Chinu, Read and think about this -
John Kerry: Let’s Turn the Spotlight on the “Phony Controversy”
April 28, 2004
by Frank Salvato
John Kerry likes to shine the spotlight away from one of the larger issues in this presidential campaign, whether or not he has a problem with credibility. The credibility flap-de-jour (sorry, that was French wasn’t it) is whether or not he tossed his medals over the White House fence back in 1971. But the real problem isn’t as mundane as what he did or didn’t toss over a fence, at issue is whether he possesses credibility, integrity. So far, I’m not sure I have seen any.
The Kerry campaign has gone to great lengths to slap the “there’s a question about his credibility” label on President Bush. In the early days of the campaign they rallied around the WMD issue, proclaiming the president “led us into war by overstating the facts about WMD.” They hammered on this issue hoping the electorate would forget that everyone else in the world held the same intelligence as the truth. As the facts about the intelligence deficiencies came to light even those firmly placed in the Kerry camp allowed the issue to die realizing that anyone in President Bush’s position more than likely would’ve done the same thing given the same information and circumstances. Remember, Kerry voted to authorize the president to use force based on that same information.
Then we had the quasi-slanderous attack on the president’s service record. The Kerry campaign claimed President Bush hadn’t served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard despite the fact he possessed an honorable discharge. Terry McAuliffe even went so far as to say the president went AWOL. But after all was said and done, and after President Bush willingly released all of his service records – something Kerry hasn’t done completely – this issue too was found to be inconsequential, born out of the divisive nature of the Kerry campaign’s politics.
These two issues alone could spark great debate over Kerry’s credibility. He raised two issues that he knew harbored no merit before he went public with the accusations yet he did so anyway, all for political gain. I believe we could’ve swallowed all of the afore mentioned, chalking it all up to election year politics and the heatedly partisan climate of our political system and it probably wouldn’t have affected Kerry at all. But, most likely to Kerry’s dismay, there is more.
The credibility issue-de-jour, or “phony controversy” as Kerry is calling it, is whether or not he threw his medals over the White House fence in 1971. Kerry went on Good Morning America and proclaimed he only threw some of his ribbons over the fence and that he tossed another disgruntled veteran’s medals over the fence for him. This is reiterated on Kerry’s campaign website. But on November 6th, 1971, Kerry said something quite different. During an interview with a television station Kerry proclaimed he, "gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals." When the interviewer asked about his Purple Hearts and Silver Star Kerry said, "Above that, I gave my others," – not someone else’s but his. Yesterday he said he "gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals," today he says he only “gave back” a few of his ribbons. I suppose it’s a good thing for us Kerry’s statements are on the media record or perhaps we would’ve never gotten to the bottom of that one.
Then we have the SUV matter. Kerry told supporters at a Houston "Earth Day" rally he truly disliked gas-guzzling SUV’s because they were poor for the environment. Because of that he once proposed a 50-cent gas tax increase (hmm…tax increase). But when asked by reporters about the SUV parked in his driveway he responded that he doesn’t “own an SUV.” He went on to say, "The family has the SUV. I don't have it." He states this in light of the fact his “family” owns not only the 1995 Chevrolet Suburban in question but a 1993 Land Rover Defender, a 1989 Jeep Cherokee, a 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee and a 2001 Audi Allroad as well. I guess it’s okay to hate SUV’s as much as Kerry does and not have a problem with five of them belonging to your "family" but it doesn’t speak well for someone who wants to be viewed as credible.
Yet another credibility issue facing John Kerry has to do with the $87 billion appropriation for the efforts currently underway in Iraq. Every major media outlet has Kerry saying, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.” Kerry contends he voted for the $87 billion appropriation simply by stating he would have supported the bill if repealing a portion of the Bush tax cuts had financed it. Kerry made that proposal in an amendment he cosponsored; the Senate rejected the amendment before approving the $87 billion – a supplemental appropriation that included funding for body armor. The truth of the matter is Kerry voted yes for an amendment to the $87 billion appropriation bill and no on the actual bill. Where he voted “yea” for the $87 billion has yet to been seen.
As I said, the issue at hand isn’t as mundane as whether Kerry threw his ribbons or medals (or someone else’s), owns an SUV or whether he voted yes before voting no. The real and more disturbing issue at hand is Kerry’s absolute need to be on both sides of every issue. His addiction to this balance/counter-balance approach to every issue – and his voting record is full of it (no pun intended) – brings up a very valid concern about his credibility. Can he be trusted to take a stand on an issue? Can he be trusted to keep his word both to our citizenry and the governments of the world? Can he be trusted to see tough issues like the War on Terror through to completion? These are all matters of credibility. Kerry’s is questionable, to say the least. And that, dear readers, is not a phony controversy.
mensnewsdaily.com |
