|
|
Latest Column:
Stopping
the Meltdown
What Beltway Republicans Need To Do
..........
CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........
..........
Jon
Fleischman’s
FlashReport
The premier source for
California political news
..........
Michael
Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@Investor's
Business
Daily
..........
Do
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today
..........
 ..........
..........
tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura
Ingraham
Hugh
Hewitt
Eric
Hogue
Sharon
Hughes
Frank
Pastore
[Radio Home]
..........
|
|
Contributors
Mark Alexander- Contributor
[Courtesty of The Federalist Patriot]
Mark
Morrison Alexander is Executive Editor and Publisher of The
Federalist Patriot, the Web's "Conservative E-Journal
of Record" and now the
most widely subscribed Internet-based publication. [go
to Alexander index]
 More "aid
and comfort"...
Consistency is a measure…
[Mark Alexander] 10/12/04 |
|
In recent months, this column has set about to distinguish manifestly
between President George W. Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry in regard
to character, policy matters and competing visions for our nation's
future.
After George Bush's razor-thin and highly contested victory
over Albert Gore in 2000, many political observers argued (and
continue to insist) that there are few distinctions between the
Republican and Democrat parties. Indeed, in regard to some seminal
issues that once distinguished party lines -- most notably central
government spending -- those lines are now blurred. Additionally,
the recent Republican National Convention headlined party moderates
like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who
disagree with significant elements of the Republican Platform,
while also featuring Democrat Zell Miller, who agrees with most
of the GOP Platform. This, understandably, leaves some with the
impression that the two parties have all but merged.
To be sure, there is a semblance between the background of the
presidential incumbent and his challenger. Bush and Kerry are
contemporaries who hail from wealth and privilege, from prestigious
prep schools and Ivy League universities, and from political
dynasties in their respective home states. During their tenures
in national office, both Bush and Kerry have advocated, respectively,
for big and bigger central government spending programs.
But are there notable variances in policy matters between George
Bush and John Kerry? You bet -- which is precisely why this presidential
campaign is being bitterly waged, mostly between centrist Republicans
and leftist Democrats. While the national party lines may seem
fluid, the political lines which separate Bush and Kerry and
their respective ranks are cast-iron.
Volumes have been written about the sizeable chasm separating
the character of President Bush and John Kerry -- the distance
between their values as reflected in their disagreement over
public policies concerning family and faith, their diametrical
selection criteria for federal-bench nominees, and their opposing
views on taxation. While these are important distinctions, their
most significant policy divergence relates to U.S. national security
-- the first order of a president's Constitutional duties, the
palladium without which all other duties become meaningless.
And it is this critical difference which should be foremost in
the minds of voters on 2 November.
Indeed, this difference couldn't have been any
clearer than during the first presidential-candidate debate
(see "We
will not waver...").
In a discussion about the President's obligation to protect the
country with pre-emptive military action, Kerry insisted that
such pre-emption must first pass "the global test." In
other words, any pre-emptive action by a "President Kerry" would
first require a thumbs-up from the likes of France, Germany and
the perennially hostile United Nations.
For his part, George W. Bush has steadfastly
advocated Ronald Reagan's foreign policy dictum -- Si vis Pacem,
Para Bellum (to
maintain peace, prepare for war), which has deep roots in our
national foundation. George Washington, in his first address
to the nation (8 January 1790), proclaimed, "To be prepared
for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
That resolve notwithstanding, on 11 September 2001, after eight
years of military-budget depredation, foreign-policy ambiguity
and outright appeasement under the Clinton regime (with full
collusion from John Kerry), George Bush and our nation were dealt
a heretofore-unimaginable blow by a suicidal gang of Islamist
cutthroats. As a result, President Bush was forced to demonstrate
not only his commitment to military readiness, but also his willingness
to use the ultimate instrument of diplomacy, military force,
in defense of our nation. Consequently, his proficiency as Commander
in Chief is well established.
John Kerry, on the other hand, has spent much
of his political career denigrating American military personnel
and the nation
they defend, while advocating for policies of appeasement --
the same policies that made lower Manhattan, Northern Virginia
and a field in Pennsylvania the front lines in our war with Jihadistan
(see "Jihadistan: A clear and present danger..." at
http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander).
On its face, Kerry's endorsement of appeasement
resembles the yellow streak of his contemporary Leftist ilk;
long gone are
the days of robust, hawkish Democrats like Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson.
But on closer examination, Kerry's sordid history of collaboration
with Communist regimes for more than three decades, even in times
of war, raises much more serious questions about his motives
and his fitness for the highest office in the land.
Kerry is, indubitably, the Left's most "useful idiot" (as
V.I. Lenin famously labeled Western apologists for socialist
propaganda) in contemporary politics. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking
intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, said
of Kerry's anti-American activities during the Vietnam War, "KGB
priority number one at that time was to damage American power,
judgment and credibility. ... As a spy chief and a general in
the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same
vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word
and planted it in leftist movements."
But Kerry's infamous (and unlawful) coddling
of Vietnamese Communists some 35 years ago (see "Aid
and comfort to the enemy: The Kerry Record..." at )
was not his last rendezvous with the Reds. After his election
to the Senate in 1984 (as Ted Kennedy's understudy), Kerry spent
years dismissing claims by POW family groups that some Americans
were still being held in Vietnam and Cambodia. And he has, since,
given aid and comfort to plenty of other Red regimes, including
some in this hemisphere.
