Kerry Earns A Sea Of Turned Backs
While young John Kerry was the poster boy for Vietnam Veterans Against the War back in the 1970s, his band of VVAW buddies was busy bashing the VFW and the American Legion for promoting an agenda of 'world domination.'
The RNC notes that Kerry criticized the VFW and American Legion in a 1971 book:
"We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the “greater glory of the United States.” We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars..."
This is akin to crusading against the nitrogen content of air. Every presidential candidate is going to make this sort of speech, just as President Bush addressed the Urban League and the minority journalists confab recently, both at least as hostile (far more so, really, but work with me here) to him as the VFW was to Kerry. And how much more so Lurch, since his military service is the core of his candidacy. Though he still got a snub in by not wearing the VWF cap, unlike previous losers like Al Gore and Bob Dole.
I guess when you hit sixty, and are running for president, protesting just ain’t what it used to be.
What is far more interesting is what he actually said today in his remarks. To borrow an aphorism, after the President’s speech to the VFW on Monday, he resembled a dinghy putting along in the wake of an aircraft carrier.
KERRY: I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side, because that's the right way to get the job done in Iraq and bring our troops home.
Parenthetically, have you noticed that when Kerry speaks, he sounds either like he’s over-salivating and is having to keep from drooling all the time, or like his tongue is two or three sizes too big? That thought struck me when he slurred across the words “president” and “credibility.” If he were Uncle Teddy, I’d suspect he’d had a drinkie or six beforehand.
Have you also noticed that this is pretty much the same template he uses in every foreign policy criticism? No matter what Bush does, he did it too fast, unilaterally, and pissed off our allies in the process. Oh, yeah, and he “lied,” too. Just wait until we get to his comments about Bush’s troop redeployment.
At any rate, thanks to Bush’s “credibility” we have allies “by our side,” several dozen of them, including most of our NATO allies. The two supposed “allies” we don’t are Saddamite France and Saddamite Germany, who don’t really even qualify as allies, haven’t for years, and are not about to send tens of thousands of troops to Iraq at the very time we’re pulling out just because John Kerry asks them to. I don’t even know why Germany is part of this anyway since they spend less than a hundredth of their stagnant GDP on defense and haven’t engaged in military operations outside their own country since…well, you know when. Now Kerry thinks he can hire them like the Hessians of old, right along with the French Foreign Legion. And what about the allies we’d be leaving high and dry? Indeed, what about the Iraqis? Apparently they don’t count either, since the point is to get our forces out and…relocate them to Germany and the Korean DMZ I guess. And after a nuclear-armed Iran conquers Iraq? I guess he’ll have to “consult with our allies,” since Paris and Berlin will be about the only “allies” we’ll have left. And Black Jacque Chirac will doubtless “counsel” caution and diplomacy and maybe “letting UN sanctions work,” while lining up fresh graft and kickbacks to make up the ones he lost when Saddam was taken away in chains. Maybe he’ll cut Kerry in on a piece of that action as a reward for his obeisance.
This straddle is old, tired, and discredited, and no longer over even with his own supporters (more on that below). But Kerry was just getting started.
KERRY: I will never hesitate, not for an instant, to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. Any imminent threat to our security will be dealt with swiftly and severely.
Soooo, now he’s adding “imminent threats” to his use-of-force criteria. But doesn’t “dealing swiftly and severely” with “imminent threats” constitute…pre-emption? The very sort of pre-emption for which Kerry has been trashing Bush ever since he stole Howard Dean’s peacenik gimmick?
A better question is why Kerry is adding this additional war criterion now as opposed to, say, in his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention. Could it possibly be that “any attack will be met with a swift and certain response” sounded like an engraved invitation to any and all foreign enemies to attack us with impunity – just like al Qaeda did on 9/11? So now he has to add “in the face of an imminent threat” just to try and stop sounding so damn-foolish on an issue on which he is struggling so fiercely to look and sound credible.
