Reasons why John Kerry will never be president: #1

[johnb]

He is a hypocrit:
From the Opinion Journal

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead, Don't Divide
"I am saddened that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign."

BY JOHN F. KERRY
Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

(Editor's note: Sen. Kerry delivered this speech on the Senate floor Feb. 27, 1992. The previous day, Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, spoke in Atlanta, where he criticized fellow candidate Bill Clinton for his lack of military service during Vietnam.)

Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.
We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?

Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Kerry, who served as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam, is a Massachusetts senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

[Mark]

Without knowing the full context of Kerrey's jab at Clinton, there isn't much here. I temper the entire speach by noting that he says, "But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others."

I've not heard Kerry criticize any of the other Democratic candidates (and he was talking about the primaries in that speech) and whatever recognition he receives, especially in light of the fact that he's running against a general, certainly hasn't come at the expense of others.

[kellyc]

John

I think GW's biggest issue is going to be turnout. I dont know that his real conservatives will turnout as they dont appear to be too happy with the cut and spend domestic policy. You know his administration has spent a ton of money and really run up a defecit. I think that you will find rather than vote for a democrat, the real conservatives will either vote libertarian or not vote at all. I think Kerry might just stand a chance against GW.

Kelly

[Wuptdo]

John,

I have to agree with Kelly. GW, along with a Republican Congress, are spending like a bunch of drunk'n sailors on a short liberty (former WESTPAC Squid). It almost reminds me of the Reagan years. However, GW has two good things going for him: a fat war-chest & Carl Rowe. When it is all said and done, it will be 1972 all over again.

Why is it that it seems like for the last 15 years or so, I find myself voting for what I perceive is the lessor of two evils? Is it just me?

Look, up in the sky, what is it, is it a bird, is it a plane; no, it is Jesse Ventura! :)

Wuptdo B-)


Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in the affairs which properly concern them.
Paul Valery (1943)

[johnb]

Without knowing the full context of Kerrey's jab at Clinton, there isn't much here.

A little slow on the uptake Mark? It isn't a jab at Clinton. It was a smackdown against Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska who was a highly decorated Vietnam veteran running against Clinton for the Donkeycrat nomination. The Kerrey jab at Clinton was much like Kerry's jab at Bush. Making negative aspersions on the other's service or draft dodging in Clinton's case during Vietnam. Kerrey wasn't a drooling, knuckledragging Algor-ish troglodyte, so he didn't come out screaming that some other young man died because Clinton dodged the draft. He brought it up in terms of personal integrity and honor. *THAT* had repercussions later, when Clinton picked Algor to be his VP, cause Algor spent a few months in Vietnam. Kerrey was a doomed candidate. He was wholly unprepared to jump into the slime pit with Clinton and with Clinton there is no limit to how low he was always willing to slither.

I temper the entire speach by noting that he says, "But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others."

And the context in which he was speaking, ie, to silence Bob Kerrey's criticisms of Bill Clinton status as a draft dodger what he is referring to is recognition for Bob Kerrey should not come at the expense of the draft dodger Bill Clinton.

I've not heard Kerry criticize any of the other Democratic candidates (and he was talking about the primaries in that speech) and whatever recognition he receives, especially in light of the fact that he's running against a general, certainly hasn't come at the expense of others.

This speech of his was given in February of 1992. You seem to be confused in thinking that it was given recently. Kerry laid down one standard when a Donkeycrat was being criticized for being a draft dodger while now employing an amazingly different standard against GWB. I suppose its the hatred of Bush that allows the little donkeys to either 1-be hypocrits without remorse, or 2-close their eyes so tightly they don't see the hypocrisy.

[johnb]

I think Kerry might just stand a chance against GW.

I agree, to a limited extent with what you and wuptdo are saying. However, when push comes to shove, the danger of a Donkeycrat with a proven weakness on national security matters is so great that it negates Bush's poor record on spending and domestic issues.

Kerry pushed for unilateral disarmament in the face of the Soviet Union, he fought Reagan on the rebuilding of the US military, he is an unusually vicious foe of the US intelligence community - continually demanding massive budget cuts (pre-9/11) and so on and so forth.

While we may not like GWB's domestic agenda, having a "President Kerry" willing to appease Islamofascist terrorists is too horrific an outcome to be allowed. Would Americans really tolerate what the Israelis do? Putting their kids on school buses each morning not knowing if some f'ing Islamofascist homicide bomber is going to detonate and smear their kids all over an underpass?

Hitchens is right, this is a no brainer. We loose this fight we deserve what we get.

