John Kerry Supports Our Enemies By David Allen Jared
Oct. 24, 2004
John Kerry has shown throughout his career that he disdains the military to the point at which he's willing--even eager--to aid and abet America's enemies. That's a pretty strong statement directed at a man the left considers to be a "war hero," but let's examine his REAL record for a change, and try not to rely on the DNC's talking points or the sanitized version of Kerry's military service he's willing to let us see. (He STILL hasn't signed that form releasing ALL of his military records as the President has.)
Upon his return from Vietnam in 1969, he COULD have expressed his disapproval for the Vietnam War by petitioning Congress, writing letters, even speaking out in open forums about his opinion. Instead, he chose to ally himself with Hanoi Jane Fonda, the SDS, avowed communists like Angela Davis and the myriad Soviet- supported groups conducting a campaign of virtual terror, riots, arson, blowing up research labs, trashing campus ROTC offices and spouting hateful, hate-filled lies about what was really going on in Vietnam--all in aid of (and for the ultimate benefit of) the NVA communists and their surrogates in the South, the Viet Cong. This wasn't a "popular uprising" against a "corrupt" government in the South. It was a communist take-over of Asia's rice bowl, seen as the prelude to taking over the entire IndoChina peninsula and, eventually, all of SE Asia by puppets of the Soviet Union. American leftists were encouraged to fight on the home- front to help the communists achieve their ultimate goal--and they did. Some of these people were outright communists. Most, however, were what Lenin once referred to as "useful idiots" or "fellow travelers." Instead of looking at these people critically, John Kerry made a conscious decision to join them in their efforts--at whatever the cost to his own integrity, and even his own veracity. These people were not fighting for the Vietnamese people, as many claimed. They were fighting on behalf of the Soviet Union's dreams of conquest of this vital area of the world--in some cases, even financed by the USSR.
Another of Kerry's fellows in that effort was, of course, Bill Clinton, who, as a Rhodes "scholar" at Oxford University in England, led demonstrations against the war in front of the American Embassy there instead of completing his studies. This man of modest means from southern Arkansas somehow managed to be able to afford airline tickets to Helsinki for a so-called "peace conference" and then managed to somehow divert to Moscow at a time when one had to be specifically INVITED to enter the Soviet Union--even as a simple tourist. He spent over a week in Moscow, HE says touring and seeing the sights, during a month when this capital city only a few degrees outside of the Arctic Circle had average HIGH temperatures that were below zero Fahrenheit. If nothing else, whoever book his "tour" owes him a big rebate. I can imagine few less desirable places to visit in the dead of winter than Moscow. For some heretofore unexplained reason, Clinton was DRIVEN back to West Germany through Poland with a stopover in Prague then into East Germany and through the wall into the West where he caught a flight back to London. His hostess while he was in Prague, and whom he later identified during a State visit there turns out to have been one of the co-founders of the Czech communist party.
I mention this because it's important to know that these anti-war leftists, BOTH Clinton and Kerry, were oddly very cozy with communists during a time when we considered them to be our implacable enemies. Clinton "visited" them in January of 1969 and Kerry visited with the North Vietnamese variety in Paris not long after returning to the States FROM Vietnam--while he still held a reserve Naval commission. Then BOTH men campaigned on behalf of the communists' position on the issue of ending the war in Vietnam. Why would ANY American become so cozy with people whose leadership had vowed to "bury you" when speaking of the U.S.? One can only assume, but it's safe to say that communism seemed very attractive to these two men or they wouldn't have both embraced its practitioners so warmly. Kerry's "service" in Vietnam certainly doesn't absolve him of responsibility for consorting with these people--while technically still a uniformed officer in the U.S. Navy, no less. It's one thing to legitimately speak out against a war that one honestly believed to be "immoral." It's quite another to aid and abet those with whom we were engaged in that war- -against the stated interests of one's own country. It's even WORSE to aid and abet an enemy who, at the same time, was killing and maiming those with whom you shared the experience of combat there.
I've been contacted via e-mail by several people who insist that John Kerry was RIGHT to do what he did. Only if you don't understand how helping our enemies in time of war damages those fighting that war can it be "right." A real man owes allegiance to (1)his God (if he has one), (2) His wife and children (or his family in general) and (3) his country--in that order of priority. I realize that men also owe allegiance to their own consciences (if they have 'em), but anyone who violates his allegiance to the first three obviously HAS no conscience--or is able to at least suppress it. That's what Kerry did. He SAYS he did what he did out of "duty" to his conscience, but no real man's conscience drives him to do the sort of harm he did to his country at the expense of millions of fellow veterans who served AT LEAST as honorably as he did. By being vocal, by relating impassioned stories of atrocities and war crimes of the worst sort, by actively campaigning to stoke the flames of an already enraged American left, he did more harm to his own country than even the War had done. By giving the enemy encouragement to hold out a bit longer, he cost us thousands of lives and actually prolonged the war.
In summary, Kerry is the sort of person for whom the emergence of the United States as the world's sole superpower is a tragedy--not something of which to take pride. His entire Congressional career is premised on reducing our ability to wage war against anyone. That might be a good idea of we, as a nation, were conquerors and not liberators. But, to Kerry, there really isn't much difference between the two. I want my President to be decisive, to understand the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, and to DO good and what's right for the United States. I don't CARE whether or not France or Germany agree with him and "like" him. I DO care that he sets national security as his, and his administration's, first priority. Bush has done that and continues to and Kerry would abrogate his responsibilities in that arena to a mostly-hostile UN. Thanks, but NO THANKS.
------------
About the author: David A. Jared is a news junkie, semi-retired and an avid golfer who's been writing his first book, "4000 years of chopsticks" for the last 20 years. Email: Pappadave@sbcglobal.net |
