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

Skip to comments.

Who Is John Kerry?
American Prowler ^ | 12/24/2002 | Jed Babbin

Posted on 12/23/2002 9:48:23 PM PST by Pokey78

If the Democrats learned anything from the 2002 election, it's that in 2004 they won't beat George Bush with another Bill Clinton. Americans don't want the San Francisco Democrats leading them now. It's war, stupid, and anyone who doesn't get it won't win. This year even Georgia's Max Cleland -- who lost his legs fighting in Vietnam -- was beaten because he stuck to the SFD's line that union jobs were more important than homeland security. Looking ahead is pretty easy. Alone among the still-gathering gaggle of dwarves, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry stands alone as combat veteran. President Bush's experience as a Texas Air National Guard pilot pales in comparison to Kerry's service, for which he received not only a Silver Star, but a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts as well. You can't say that he hasn't been there and done that.

But Kerry's military record isn't enough to win the hearts and minds of our professional military. They have a profound distrust of Kerry and it's not because he's a pure-as-Ivory-soap liberal. (His ACLU and NARAL ratings are exactly the same as those of Teddy Kennedy, Babs Boxer and Oregon's Ron "the Whiner" Wyden. People for the American Way -- Norman Lear's hyper-lib group -- says he voted their way on 11 of the 12 issues they care about.) The reason for the military's distrust of Kerry is his positively Clintonian contempt for them.

After serving with distinction in Vietnam, Kerry soon left the Navy and joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Kerry testified in a highly-publicized Senate hearing on 23 April 1971, when the war was still going hot and heavy, and long before Vietnam released the American prisoners of war it admitted holding. Kerry's Senate appearance made him a public figure and was the foundation on which he has built political success. In it, Kerry eloquently condemned America's military for what he called "war crimes committed in Southeast Asia." He said these were "not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

He condemned American soldiers not only for war crimes, but for racism, and condemned his country for that and more:

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum. We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals…We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater…

It is part and parcel of everything we are trying as human beings to communicate to the people of this country -- the question of racism that is rampant in the military…the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions…


In those days, Kerry was a supporter of the "People's Peace Treaty." One of its provisions would have set a firm date for U.S. withdrawal, and only after that date was set would negotiations begin for release of our POWs. In short, Kerry would have given up any ability we had to pressure the North Vietnamese to release the POWs.

Kerry's testimony lingers, a shouted libel that hangs in the air over silent listeners. His sincerity cannot be doubted. But he has the facts wrong. The My Lai massacre tore this country apart. Lt. William Calley, the commander of the unit involved, went to prison for it. Then, Kerry's passion overcame the facts. Today, he wants to use the past he was once ashamed of to propel him to the presidency.

We call upon the young men to fight. All of us, in our late twenties and early thirties, had experiences that made deep impressions, and stayed with us for the rest of our lives. So it is with John Kerry. His war scarred him deeply, perhaps too deeply for his mind to ever heal. Announcing his presidential bid on "Meet the Press," Kerry said he still suffers from nightmares about Vietnam.

Now, Kerry makes much of his war record. In that same "Meet the Press" appearance, he mentioned his military service several times, and even said it was a positive force in his life. None of that rings true to the military. During the Clinton era, they all developed a very sensitive nose for baloney. Now they smell it every time Kerry speaks.


ONE SENIOR ARMY OFFICER, A WARRIOR from Gulf War 1, told me that Kerry suffers from the Vietnam syndrome. In his judgment, Kerry is, "too traumatized by the lost war to cope with any other war under any circumstances." A former Navy SEAL told me he thinks Kerry is an opportunist. That same judgment of Kerry came independently from a Marine whose Vietnam service was as tough or tougher than Kerry's. He told me, "I do not trust people like [Kerry] -- scratch that individual and watch an opportunist bleed."

Kerry's opportunism echoes Clinton's. Kerry looks at the military as a mechanism to advance leftist social change. He has supported mixed-gender training, which has dumbed down all of the services' standards (except the Marines, God bless 'em). He opposes the death penalty for usual criminals, but supports it for terrorists because terrorists are the headliners, and he wants his share of the front page. He opposes missile defense and has voted against a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit desecration of the flag. He voted against the 1991 Gulf War resolution -- when Saddam already occupied Kuwait -- and voted for the 2002 resolution even though he said the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction isn't imminent enough to go to war over. His support for the International Criminal Court -- aimed at the U.S. military -- is a big strike against him.

Kerry wants the military to think he's complex, perhaps a little confused, but someone with whom they can work. But Kerry, unlike Clinton, is not complex at all. He would be a disaster as a commander in chief, because he would never trust the military, and it could never trust him. One of George Bush's most important campaign promises in 2000 was to restore the trust between the White House and the troops. He has made a good start, and the people who now serve have faith in him because he keeps the faith with them. He has been truthful with them in a manner that John Kerry never could be, and never will.

