Don't Get Kerryed Away
No Shades of Gray
By JOE SABIA
Last week's "Democratic Unity Dinner" produced multiple political orgasms, most of which came from Bill Clinton. Speakers at the fundraiser appeared convinced that recent blips in the polls mean they are mere months away from resuming all-night pizza parties and orgies in the Oval Office. But times have changed and Americans are no longer looking for an antiwar gigolo to serve as their president. National defense will be the central issue of the 2004 campaign, thus dooming the Democrats' chance of recapturing the White House.
In recent weeks, the Bush re-election team has done a masterful job of refocusing the nation's attention on our security threats. No one believes that John Kerry will be more hawkish than George Bush in fighting the war on terrorism. The choice is crystal clear: If you want to pre-emptively kill Islamists and depose ruthless anti-American dictators, you will vote for George Bush. If you want to kiss up to the French and build more federally funded jungle gyms for public school playgrounds, you will vote for John Kerry. And if you want stricter emission standards on bicycles, you will vote for Ralph Nader.
Vice President Cheney recently claimed that the 2004 election would provide the American people with the clearest electoral choice since 1984. This is an accurate assessment. Bush, like Reagan, is a man's man. Kerry, like Mondale, is a Frenchman's man. Bush is a tax cutter who is committed to high military spending and an aggressive foreign policy to defeat America's enemies. Kerry is a habitual tax hiker who has voted to cut military spending, gut our intelligence agencies, and appease evil regimes. Voters have a stark choice in November -- we can continue the war on terrorism or we can go the way of the Spanish and try to negotiate a non-aggression pact with al-Qaida.
John Kerry deeply resents the administration's charge that he is weak on defense. As a sign of his toughness on national security matters (and in keeping with his deep humility), Kerry cites his Vietnam War record at least once every 14.3 seconds. As the Vietnam War was started by a Democrat president, ended honorably by a Republican president, lost by a Democrat Congress, and has been over for 31 years, perhaps Kerry should find a new national security talking point.
While serving in Vietnam is a laudable accomplishment, it does not necessarily follow that a veteran is qualified to be a wartime president. After all, Benedict Arnold was a veteran -- and he didn't even accuse his fellow soldiers of being genocidal maniacs. Most American war veterans return home, hang flags on their porches, join Rotary Clubs, and become active in their churches. They do not throw away their war medals, link up with Jane Fonda, and give congressional testimony calling fellow soldiers murderers.
While denouncing your country in wartime might make you an odds-on favorite to win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, it might not make you the best commander-in-chief of the armed forces. And since when did Democrats start caring about war service anyway? I must have missed all of those "Democrats for Dole" rallies back in '96.
The Vietnam War was such a crucial event in recent American history because it divided us culturally and morally. Those leaders who supported the war -- John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan -- deeply loved our nation's traditions, its freedoms and its values. They were committed to defeating threats to American security. Those who opposed the war -- George McGovern, John Kerry, Ramsey Clark, and Bill Clinton -- blamed America first, believed in a policy of appeasement, and supported the overthrow of America's traditional moral order. This battle continues today.
Whenever Democrats debate a war, they invariably conclude that America is at fault. When John Kerry chaired the Senate Select Committee on POW-MIA Affairs, he outrageously accused Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger of intentionally leaving American prisoners of war in the hands of the North Vietnamese to expedite an end to the Vietnam War.
Kissinger appeared on Nightline to rebut Kerry's assertion, saying: "I thought [Kerry] would put the issue to rest of whether the Vietnamese inhumanely, maliciously, and in violation of the agreement kept prisoners. It did not occur to me that American officials would become the victims of such investigations."
Kissinger should not have been surprised that Kerry blamed America for the Vietnamese illegally holding our prisoners of war. Kerry and the Democrats specialize in siding with the enemy and opposing America's national security interests. Mona Charen and Ann Coulter '85 each wrote bestsellers in 2003, meticulously detailing liberals' 40-year history of treachery.
The current Sept. 11 commission is yet another incarnation of Democrats' "blame America first" policy. Men like John Kerry have no interest in improving our intelligence so that we can better detect and kill America's enemies. They prefer to let al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein off the hook in order to blame President Bush for Islamic terrorism.
There are seven months left until election day. In that time, we will begin the trial of Saddam Hussein, hand government authority over to the Iraqi people, and continue the war against extremists in the Middle East. Americans will have their attention focused on the war on terrorism. In that context, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts is going to look as appealing as Theresa Heinz in a two-piece bathing suit.
Political polls fluctuate, but America's moral will does not. We will not hand terrorists a victory in November by installing an appeaser in the White House. We will re-elect the president and, with God's help, win this war.
cornelldailysun.com |
