Kerry for Wimp in Chief ?

Oh, I know. War hero. Served his country. Volunteered even. Ho hum, not impressed. I'm a veteran and I'm not at all happy with John Forbes Kerry. (And yes, it is that Forbes) And of course I'm not the only one not happy. There are a bunch of SWIFT (Shallow Water Inshore Fast Tactical) boat veterans who served with Kerry who are also sick of Kerry's claims. I just bought the book, Unfit for Command : Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. Haven't even gotten it yet, but I have read a chapter online. Do I believe these guys? Yes I do. I just can't imagine what Kerry must have been thinking. Why try to embellish what very well could have been a completely honorable tour. And when he came back (from his very much shortened tour of 4 months), why betray all the G.I.'s he left behind? Leftists might be able to go after the authors of the Unfit for Command book for one reason or another, but they can't deny the treasonous acts of Hanoi John Kerry with the "Vietnam Veterans Against the War" pack of liars and traitors. And please, for all you "that was then, this is now" knee-jerk apologists, JUST CAN IT! John Kerry is the one now bringing up his brief four month tour in Vietnam. If he didn't want scrutiny about this, he should have just shut up about it and based his campaign on some of his other leftist inclinations. The idiots in most of the media would have been more than happy to have ignored his huge inconsistencies and continued to have painted him as a hero, no explanations necessary.

When he was giving his speech at the Democratic National Convention, actually little more than a rubber stamp, the Presidential hopeful said, among other things, that he was for a "more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side." O.K. fine. And what if these other nations aren't inclined to agree with the President of the United States because they have their own agendas and sovereignty to consider? Do we beg and plead? Do we threaten? Do we give it up? "War cancelled for lack of participation!" This is such moronic thinking by a contender for the office of President that it boggles the mind. Yet it is very instructive as to how this leftist mind works. It's O.K. to say anything that just feels good at the time. If you get called on something, you can always change it later. Or deny saying it. Or say it was taken out of context. After all, the press will ask the question once, if at all, and then forget about it. That is, unless you're a Republican.

So just what is a "more sensitive war"? Do you kill the opponents, or just negotiate with them? War is what happens when negotiations fail. It looks to me that we're fighting a war in Iraq that's already way too sensitive right now. "Fighting in Najaf Rages" say the newspapers. Then it's a pause for negotiations. During "negotiations" the jihadists resupply, because they always take a huge pounding. How many times will we get fooled by this? I guess it must seem that they've taken such massive losses that a truce would make sense while they negotiate a surrender. These jihadist suicidal maniacs always look very tough and very militant against a planeful of middle aged civilians. However, for all the training camps they seem to have, they're always getting killed by the U.S. military at about a 90 to 1 ratio. Slow learners. Today in fact, negotiations have broken down yet again. I guess they've gotten enough replacements and ammo to start it all up again. Let's try to remember exactly who and what we're fighting here. There is no sense or surrender. These people want to kill you and your children and your parents and everybody you know. We are all the infidel. They will only stop wanting to kill all of us when they themselves are dead. I think that's about all we have to understand about the fighting of this enemy. They want to kill us, so we should kill them first. Period. So O.K., we're slow learners too.

So where does the multi-decorated war hero John F. Kerry stand on all this? Everywhere. He voted against the war with Iraq when George Bush #41 had the coalition that everybody wishes for these days. He voted for the war with Iraq when George Bush #43 had what Kerry calls even now (wrongly) a unilateral force. Well, he actually says he voted to give the president authorization to go to war, but not the way he did. Huh? After so majestically voting for the authorization to go to war, he voted against the money to fund the war, and then was soon complaining that the troops were poorly equipped.

So the point is, if, heaven forbid, John F. Kerry becomes the President of the United States, what happens to the so called war on terror? (It's actually the war against Islamic jihadists and the faster we admit that, the better.) Well, I guess if it even continues at all, it would have to be more sensitive. We would have to arrest Mohammed before he blows himself up and take him to court. When this misguided soul is rehabilitated after maybe a two or three months of intense therapy, he could be put back into society to become a useful participant in all the wonderful programs that will soon be in place for him. End of war in about six to eight months. What a wonderful world. Except one thing. Mohammed still wants to kill you, your children and your parents. Oh, poor Mohammed. Why can't we all just get along?

just a thought. bill brower, 14-Aug-2004

Back to Index  Back to Home Page