Questions to ask Kerry - By George F. Will Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, August 5, 2004
WASHINGTON — Mr. Kerry, in your
convention speech you threw caution to the wind
and endorsed what you called "one of the oldest
Commandments: 'Honor thy father and thy
mother'." Oldest? Were they not all published
together?
Here are some other questions:
You invoke the Commandment to explain why you
"will not cut" Social Security benefits. Does
that include raising the retirement age, which
Congress set at 65 in 1935, when the life
expectancy of an American male was 62?
Regarding military action, your platform says
"we will never wait for a green light from
abroad when our safety is at stake." But the
platform's preceding paragraph denounces
President Bush's "doctrine of unilateral
pre-emption." If unilateralism is wrong, are you
not committed to some sort of "green light from
abroad"?
Are you glad that in 1981 Israel set back
Iraq's nuclear weapons program with a unilateral
pre-emptive attack on the reactor near Baghdad?
Your platform says: "A nuclear-armed Iran is
an unacceptable risk." But Iran's radical
Islamist regime is undeterred by diplomatic
hand-wringing about its acquisition of nuclear
weapons, which may be imminent. Is pre-emptive
military action against Iran feasible, or are
its nuclear facilities too dispersed and
hardened? What would you do other than accept
Iran as a nuclear power?
Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian says, "We
have reached an internal consensus that insists
on Taiwan being an independent sovereign
country." Beijing's military chief recently said
Taiwan will be reunified with the mainland by
2020, the first reunification deadline ever set.
On an island physically similar to Taiwan,
Beijing recently simulated an invasion. Would
you respond with force — unilaterally, if
necessary — to defend Taiwan?
The Clinton years were, you say, glorious
because "we were not at war and young Americans
were not deployed." Did not the 1993 bombing of
the World Trade Center, followed by the attacks
on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the East
African embassies mean we were at war but were
uncomprehending? Have not scores of thousands of
young Americans been deployed, ashore and on
ships, since 1942?
You supported humanitarian military
interventions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti.
Would you intervene militarily to stop the
accelerating genocide in Sudan?
You say, "I stood up and fought against
Richard Nixon's war in Vietnam." Nixon's
war? Did it start after John Kennedy put
U.S. combat troops there, and after
Lyndon Johnson increased the number to 500,000?
The easily distressed abortion rights groups
were distressed when you said that your faith
teaches you what elementary biology teaches
everyone: life begins at conception. But you say
personhood does not. Fine. When does it? What
are its defining attributes? Does, say, an
elderly person with dementia have it, and hence
a right to life?
You oppose, on federalism grounds, a
constitutional amendment defining marriage as
between a man and a woman. You say marriage law
is traditionally a state responsibility. But so
was abortion law for the Republic's first 197
years, until 1973. What is the difference?
When the Pope said Catholic legislators have
a duty to oppose gay marriage, you said he had
"crossed the line" because "it is important not
to have the Church instructing politicians."
Have you felt that way even when the Church has
instructed politicians take liberal positions
regarding economic justice, race and other
matters?
Your platform says, "The price of gas is at
an all-time high." But it isn't as measured in
constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, or as a
portion of Americans' purchasing power. Do you
have some other way of justifying the platform's
claim?
You have often said — e.g., in Algona, Iowa,
last year, when your campaign was impoverished —
that "there's too much money loose in the
American political system." Now your campaign is
awash with money. So are the 527 groups that are
supporting your campaign — but of course without
even a smidgen of "coordination" with it,
because that would be a crime under the new
campaign finance law. Do you advocate new laws
to discourage the kind of people who are
choosing to participate in politics through
financial contributions on your behalf?
You and other supporters of increased
government regulation of political spending say
this does not abridge freedom of speech. What
does most of your spending pay for?
Throwing caution to the wind, your platform
insists that "small towns are at the heart of
America." Your sense of America's small-town
heartbeat comes from where — Sun Valley?
Two decades of opposing gun
owners` rights in the U.S. Senate make John Kerry
the most anti-gun presidential nominee in U.S.
history!
FACT: Kerry has voted nine times
in favor of banning semi-auto firearms.
FACT: Kerry has voted for a Ted
Kennedy amendment to ban most rifle ammunition,
including the most common rounds used by hunters and
target shooters.
FACT: Kerry has voted to close
off hundreds of thousands of acres to hunting in the
California Mojave Desert.
FACT: Kerry has voted to hold
America`s firearms makers — not violent criminals —
responsible for crimes committed with firearms.
FACT: Kerry was one of only 18
Senators who opposed the Firearms Owners` Protection
Act, which ended alarming abuses being committed
under the 1968 Gun Control Act.
FACT: Kerry has voted to allow
unlimited warrant-less inspections of FFL holders.
FACT: Kerry has voted to
criminalize legal sales between private citizens at
gun shows.
FACT: Kerry has voted against
increasing mandatory minimum and maximum penalties
for the illegal transfer or use of a firearm. But he
voted to impose penalties of a year in prison and a
$10,000 fine on an adult if a juvenile steals a gun
from him and then displays it in a public place.
FACT: Kerry has voted to force
many small firearms dealers out of business, which
would have impacted both the availability and price
of guns, particularly in rural areas.