But it is precisely that lack of credibility that makes this grafted-on assurance so unconvincing. If Kerry could be taken seriously on national security in time of war he wouldn’t have to practically walk around with holstered Colt-45s, a combat helmet, and a swagger stick. If he considers national security to be as important as he’s trying to make us think he does, well, why the hell would we want a phony like Mr. French when we’ve already got the real deal in George Bush? And in any case, there is a growing, gathering, and increasingly imminent threat from Iran just next store, and what does Kerry want to do? Abandon Iraq and render pointless the 932 lives we’ve sacrificed there. So much for “swift, severe, and certain.”
Look at this from the opposite perspective for a moment, however. For libs Iraq is Vietnam in every respect. It has become their raison d’etere, their sole, full-throated rallying cry. It epitomizes their very concept of utter evil: America defending itself, American power projected in defense of American interests, waged brazenly and unapologetically by a Christian conservative Republican president who is their equivalent of Satan. Like much of the world, the American left is only really happy when their country is poor and beaten down and bloodied and weak, which is why America’s rivals were so “sympathetic” in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and why libs temporarily muted their seditious rhetoric. And now John Kerry is claiming that he will, in essence, follow the exact same Bush policy. Even though libs have to know that he doesn’t really mean it, it’s got to just raise their dinners to the vicinity of their larynxes to have to listen to it. (Again, see below)
So, in other words, in his attempt to please everybody, Kerry is neither pleasing, nor convincing, anybody.
KERRY: Now, with so much at stake in the struggle against al-Qaeda, the American people want to hear in plain words the answer to a simple question. How are we going to get the terrorists before they get us?
KERRY: Just what is our strategy? Not just for striking back against the terrorists, but for defeating their aims, destroying their movement, discrediting their cause and bringing old and new friends to our side.
Does he really believe successful foreign policy in time of war is like a Coca-Cola commercial, circa 1972? “I wish to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony…to bring our allies to our side, and then we’ll be safe, you see…”
KERRY: Over the course of this campaign I have laid out my plans to reshape and rebuild the American military ready to fight tomorrow's wars, not yesterday's.
Despite the fact that he’s spent twenty years in the Senate trying to kill one weapons system after another. And that includes voting against the $87 billion Iraq appropriation a year ago. Indeed, the President’s troop re-deployment from Europe and the Far East is part of the very “reshaping and rebuilding of the American military to fight tomorrow’s wars, not yesterday’s” that he’s touting.
But guess what followed that line? Brace yourselves…
KERRY: As a combat veteran who's walked in your shoes…
Vietnam again! The ultimate “yesterday’s war”! I could be a mole speechwriter for this guy and not come up with more ludicrous material than this.
And what’s this “walked in your shoes,” business? How many members of the VFW came home, turned against their own country, and publicly defamed their fellow “brothers in arms”? No wonder they gave him such a frosty reception.
KERRY: I know that the first duty of a commander-in-chief is to make sure that our troops are the best trained, best equipped fighting force in the world, and to never send them into battle without a plan to win the peace.
The first part of that is boilerplate BS, as we’ve seen. The latter is nonsensical, since the “peace” cannot be won in advance of the war that precedes it. Maybe Kerry thinks he can perfectly do everything at once, but that’s not the way armed conflicts work. Which, of course, is why Kerry would never deliver a “swift and sure” response to anything because he’d lock up at the first mishap. Remember how Jimmy Carter reacted to the “Desert One” fiasco? That’s the template.
KERRY: And for anyone who questions [his plan to cut and run from Iraq], I just ask you to use your common sense. Use your power of thought as a free American.
There’s the fabled Kerry arrogance and pomposity on display again. As an attempted profundity this bit of condescension is on a par with his invitation to the nation to scrutinize his silicone-enhanced Vietnam combat bio. And will produce a similar slapstick result.
KERRY: Every Arab country has a stake in not having a failed Iraq. But they're not at the table.
First of all, what “table” is he talking about? The one in Paris? Is this yet another Vietnam flashback?
