we don't have to "think" that George W. Bush will "hunt down the terrorists and bring them to justice"; we already know it. The guy has been doing it since he got up from his chair after the much-bemoaned 7 minutes in that Florida classroom. There is no disputing that. We KNOW that Bush will be fighting terrorism, tooth and nail, regardless of what political pressure (either internal or external) he experiences.
We simply can not afford to be on the wrong side of history in our current fight against global terrorists. It can't be said enough that, literally, our way of life depends on us, not beating back, but beating down terrorism.
So, the liberals can parse words, make insinuations about funding, and accuse highly decorated vets of lying, but it doesn't change the fact that John Kerry is who he is, he said what he said, and has been on the wrong side of history his entire adult life.
THE PING!