John Kerry's Resume for Commander and Chief and Defender of the Working Man: Protest with Jane Fonda, Accuse the American Military of War Crimes, and Marry Two Women with Inherited Fortunes? Bring it On!
By George F. Holland
Feb 8, 2004, 21:09
Every time the Democrats place all their intellectual resources behind a "winning" strategy they ultimately find themselves on ice so thin that the heat from a single candle can melt the ice beneath their feet. Today's democratic strategy is to base John F. Kerry's eventual candidacy on the strength of his war record and his defense of the working class. Howard Dean had not even finished the last note of his infamous screech before this strategy was embraced by almost every liberal constituency of the Democratic Party. These constituencies are now led by career operatives at the DNC, actors in Hollywood whose careers are on the decline, and a parade of failed Democratic candidates who now have time for party activities since they have nothing better to do. I think this strategy will ultimately fail since John Kerry's congressional record and life after Vietnam does not show he has the wisdom required to defend our country or any possible connection to the working man.
Claim Number One in the Kerry Campaign: John Kerry is eminently qualified to be Commander in Chief of our military and to lead the war against terrorism because of his service as a courageous young soldier in the 1960's. No one can dispute that John Kerry volunteered to go into military service and won several medals during his time in the Vietnam War. John Kerry's courage as a young man in the jungles of Vietnam will forever deserve the gratitude and admiration of our nation. However, courage as a young soldier does not automatically translate into wisdom as an older politician. Let us examine how John Kerry translated his youthful combat experience into further service to his country.
After he returned from active duty, he became a leading anti-war activist and worked hard to support the anti-American programs of radicals like Jane Fonda. He attended a seminar bankrolled by Fonda in Detroit in February 1971 during which 125 self-proclaimed Vietnam veterans testified at a Howard Johnson's about atrocities allegedly committed by our own forces. In order to further ingratiate himself with his new friends he participated in and even led efforts to humiliate and discredit our armed forces and our country's leadership. Although, honest policy disagreements are a fundamental part of our democratic system, symbolic gestures of hatred and disrespect for our country are not. These acts of hate not only add no value to the national debate, but encourage our enemies and discourage our allies. Both Jane Fonda and John Kerry translated their disputes over our country's policy on Vietnam into the most heinous acts of disrespect for our military and national character.
Pictures of Jane Fonda on top of the very tanks which fired on and most likely wounded and killed our troops gave the enemy a morale boost and public relations edge against the United States. John Kerry, who was not invited to that particular photo shoot, led his own efforts to embarrass and humiliate our military. Navy lieutenant John Kerry, as leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971 that U.S. soldiers had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam." It is important to note that while Lt. Kerry sat in plush offices on Capital Hill and testified that American soldiers routinely committed these war crimes against Vietnamese civilians for fun, our soldiers were still fighting and dying in the jungles of that country. Did John Kerry's testimony provide additional justification and passion for the torture of American soldiers at the hands of their North Vietnamese captures? We will probably never know. Should a man who loved his country have made those inflammatory charges in public while his brothers and sisters in the military were being held prisoner? Absolutely not.
As a further public relations coup for our adversaries and to gain more publicity for himself he then threw medals he claimed were his own over the White House garden wall. However, as soon as his medals proved to be a political asset as opposed to a publicity liability he confessed that the medals he threw over the garden wall in fact were not his own and now displays his own medals. He has used them for political advantage ever since and they are now the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. We may never find out who owned the medals he so callously threw over the garden wall or what sacrifices that soldier endured to win those medals. I guess John Kerry wants us to honor his medals which he now so prominently hangs on his wall more than he honored the medals of that fellow veteran. I wonder if John Kerry would have thrown the veteran over the wall wearing those medals if it would have resulted in better press or more accolades from his anti-American admirers.
One would also think that someone who fought and saw men die in the jungles of foreign lands would become a passionate leader in the effort to provide better weapon systems or intelligence support to other soldiers in harm's way. However, instead of working as hard for our military as he did protesting against it, Mr. Kerry decided to spend his political career attacking, berating and trying to cut funding for all systems and programs to support the Defense Department and Intelligence Community. He used his position in the Senate to label the CIA as "evil" and to fight to cut funding for our military and intelligence production capabilities whenever possible. It appears that protest partying with Jane Fonda against the military was a larger influence on Mr. Kerry than actually serving in it.
Rather than defend the congressional record he modeled after Ted Kennedy or the anti-military activities he modeled after Jane Fonda, he has decided to attack the National Guard service of President Bush. He has attacked the President for not attending certain activities during his National Guard service while ignoring the fact that President Bush faithfully fulfilled his military obligation and received an honorable discharge. Mr. Kerry once again finds himself questioning the integrity and honor of the military. For the military, without reservation, awarded President Bush an honorable discharge while Mr. Kerry and his political hacks are questioning the military's evaluation of President Bush's service even going as far as to equate service in the National Guard to a dodge to avoid military service. That is why Mr. Kerry finds himself attacking a man with honorable service in the National Guard while defending a known draft dodger - Bill Clinton. Senator Kerry enthusiastically defended the right of Bill Clinton to evade all military service in order to go to London to protest against our troops while they were on the battlefield. We have to remember he had much to gain politically in defending Bill Clinton and has even more to gain in defaming President Bush. You can think of President Bush's National Guard service as the medals of the unknown veteran which Mr. Kerry threw over the garden wall.
This leads us to Claim Number Two of the Kerry Campaign: John Kerry is a friend and defender of the working man. This will be a hard sell for a man who received formal education by the Ivy League, formal training by anti-American radicals like Jane Fonda and has lived the life of a millionaire living off the inherited wealth of his two wives. As an Ivy League educated millionaire who did not have to work for his fortune, Mr. Kerry never had to worry about the money he earned, the taxes he paid, or the programs he and Ted Kennedy forced the rest of us to pay for. Mr. Kerry's complete ignorance of what it is like to have to live by what you earn is why he actively supports the practice of giving retired millionaires monthly social security checks paid for by working men making $7 dollars an hour and trying to support a family; why he actively supports higher taxes on small businesses so they can not hire more employees at higher wages; and why he supports government programs which give undeserving people homes in working class neighborhoods even when those neighborhoods are destroyed in the process. Mr. Kerry Heinz is not effected when these neighborhoods are destroyed and working class families lose the largest asset in their retirement plans - their home's value.
If Mr. Kerry and his supporters believe that President Bush should not lead the United States military since he did not serve in the regular armed forces, than Mr. Kerry should not even claim to defend the working man since he is living the millionaire lifestyle offered by his wife's inheritance. As a matter of fact the only indication that Mr. Kerry understands economics at all is that the inherited fortune of his second wife is larger than the inherited fortune of his first wife. And unlike President Bush who once proudly wore the uniform of the United States military, Mr. Kerry will never know what it is like to wear the clothes of a working man. The real question is if our country is ready to elect a president whose view of the military was shaped by Jane Fonda and whose view of economics was formed by the inherited fortunes of two wives. If the Democrats want to position the 2004 campaign around a debate on John Kerry's fitness to become Commander in Chief or connection to the working man, I say, Bring it on.
magic-city-news.com |