[Wuptdo]

John,
I can remember my old Polish great-grandmother saying something like this (bad transalation):

Scratch the head of any Russian, and you will find a Tartar!

At the present, I believe that Kerry and the media elites are enjoying a "honeymoon." Once the honeymoon is over and the media starts really doing their homework (that's a maybe), they will scratch Kerry and really find out who is and what he stands for. I believe that Northeastern Liberal Blueblood (NLB) is the suit that Kerry is wearing under his rainbow trenchcoat.

Question: If Kerry had not married into the Heinz family, would he still been a canidate (or even a U.S. Senator?)

Wuptdo B-)


Reporters, especially those in Washington, face an old journalistic dilemma: because their stature tends to rise and fall with that of the people they cover, they thus have a stake in the successes of their subject.
Walter Isaacson (1992)

[johnb]

Mackubin Thomas Owens
www.nationalreview.com
February 12, 2004, 8:30 a.m.
George W. Bush as Henry V
The Guard choice in context.

Tuesday's release of George W. Bush's Air National Guard records should put the issue of his Vietnam-era service to rest. But it won't. So here are some further observations. The first has to do with his decision to join the Guard rather than wait for the draft or volunteer for active service. The fact is that only one third of age-eligible males served in the military during the Vietnam War era, and only a third of them went to Vietnam. If you do the math, you see that only 11 percent of the age-eligible male population served in Vietnam. If Bush had wanted to "game" things, he could have concluded that if he waited for the draft, he had only a one-in-nine chance of serving in Vietnam. So volunteering for the Guard was a proactive step that he didn't have to take.


The charge that Bush senior greased the skids for W to join the Texas Air Guard is based on an unsupported inference based on a misreading of the facts. A lot of people who may have desired to serve in the Air Guard did not wish to fulfill the active-duty requirement of two years — for flight school and initial assignment. For the Army Guard, the active-duty period was six months (including basic training, Officer Candidate School and basic-officer training), with the remaining five and a half years served as a drilling reservist.

Besides, Guard duty was not necessarily a way to avoid service in Vietnam. Several Guard and Reserve units were called up for the war. But of course, one reason the Guard was not called up, as it should have been, is that Lyndon Johnson didn't want to pay the political price of doing so. He had seen what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was easier for him politically just to draft.

Nonetheless, had Lt. Bush's unit been flying something other than the F-102, which the Air Force was phasing out in the late 1960s, his interceptor unit could have been called up too. In any event, there were other things going on during the Cold War, like air defense of the United States. That's the mission Air Guard units like Bush's had during this time frame.

Had Bush volunteered for active duty in the Air Force, he might have been able to fly right away, but maybe not. By 1969, the pilot pipeline was filling up, leading to waiting lists for flight school. As to why Lt. Bush was granted an early release, by 1972, U.S. participation in the war was winding down. Both the active and reserve components were letting folks leave early. By the way, Lt. Kerry left early too.

A couple of other points: One cannot be AWOL while a reserve or Guardsman in a drill status. One is meeting the required number of drills (one weekend per month and two weeks active duty training some time during the year) or he is not. If one is in an unsatisfactory drilling status, the commanding officer of the drilling reservist or Guardsman can notify the individual that he will be separated from the service after 12 unexcused drills. Once notified, the individual can make up the unexcused drills and return to a satisfactory drilling status. (Thanks to Major Michael C. Griffin USMCR, of Charlotte, N.C., for reminding me of this.)

Finally, the contrast between Bush and Kerry transcends the particulars of their respective service. What I object to with Kerry is that after serving honorably in Vietnam, he returned home and slandered the rest of us who served as war criminals (see my "Vetting the Vet"). He allied himself with the likes of Jane Fonda. Now he wishes once again to be our "brother." He has forfeited that title as far as I am concerned.

As for Bush, he puts me in mind of Prince Hal, the son of King Henry IV. As a youth he is dissolute to say the least: "a touch of Harry in the night." But upon his father's death, he becomes a war leader of the first rank. President Bush's youth was never as dissolute as Hal's, but like the future Henry V, he became an effective war leader after 9/11.

— Mackubin Thomas Owens is an NRO contributing editor and a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He led a Marine infantry platoon in Vietnam in 1968-1969.

[johnb]

On the prospects of John Kerry beating George Bush we have the best quote of the week:


The Democrats seem to have succumbed to a terrible bout of wishful thinking, like Michael Moore bringing a condom in his wallet to a Sports Illustrated swimsuit-photo shoot.