HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Oct. 15, 2004 "I have a plan" is a common line from John Kerry. Anybody can formulate a plan of action. The trick is getting that plan to work. To do so, a president will have to win over congress to get what they want achieved. Despite his statement to the contrary, records indicate John Kerry has written only 5 bills that actually were signed into law over a 20 year Senate career. That is an average of 1 bill every 4 years. His ability to win over his colleagues in congress is questionable at best. The quality of a plan is important. One's commitment to one's ideals affects the quality of any plan designed to implement said ideals. It is one thing to say you are for something, but your track record will show where you really stand. In the debate John Kerry blamed the president for failing to extend unemployment benefits. Based on that stance, one would assume Kerry was committed to helping the unemployed. Unemployment benefits were not extended by Congress because they failed by one vote. Kerry was so committed to the cause that he failed to show up for the vote. He could have made a difference, but didn't. Kerry harped about the increase in Medicare premiums. If one assumed Kerry was against such an increase, again one's assumption would be wrong. Kerry voted to increase Medicare premiums in 1997. If a candidate deliberately misleads on issues he supposedly deeply cares about, how can he credibly be expected to deliver on anything he promises in his "plans"? Setting domestic issues aside, let's look at another major issue to be faced by the next president - national security. Again, John Kerry has a plan for everything. To assess the fitness of his plans, one must look at his track record regarding national security and world events. As a key part of his acceptance speech, John Kerry portrayed himself as a decorated veteran who fought for his country and will continue to do so. I have already written about his decorations and his war record, which I consider to be a myth. The changes in his own accounts fuel my belief that the Swift Vets are telling the truth. His anti-war stance after returning to the United States, in which he donwplayed the threat of communism and branded the United States as wrong, its service personnel war criminals, aided and abetted our enemy in time of war. Despite Kerry supporters trying to spin it to picture Kerry as a conscientious, troubled man trying to right wrongs he saw in his country, our former enemy paints a different picture. General Vo Ngyuen Giap, the military commander of North Vietnamese forces during the Vietnam war, wrote in his 1985 memoir, "If it were not for the disunity created by.... stateside forces, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered". John Kerry's picture hangs in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) in the American Protestors' Section. The museum was originally named the War Crimes Museum. In 1983, for valiant service on behalf of the Communist Vietnamese Government, John Kerry was awarded a special commendation as a "Hero" of the communist victory. Whether Americans choose to recognize Kerry's contribution to our enemy's victory, the Vietnamese do publicly. Were the activities of the 1970s merely indiscretions of a passionate young man? Not when a pattern begins to emerge over a period of years. In the 2nd and 3rd presidential debates John Kerry mentioned Ronald Reagan, along with Franklin Roosevelt and a few other leaders. The public affection displayed in July 2004 for Ronald Reagan at his demise is Kerry's reason for his sudden alignment with President Reagan. During Reagan's term in office Kerry constantly opposed his policies. Instead of repudiating his former stance opposing the U.S. government's policies and supporting those of the communists, Kerry continued that attitude. Despite incontrovertible evidence of Cuban troops in Grenada, and the capture of weapons caches, Kerry stated the liberation of Grenada from a Marxist-Leninist regime was a "bully's show of force". He expressed no views on the regime's brutality, and practice of murdering suspected opponents. While the Reagan administration followed a policy opposing the Soviet Union, and called it the "Evil Empire", Kerry followed a policy supportive of the communist form of government. Siding with the Marxist-Leninist Sandanista dictatorship in Nicaragua, Kerry signed a letter, along with other democrats, addressed "Dear Commandante", and sent it to Daniel Ortega. He and Senator Tom Harkin flew to Nicaragua to meet with Ortega, in a public display of contempt for Reagan's policy. They returned with a "Peace Plan" that was considered worthless by the State Department. Basically, the plan would have been a surrender of the Contras. [That was a repeat of Kerry's illegal meeting in Paris with Communist Vietnamese agents and bringing a peace plan from them back to the Senate.] The Reagan administration was fighting to get the release of a $14 million appropriation for Humanitarian Aid for the Nicaraguan Resistance. Kerry told the Senate they didn't need to support the Contras since Nicaragua was free of Soviet influence. At the same time, after public announcements, Daniel Ortega traveled to Moscow. He returned with $200 million of Soviet Aid. The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Barry Goldwater, accused Kerry and Harkin of, "transgressing against the Constitution by holding unauthorized negotiations with a foreign leader". Kerry's only supporters amongst his peers were Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd. Seems his peers didn't think much of Kerry's "plan". Instead of recognizing his actions might have been a poor judgment, Kerry continued in the same vein. In attempts to scuttle Reagan's anti- communist efforts in Central America, Kerry lied on the Senate floor in 1986 about his Christmas in Cambodia in 1968 while President Nixon