Second, the Arab world’s definition of a “failed Iraq” differs dramatically from our own. And seeing as how there’s not a democracy anywhere else in the Arab world, and in the Muslim world outside of Turkey and Indonesia, it stands to reason that their idea of “Arab unity” does not mean a confederation of democratic Arab states.
Once again, Kerry is almost plaintively desperate to see “allies” where there are, at best, neutrals whose interests differ, oftentimes dramatically, from our own. And it seems quite likely that when confronted with that reality, there’s no American interest he wouldn’t sacrifice to try and curry their favor.
KERRY: Every European country has a stake in not having a failed Iraq.
“Every European country” (i.e. France and Germany) had a stake in keeping Saddam Hussein in power, which is why they did everything they could to stop us from removing him. As far as they’re concerned, a free Iraq is “failed.”
KERRY: And not having a civil war.
There isn’t any “civil war”. There is a growing Iranian subversion of a predominantly united Iraqi people. And Kerry’s cut & run plan would guarantee its success.
KERRY: They're not at the table.
The Brits are, and the Italians, and the Poles, and through last March the Spanish, and a number of others. Somebody needs to ask this guy why they don’t count as “allies,” and why he keeps repeating this profoundly insulting lie.
Now comes his parrot-like, one-size-fits-all critique of Bush’s troop re-deployment announced to the VFW on Monday.
KERRY: [W]hy are we withdrawing unilaterally 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea, a country that really has nuclear weapons?
Get that? Not only can we not send troops into battle unilaterally, we can’t even pull them out on our own initiative. Almost like they aren’t really our troops.
Why we’re withdrawing a third of our forces from the Korean peninsula is that 24,000 soldiers can serve as tripwire cannon fodder just as effectively as 36,000 can when facing a North Korean force more than forty times that size, and those 12,000 troops can be better utilized elsewhere in different ways. Does this mean that Kerry wants to deploy additional forces to the Korean DMZ? Is he seeking a confrontation with Kim jong-IL? Will Korea be the Vietnam of a Kerry administration?
Yeah – the way it was Clinton’s Vietnam. When Kerry got finished, we’d be lucky to still be in possession of Alaska, assuming he hadn’t given Pyongyang most of our nuclear arsenal to keep the West Coast out of the deal.
KERRY: Finally, I want to say something about the plan that the President announced on Monday to withdraw 70,000 troops from Asia and Europe. Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars. But it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way. Let's be clear. The President's vaguely stated plan does not strengthen our hand in the war on terror. It in no way relieves the strain on our overextended military personnel. It doesn't even begin until 2006, and it takes ten years to achieve.
Okay, then, when would be the “right time”? (Jesus, he’s making it sound like a Cialis commercial) What would be a “sensible way”? How is it “rushed” and “vaguely stated” – to say nothing of “unilateral” – when it has been in the works for three years, after the closest possible consultation with our NATO allies? And he wants it to be carried out sooner and quicker?
Hyuck hyuk hee ha har har har *snort* R-read th-this…HAHAHAHAHEHEHEHEHEHyuk hyuk hyak…SENATOR JOHN KERRY: "The troops of the United States of America are overextended. Their deployments are too long. The families are hurting at home because they lose money from the private sector when they're called up, and they get paid less in the military, and nobody makes it up to them. The fact is if we are going to maintain this level of commitment on a global basis - for the moment we have to, because of what's happened - we need an additional two divisions. One is a combat division, and one is a support division. And that's the responsible thing to do. I've also said, responsibly, that's temporary, because I intend to be a president who goes back to the United Nations, rejoins the community of nations, brings other boots on the ground to help us in the world, and reduces the overall need for deployment of American forces in the globe - and I mean North Korea, Germany and the rest of the world where we can begin to set up a new architecture of participation of other countries." [my emphPPPHHHBTT *ahem* -ases]
-ABC News/The [Manchester] Union Leader, Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Manchester, NH, 1/22/04Q: "You talk about the overextension of the troops. Do you think this course is ultimately going to lead to the reinstitution of the draft?"
