John Kerry: Unstable?
by Lee Wilson
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Usually politicians are careful with their words. Usually they're careful to take the high road to avoid potential media criticism. Not John Kerry. It seems that he says whatever pops in his head without fear that his big media allies will rat him out.
When he speaks, it appears that it is to align himself with the most popular position of that day or with a particular crowd. What he said one day has nothing to do with what he might say on another--and I don't just mean that he accentuates the things on which he and the American people agree. I mean that he literally has no basic position on any issue. He's for it, then he's against it. It's whatever he thinks sounds good to people at the moment.
For example:
''I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops,'' Kerry told ABC's ''This Week'' on Aug. 1.
''I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops [in Iraq], not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination.''
But then while addressing a VFW convention on Wednesday (August 4) Kerry slammed Bush for doing exactly what he had slammed him for not doing only a few days before, charging that cutting our forces in Korea was ''clearly the wrong signal to send.''
The Weekly Standard, which first reported the Aug. 1 Kerry quotes asked, ''Who knows what Sen. Kerry believes? Does Sen. Kerry even know?'' (Source: newsmax.com
I don't think he cares! I think the issues are, at the most, of second importance to him. In his mind they have nothing to do with the power of the presidency which he thinks the world owes him. To Kerry, taking any position on any issue at all is a ''necessary evil'' and a bothersome formality on his jaunt to the White House. He'll say whatever it takes to convince or confuse America. If they hear him say it one way, they'll think they ''know'' what he believes. If they hear him contradict himself, their confusion will at least keep them from totally feeling he is in opposition to them.
Agreeing, then Criticizing, then Agreeing Again
In the early days of John Kerry's campaign, he constantly accused President Bush of lying about ''Weapons of Mass Destruction.'' He said that they were made up so President Bush could have support for war. Yet when asked about the WMDs, John Kerry told host Chris Matthews, ''It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue... we may yet find them'' (Source: newsmax.com.
To make matters even more mind-boggling, Kerry later said that he would have gone to war with Iraq even if he knew there were no WMDs. (Source: nydailynews.com.
Why would John Kerry publicly mock the president of the United States for going to war and even call him a liar, but turn around and say that given the same information he would have gone to war himself?
Why would he first call himself a war criminal but later run as a war hero during his presidential campaign?
Why would he claim to throw his war medals over a wall in protest, then claim he threw someone else's medals, then claim he wasn't there at all, then claim that he was there but only threw his ''ribbons,'' instead of his medals?
Looking back, perhaps nothing tops his most infamous flip-flop: In Huntington, West Virginia, Kerry told a crowd of supporters that President Bush was wrong to criticize him for voting against the funding for body armor for American troops in Iraq. According to Kerry, ''I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.'' (Source: usatoday.com. An clip of the humorous quote was actually used in a Bush ad that next week.
Is Kerry Unstable?
I think we should seriously be wondering if this man has a psychological problem. He can't continually contradict himself while in the public eye and be mentally stable. My unofficial, unprofessional diagnosis is that he's a text-book-case habitual liar.
Habitual liars only tell people what they want to hear. In many ways, the truth bores the habitual liar and he loathes himself to the point he feels people won' t like him based only upon the truth. So he invents things that aren't true because he thinks people will only like him if they believe something better or more interesting than what is actually true.
Perhaps that is why Kerry isn't running on his voting record in the Senate. He won't even talk about it and changes the subject whenever it is brought up. His trump card is four and a half months in Vietnam--hardly the total experience needed to run a country. But 20+ years of service in the Senate is certainly something on which a candidate could hang his hat. Why isn't John Kerry talking about that? It's because his voting record is so far from the American mainstream that even life-long Democrats would think twice before voting for him. So he chose to run on a period in his life that happened away from the public eye. A period that allows him ''artistic license.'' The fish in his story keeps getting bigger, the kind of fish keeps changing, and people who were there with him are made out to be villains if they dare contradict him.
The questions that should be asked are not being asked, such as: ''Mr. Kerry, if you protested the war and called yourself a war criminal for participating in it, why are you basing your campaign on that war?'' So we can't know for sure what's going on inside that head of his. But the way I see it, we have four possible explanations for Mr. Kerry's lies:
1. He's incredibly sloppy.
2. He's not at as intelligent as advertised.
3. He is a man with serious psychological problems who needs to be in therapy, not running the country.
4. All of the above.
You decide. Based on your answer, decide if you think he should be pof the United States during a time of terrorism and war. Or ever! |
