"The Disgrace of John Kerry"
Posted by Kevin Willmann
Saturday, April 05, 2003
Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry wants to be the 2004 Democratic nominee for President. But the American people need to ask themselves a crucial question about him. How can he be taken seriously after breaking his pledge of cooling criticism of the Bush administration during the war with Iraq?
As the men and women of our military close in on Baghdad, Kerry ignored his pledge and attacked their commander-in-chief, President Bush. Echoing a phrase from the Bush-bashing, anti-war left, Kerry told a crowd in Peterborough N.H. this week: ''What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.''
Apparently, Kerry is more concerned about how other nations view America instead of protecting our nation and its people from possible foreign threats.
''I believe it deeply, that it will take a new president of the United States, declaring a new day for our relationship with the world, to clear the air and turn a new page on American history.'' he said.
With these statements, the senator is clearly appealing to voters of the French wing of the Democratic party to widen his lead on former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. Dean, as well as the treasonous US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), are other Democratic presidential candidates who appeal to that constituency.
Kerry’s comments about ''regime change'' are a disgrace, especially in a time of war, for any senator or presidential candidate to utter against their commander-in-chief. There is no doubt that his (as well as other Democrats) opposition to the war with Iraq is not based on honest disagreement, but partisan resentment.
Need proof? On Feb. 23, 1998, as then-President Bill Clinton made Iraqi regime change an issue, Sen. Kerry said the following:
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
This is a threat that John Kerry no longer takes seriously, since a Republican is president. Like Bill Clinton, his motto is ''speak tough, act weak.''
That is not the only Kerry hypocrisy. A veteran of the Vietnam War, Kerry loves to portray himself as a decorated war hero. In a US News and World Report article, Kerry said, ''I've got a pretty good sense of what it means to serve your country. I've got a pretty good sense of patriotism. I can go toe to toe with anybody.'' Contrary to his image as a war hero is his vocal activism for Vietnam Veterans Against The War.
At a 1971 anti-war protest, some Vietnam veterans put their medals on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in protest of the war. Kerry threw his two Purple Hearts on the steps of the Capitol and then said, ''This administration forced us to return our medals...These leaders denied us the integrity those symbols supposedly gave our lives.'' However, several years later, a reporter noticed Kerry’s Purple Hearts on his office wall. He admitted that the medals he threw on the steps were not his own, but instead were given to him by two other men.
If this is an example of John Kerry’s character, what makes him think he would be more successful than George W. Bush at foreign policy? It is clear that Kerry’s foreign policy would be a retreat to the appeasement of the Clinton years. Appeasement is only a short term solution, as we’ve seen with North Korea. It does not win friends and influence others, it only makes you appear weak in the eyes of your enemies.
The security of our nation deserves more than a retreat to the old ideas of the 1960’s. Certainly, the men and women in our military deserve better than what John Kerry has given them, which is a stab in the back in two wars. |