For example, in 1985 Kerry courted Daniel Ortega
and his Communist regime in Nicaragua, even traveling to visit
his "Dear Comandante" in
Managua. Kerry returned to the U.S., where he advocated a policy
of appeasement rather than continued funding of Ortega's opponents,
the anti-Communist Contras. In 1988 Kerry attempted to make political
hay of U.S. policy in Central America by using his Senate committee
as a launch-pad to accuse George H.W. Bush of sanctioning a Contra
drug-smuggling operation that was importing cocaine into California.
The unfounded charges were, not surprisingly, timed to coincide
with the elder Bush's campaign against Massachusetts Governor
Michael Dukakis, under whom Kerry had served as lieutenant governor.
In 1996, Kerry accepted a $10,000 campaign contribution
in return for arranging a meeting between Honk Kong businesswoman
Liu Chaohying
and a senior Securities and Exchange official in order to get
Chaohying's company listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange. Chaohying
was a lieutenant colonel in Red China's People's Liberation Army.
That same year, Kerry traveled to Beijing on a "U.S. trade
mission." Here it's worth noting that the ChiComs never
forget their useful idiots; the People's Daily, the official
newspaper of the Communist Party of China, has endorsed Kerry's
presidential bid.
But Kerry's fondness for despotic regimes did
not subside in the '90s. In March of this year, Kerry was asked
on a campaign
stop in Florida about his affiliation with Cuba's Fidel Castro
and his oppressive regime. Given the number of Cuban expatriates
in Florida who fled Castro's slave island, Kerry answered, "I'm
pretty tough on Castro. ... I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation
to be tough on companies that deal with him." (Would someone
kindly cue the laugh track?)
Helms-Burton, you may recall, strengthened the U.S. embargo
against Cuba after Fidel's fighter jets shot down two single-engine
civilian aircraft over international waters, killing four Cuban
ex-pats. The small planes belonged to Brothers to the Rescue,
an organization of small aircraft owners who volunteered their
time flying over the waters between Cuba and the Keys, and alerting
the Coast Guard when they came upon Cuban refugees on makeshift
rafts who needed rescue.
However, Kerry voted against Helms-Burton, and
he later clarified his support for Castro by arguing that the
embargo should be
lifted. "The only reason [Cuba is treated differently from
other Communist nations] is the politics of Florida," said
Kerry. Of course, the ever-opportunistic Kerry wasn't campaigning
in Florida at the time of that "clarification."
Indeed, John Kerry has a well-documented record of anti-American
activities, especially aiding Communist regimes. But the "aid
and comfort" he gave to North Vietnamese Communists in 1971
(while still a U.S. naval officer, and while Americans were still
fighting, dying, and being held captive by that regime) is the
most grievous of these transgressions.
His treasonous
actions in 1970-1971 are the subject of an indictment that
will be delivered to Senate President
Dick Cheney, Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist and Attorney General John Ashcroft
on 12 October. The indictment notes
both Kerry's UCMJ and U.S. Code (18 USC 2381) violations, and
it calls for his disqualification for public office in accordance
with the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which
states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative
in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President...having
previously taken an oath...to support the Constitution of the
United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion
against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Why issue
this indictment now? Because John Kerry chose to make his Vietnam
war record the centerpiece of his
presidential campaign
(see "Kerry's
Quagmire...").
In response, more than 160,000 signatories of the aforementioned
indictment have made it the centerpiece of their campaign to
disqualify him from public office.
Clearly, there will be no determination on these charges until
after 2 November, but Kerry will be held to account for his treasonous
actions -- for there is no statute of limitations on treason.
For those who would argue that Kerry's anti-American
activities in 1971, which clearly cost American lives in Vietnam,
do not
reflect the nature of the man today, we refer you to this statement
from Kerry from the first debate. On the subject of our troops
engaged in Iraq, Kerry remarked, "It is vital for us not
to confuse the war -- ever -- with the warriors. That happened
before."
Indeed, it did happen before, and it is happening again today.
Kerry can't have it both ways. There is a direct correlation
between his undermining of U.S. and Allied resolve in the war
against terrorism -- specifically on the Iraqi warfront with
Jihadistan -- and American and Allied causalities on that front.
Those forces, including countless Iraqis, are being injured and
killed in larger numbers because of the political dissent Kerry
and his ilk are fomenting.
During Tuesday night's vice-presidential debate,
John Edwards unwittingly provided the evidence for this very
correlation: "We
lost more troops in September than we lost in August; lost more
in August than we lost in July; lost more in July than we lost
in June."
As the hand-wringing of the Kerry/Edwards ticket grows stronger,
so too does the spirit of the enemy. And while the net effect
can certainly be felt in American and Allied casualties in Iraq,
it may also yet be felt more dramatically in al-Qa'ida's efforts
to ensure the election of its useful-idiot appeasers.
Perhaps the
most instructive question that can be asked regarding U.S.
national security, the protection of Americans and our vital
interests, is this: Given the chance, would Saddam Hussein, Abu
Musab Al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il, Mohammad Khatami,
Moammar al-Ghadafi and Hu Jingtao vote for a) George Bush, or
b) John Kerry? How would Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and
Kofi Annan vote? tOR
copyright
2004 Federalist Patriot
§
|
|
|