SENATOR KERRY: "I hope not. I would be against that in the current form. I don't think we need it now, particularly if we did the proper diplomacy. The overall effort of a president right now ought to be really to try to find ways to reduce the overexposure, in a sense, of America's commitments. A proper approach to the Korean peninsula, for instance, should include the deployment of troops, the unresolved issues of the 1950s and ultimately, hopefully, could result in the reduction of American presence, ultimately. Those are the kinds of things that we ought to be trying to achieve in our foreign policy."
-John Kerry, News Conference, 4/14/04GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "Can you promise that American troops will be home by the end of your first term?"
SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: "I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. We will probably have a continued presence of some kind, certainly in the region. If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps.”
-John Kerry, ABC's This Week, 8/1/04
Says the KerrySpot’s Jim Geraghty:I suspect this kind of stuff makes the average voter think that if Bush said the sun was going to set in the west, Kerry would insist that was wrong and obviously it was going to set in the east.
The thing is, it’s becoming more and more clear that that is no joke.
Still makes my sides ache, though…{wheeeew}
Get your barf bags ready for this next VFW quote:
KERRY: Like veterans of all wars past, today's fighting men and women deserve our prayers and support, and then when they come home, they deserve the respect and welcome of a grateful nation. After all, the first definition of patriotism in my judgment, beyond service to country, is keeping faith with those who have worn the uniform of the United States of America.
I bet you didn’t know that John Kerry could flip the double-bird verbally as well as digitally, did you?
KERRY: For 35 years I have stood up and fought and kept faith with my fellow veterans.
Except the ones with whom he served and denounced as war criminals.
KERRY: The sacrifices that you've made on the battlefield are well known. But what is not as well known is the long battle of these 35 years.
To what? Bury his dishonorable, radically seditious past? Make everybody forget his equally extremist, lackluster senate tenure? That’s a battle he’s started to lose, and badly.
KERRY: I remember when we came back from service and what we all know was a controversial period of time. I wish it hadn't been.
Uh-huh.
KERRY: I volunteered for my country. I volunteered to go to Vietnam. I volunteered for the duty that we had.
Did you know that John Kerry served in Vietnam? Or that he served in Vietnam? How about that he served in Vietnam? And he was the only one who did! Those figures of half a million men deployed in Indochina? All a ruse. America didn’t need more than ***JOHN KERRY*** to subdue Uncle Ho’s red hordes. Until Richard Nixon personally ordered this “army of one” into Cambodia a month before he became president. Then the war became a mistake that we had to get out of. Because “Nixon misled the country to get us into it,” doncha know.
The Swiftboat vets? They’re just holograms. Or blow-up dolls. Or animatronics. Or something. Betcha didn’t know that Bill Gates was secretly working on 29th-century android technology for the Bush Administration’s eeeevil schemes, didja? Well, now you know.
Michael Moore, eat your heart out (probably the only thing he hasn’t eaten, come to think of it…)
KERRY: I didn't make it controversial. The war and the times were.
{BRRRRRAAAAACCCCCKKKKK} **puff** **puff** Oh, God, here it come ag {HEEEEAAAARRRRVEEAAGGHHHH} **puff** **puff** Oh, if only this stuff was landing on his !@#$ing medals {BLLLLLAAAARRRRGGHHHHUUUHHGGGH} **puff** **puff** or his open mouth {HAAAGGHHHRRUUUHHHPPPTTHH}
KERRY: As many of us know it was a time when the war and the warriors became confused. I say to you with my experience: Never again in America should warriors ever be confused with the war, and our nation should always be prepared to stand and say, "Thank you."
John Kerry is confused. Very confused. Dangerously confused. His appears to be a life of perpetual higgledy-piggledy flashback. Makes you wonder when he’s finally going to go berserk, and hope that he never gets the chance to do so anywhere near the nuclear “football.”
The only thing for which I will say “thank you” where John Kerry is concerned is to the voters when they send his loopy ass back to the senate backbench.
posted by JASmius at 3:53 PM
<<< Home