FACT: Kerry has voted 11 times
to force law-abiding citizens to wait to exercise
their Second Amendment rights. He voted to keep the
federal waiting period after the National Instant
Check System was in place.
FACT: Kerry voted twice to
eliminate the Civilian Marksmanship Program.
FACT: Kerry commended commended
an anti-gun group`s demonstration in Washington that
called for gun owner licensing, gun registration and
other restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.
FACT: If elected president,
Kerry will pack the U.S. Supreme Court with
Feinstein/Schumer/ Kennedy-selected anti-gun
activists who believe you have no right to own any
firearm.
John Kerry participates in hunting photo-ops and
claims he supports our hunting heritage. But his
voting record in support of radical anti-hunting
animal rights groups tells a different story.
FACT – In 2003, based on the votes and
co-sponsorship of legislation, Senator Kerry voted
the preferred position of the Fund for Animals 100%
of the time. (Source:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rat...Wildlife+Issues)
•The Fund for Animals is a radical anti-hunting
group. According to their Fact Sheet “What's Wrong
With Hunting” they say that, “Hunters, however,
disrupt this natural system, removing the strongest
and healthiest animals from the population and
leaving animals who would normally not have
reproductive success to pass on their genes. “
(Source:
http://fund.org/uploads/fs_hunt2.pdf
)
FACT – In 2003, based on the votes and
co-sponsorship of legislation, Senator Kerry voted
the preferred position of The Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS) 100% of the time. (Source:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rat...Wildlife+Issues)
•The HSUS web site states, “The HSUS strongly
opposes the recreational hunting and killing of wild
animals, as the sport is fundamentally at odds with
the values of a humane, just, and caring society.”
(Source:
http://www.hsus.org/ace/457?pagenum...gopidzobzjouvyh)
FACT – In 2003, based on the votes and
co-sponsorship of legislation, Senator Kerry voted
the preferred position of the American Humane
Association 100% of the time. ( Source:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rat...Wildlife+Issues)
•The American Humane Association opposes the
hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or
for simple sport. American Humane believes that
sport hunting is a form of exploitation of animals
for the entertainment of the hunter and is contrary
to the values of compassion and respect for all life
that inform American Humane's mission. (Source:
http://www.americanhumane.org/site/...d_apsps_hunting)
FACT – In 2003, based on the votes and
co-sponsorship of legislation, Senator Kerry voted
the preferred position of the Animal Protection
Institute 100% of the time. (Source:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rat...Wildlife+Issues)
•The Animal Protection Institutes states that
“…since hunting involves deliberate death, no mutual
consent, and no outside judges, hunting can never be
considered a ‘sport.’” (Source:
http://www.api4animals.org/70.htm)
FACT – In 2003, based on the votes and
co-sponsorship of legislation, Senator Kerry voted
the preferred position of the Society for Animal
Protective Legislation 100% of the time. (Source:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rat...Wildlife+Issues)
"Of course, the president keeps telling people
he would never question my service to our country.
Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack
group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a
debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my
answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry
Dear John,
As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef
with President George Bush about your war record.
He's been exceedingly generous about your military
service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of
us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years
ago and which you, not the president, made the
centerpiece of this campaign.
I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really
isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like
you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only
have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the
others so that I could stay with the Marines in my
rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me,
though I've never heard you say it, that the
officers always got more medals than they earned and
the youngsters we led never got as many medals as
they deserved.
This really isn't about how early you came home
from that war, either, John. There have always been
guys in every war who want to go home. There are
also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in
Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And
there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today
in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to
war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few
weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."
Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on
Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost
going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so.
Your campaign has admitted that you now know that
you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that
Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you
thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain
to us how you could have all that bogus stuff
"seared" into your memory -- especially since you
want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear
trigger.
But that's not really the problem, either. The
trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals
or coming home early or getting lost -- or even
Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when
you came home, John.
When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans
Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which
denounced those of us who served -- and were still
serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war.
Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all
of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing
terrible crimes and atrocities.
On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge
that American troops "had personally raped, cut off
ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable
telephones to human genitals and turned up the
power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot
at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent
of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun,
poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the
country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on
television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind
of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have
committed."
And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more
guilty than any other body, of violations of (the)
Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the
killing of prisoners."
Your "antiwar" statements and activities were
painful for those of us carrying the scars of
Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And
for those who were still there, it was even more
hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what
you said and did were the hundreds of American
prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what
some of them endured because of you, John:
Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in
Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your
testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his
captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to
be punished." He wasn't released until March 14,
1973.
Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in
Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors
"repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being
"the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was
released March 4, 1973.
Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were
as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a
prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in
North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.
John, did you think they would forget? When Tim
Russert asked about your claim that you and others
in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of
standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that
your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean
you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war
criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John.
Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at
Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.
One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I
would like to say something ... to men who were in
Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to
deepen because of things that I said or did. I was
trying to help end the killing and the war, but
there were times when I was thoughtless and careless
about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them.
And I want to apologize to them and their families."
Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?
Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist,
host of the Fox News Channel's War Stories and
founder and honorary chairman of
Freedom Alliance.
owned
and operated by
Dave
and Patty McNary
P.O. Box 124
Ione, OR 97843
541-422-7343 hm
541-379-1720 cell