Some men who survive one war have the ability to fight another. But John Kerry is not one of them. That his Vietnam experience still haunts him does not disqualify him for the presidency. His disdain for the military, driving opportunism and liberal purity do. Were we at peace, his candidacy could pose a credible alternative to George Bush. We should respect Kerry, even honor him, for this wartime service. But we must not trust him to lead us -- and the world -- to victory in this war.


Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration, and is the author of the novel, Legacy of Valor. He now often appears as a talking warhead on the Fox News Channel and MSNBC.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: electionpresident

1 posted on 12/23/2002 9:48:23 PM PST by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I can answer that question in five words: a hypocritical, dull, anti-American moron.
2 posted on 12/23/2002 9:51:08 PM PST by Tuba-Dude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Election President
bump
3 posted on 12/23/2002 9:51:36 PM PST by The Obstinate Insomniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
American Free Press

Dude looks lie a creepy mortician from some horror move. His monotonic speech, defective cognitive output, and chunky-hurl Massachusetts liberal drivel are boring and torturous beyond all human tolerance.

I would rather give myself an un-anesthetized hemorrhoidectomy with an old pocket knife than listen to manipulative robo-android for 3 seconds.

4 posted on 12/23/2002 9:58:42 PM PST by friendly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

5 posted on 12/23/2002 10:02:02 PM PST by chnsmok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Who Is John Kerry?

A Massachusetts Liberal who has voted in lock step with Ted Kennedy

Case Closed!

6 posted on 12/23/2002 10:02:25 PM PST by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Will the REAL John Kerry please stand up?

7 posted on 12/23/2002 10:04:27 PM PST by I'm ALL Right!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I'm ALL Right!
John Kerry controls the weather!? Be afraid...very afraid.
8 posted on 12/23/2002 10:11:41 PM PST by chnsmok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tuba-Dude
BUMP to the top!!
9 posted on 12/23/2002 10:12:59 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: I'm ALL Right!
That his real hair?--Looks like a bad wig plopped on.
10 posted on 12/23/2002 10:50:24 PM PST by gop_gene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

John F. Munster-Kerry


11 posted on 12/23/2002 10:50:54 PM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
In it, Kerry eloquently condemned America's military for what he called "war crimes committed in Southeast Asia."

Babbin fails to point out that Kerry's speech was ghostwritten by Adam Walinsky, speechwriter for Robert Kennedy, who also spent a long time coaching Kerry on how to deliver said speech to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His "eloquence" was a sham, just like his flinging of someone elses medals at the Capitol was. Kerry was and still is a willing, lying, phoney dupe.

12 posted on 12/24/2002 6:45:56 AM PST by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
He is a racist from a racist state....

Paper: Racial Disparity in Mass. Searches
Traffic Citations Reveal Racial Disparity in Massachusetts Car Searches, Newspaper Reports

The Associated Press


BOSTON Jan. 6 —
A review of traffic ticket data shows Massachusetts police were more likely to search cars of black and Hispanic drivers during routine traffic stops than those of white drivers, the Boston Globe reported Monday.

Two years ago, the state began collecting information on traffic citations to measure possible racial profiling by police, following the example of 20 other states. The Globe analyzed more than 750,000 tickets from every police department in the state and found a wide racial disparity in the tickets and vehicle searches.

Statewide, black and Hispanic drivers received traffic tickets at a rate twice their share of the population. Once ticketed, they were 50 percent more likely than whites to have their cars searched. But a higher percentage of the white drivers whose cars were searched were arrested, the study found.

Lorie A. Fridell, a criminologist and director of research at the Police Executive Research Forum, a national group of police executives, said disparities should serve as "a strong red flag."

"The implication is that the threshold for police is different in searching the two groups," she said.

Among the findings:

Blacks are 4.6 percent of the state's driving-age population, but received 10 percent of tickets to state residents. Hispanics make up 5.6 percent of the population, but got 9.6 percent of tickets.

Police tend to search minorities cars more often. Of ticketed Hispanic drivers, 2.4 percent were subjected to searches, followed by blacks (2.3 percent), American Indians (2.2), whites (1.6), Asians (0.8), and Middle Easterners (0.7). Blacks and Hispanics driving a new car were searched more often than whites in new cars.

A higher percentage of the whites who were searched were apparently found with drugs. In all, 16 percent of whites searched were charged with a drug offense, compared with 12 percent of blacks searched, 10 percent of Hispanics, 7 percent of Asians, 6 percent of American Indians and 4 percent of Middle Easterners.

In 19 communities, minorities who were ticketed were searched twice as often as whites.

Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, the sponsor of the state law that required race of drivers to be reported in traffic stops, wants an explanation from police.

"What we now know," said Wilkerson, "is that blacks and Hispanics who get ticketed are more likely to get searched, but less likely to have drugs. What else does a police chief in this state need to know to at least be concerned?"

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030106_981.html
13 posted on 01/06/2003 8:45:51 AM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I thought Al Gore was dull. But Kerry makes Gore seem absolutely lively!
14 posted on 01/06/2003 8:47:43 AM PST by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

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