was telling the American people troops were not in Cambodia. Nixon wasn't president then, and Kerry was not in Cambodia. Kerry argued that President Reagan was getting us into a 2nd Vietnam. Kerry went on to accuse his own government of sponsoring terrorism in Central America. In his efforts to discredit the Administration, Kerry damaged an FBI operation against a Columbian cocaine cartel. Kerry was wrong about Central America. Today, because of President Reagan's efforts, and in spite of John Kerry's efforts, Nicaragua is a free nation. In the fall of 1983 the KGB launched an all- out "peace offensive" through a number of front organizations in the U.S. and Europe. A nuclear freeze at that time would have meant permanently freezing the Soviet advantage in troops and weapons. The entire nuclear freeze movement was Soviet initiated and financed in an attempt to undermine President Reagan's nuclear strategy. A stark example of this was the determination to deploy Pershing II intermediate range nuclear missiles in West Germany. The purpose was to counter Soviet SS-20 intermediate range nuclear weapons already in place. The no-nukes crowd railed against the U.S., but never spoke out against the Soviet nuclear missiles already threatening Western Europe. Kerry got involved with the nuclear freeze movement, again siding against U.S. policy and siding with our enemies. In 1985 John Kerry spoke in Geneva at a nuclear freeze conference. He claimed, "If it were not for the freeze movement, I am confident that the government of the United States would not be in Geneva today talking with its Soviet counterparts". Kerry went on to introduce the Comprehensive Nuclear Freeze Bill. Fortunately for the peoples of Eastern Europe it did not pass. Because of President Reagan's stand against communism the Soviet Union imploded. Nations locked behind the Iron Curtain for almost 50 years were suddenly free. Kerry's plans regarding dealing with communist regimes were flawed. During the 1980s Iraq was involved with an 8 year long war with its neighbor, Iran. During the war Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iran. About two years after that war ended Iraq invaded Kuwait. A large coalition of nations, under a United Nations mandate, gave Iraq an ultimatum to get out of Kuwait. Congress voted to allow the president to use force, if necessary, to evict Iraq from Kuwait. John Kerry voted against Operation Desert Shield/Storm. Once again Kerry stood in opposition to U.S. policy. Whether one likes the idea or not, the U.S. is dependent upon foreign oil. It is nice to talk about the government's need to develop alternative fuels. There has been a constant effort to develop such fuels since the mid-1970s, with little success. Following Iraq's submission to a cease-fire it was supposed to disarm. To watchdog the disarmament, U.N. weapons inspectors were supposed to have free access throughout Iraq. Throughout a 12-year period they were never granted free access. There was no credible weapons inspection program. The U.N. issued 17 resolutions and Saddam Hussein chose to ignore them all. During that time period U.S. forces were deployed in Saudi Arabia, which was a major beef the extremist Muslim terrorists had with the U.S. Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction again, this time against the Iraqi Kurds. Although Hussein claimed he did not have WMDs, there was no way to confirm the veracity of his statements. John Kerry has had an inconsistent stand on Operation Iraqi Freedom. Up until the time that Howard Dean was ahead in the polls with an anti- war stance, John Kerry supported taking action against Saddam Hussein. Kerry stated several times that Hussein's attempts to stockpile Weapons of Mass Destruction were a threat. He stated that Iraq had to be disarmed. Kerry voted to authorize the president to use force. Now Kerry states that it is the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time". There are 30 nations in the present coalition. Kerry demeans them, calling them the "bought and coerced". He states we got none of our allies to come onboard, ignoring Great Britain's involvement. Our one- time European allies are now part of an evolving entity, the European Union. The EU wants to become a pseudo economic and military superpower. They have their own separate agenda and resent American superpower status. John Kerry denounces the use of Afghans in the continuing fight against Al Qaida along the Pakistani border. He insists we should have kept American troops there. American troops have always been there. The Afghans know the area, the Americans do not. John Kerry's long-time pattern of opposing the U.S. policies and portraying our president as the villain has emerged once more. In the past each time he had a plan it was flawed, and harmed the people he supposedly wanted to help. "I have a plan" is rhetoric without substance. John Kerry lacks integrity. When I heard him speak of integrity in the 3rd presidential debate it reminded me of the movie, Singing In The Rain, where Gene Kelly is going on about dignity. Like Kerry, Kelly portrays a public image that is far from the truth. Kerry's Senate record does not support his domestic "plans". His track record on foreign policy would make any national security "plan" suspect. John Kerry may have "plans" and an agenda, but he has consistently demonstrated that his agenda is the antipathy of what is best for American interests, and he has shown little results in getting his "plans" approved by congress. "I have a plan" is, in the words of William Shakespeare, "a tale.... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". ------------ About the author Joseph Boudreau: I spent just under 24 years in the Navy, 9 on active duty, the rest in the Naval Reserves. From paygrade E-1 I advanced to paygrade O-4, and retired as a Lieutenant Commander. Email: bunnyboggins@aol.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
