Friday, January 4, 2013

Another Reason John Kerry Should Not be SecState

Hat tip Radical Islam

John Heinz Kerry-Blowhard

Things are bad enough that Hillary Clinton is still secretary of state-albeit for just another few weeks or so. Now we have John Heinz Kerry smokin' into Foggy Bottom as they say inside the Beltway. It was unthinkable enough that this guy was going to be our top diplomat considering his past statements about his own country and military. Now this revelation.

Rest assured, John Heinz Kerry will get tough on those Iranians. Wait until he teams up with Lady Baroness Catherine Ashton of the EU.

But if that isn't bad enough, consider this:

Or this


Or this:

As I have said before, I do not question Kerry's service in Vietnam-only the statements he made before Congress in 1971.

But alas, Kerry will sail through confirmation (no pun intended). I guess we can also look forward to seeing You-Know-Who back in the spotlight.

"A lid for every pot"


Findalis said...

I guess Ketchup will get you anything.

elwood p suggins said...

Oh well, at least Kerry's chances of ever being president are almost certainly, if not in fact, finished. Small blessings??

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I don't have much respect for Kerry. He was handed the opportunity to run against the most unpopular incumbent president in some decades, and he managed to make little boy Bush look acceptable by comparison. That was a real accomplishment, and not a positive one. I wouldn't have nominated him for dogcatcher. But then, the President of the United States doesn't clear these decisions with me, and the buck doesn't stop on my desk.

The Swift Vote Beterans ad is dubious, inasmuch as it has a still photo of Kerry, while another voice reads their own cherry-picked phrases. But I have a copy of the book, John Kerry and Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He should be proud of the full text of what he did say. He should have proudly copped to it in 2004, instead of pretending nobody would remember, when he decided it was good politics to run as a decorated veteran without mentioning VVAW.

What he said was the truth. It was said on behalf of veterans who knew it was the truth, and wanted to tell the world it was the truth. As for the POW's who said they resisted torture when ordered to say the same thing, there is a relevant mention in A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam on that subject. I don't recall the name, and I don't have my copy of the book handy, but there was an AID man working closely with the CIA and the marines, early in the war, who had come to similar conclusions.

Soon after, he was captured by the NLF, aka Viet Cong. Although he was convinced the things he was pressed to say were true, he refused to say them WHILE a POW, because this would have broken faith with those he had served with. Its a fine point, but an honorable one. It doesn't make the facts untrue.

Its not, for the most part, a condemnation of the veterans who served. It is a condemnation of those who sent them. Conditions in Vietnam being what they were (most people were against us), it was impossible to carry out the mission without engaging in the carnage Kerry and other veterans described. Some veterans were courageous enough to say so.

Most of the POW's were air force pilots... which means they never saw conditions on the ground, up close and personal, like the grunts did. The pilots acted honorably based on what they knew, and where they were, but they are hardly the last word on what was and wasn't true on the ground.

Ironically, one of the results of American military intervention is that we did kill off most of the southern NLF forces, which meant the northern regular army troops finished off the war. A south liberated from Diem by its own spontaneous revolt, against the wishes initially of the party leaders in Hanoi, would have influence an eventual socialist Vietnam in a significantly different direction.

Miggie said...

Viet Namm was lost on the home front. We did not lose any military battles. John Kerry was one of the first to renounce his fellow servicemen and his country.
Whether the War was right or wrong...(Our involvement started by John Kennedy and escalated by Johnson)... (The country wanted to "contain" Communism at the time and to second guess them in retrospect is a cheap shot.)

I believe Kerry lied about our soldiers as well as about his (self nominated) medals. He is pretty much in the same traitorous category as Jane Fonda to me. For him to be the SecState, aside from his incompetence, is yet another indication of where this "fundamental change" from Obama is going.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Miggie, with what you believe and $10 you can buy a cup of overpriced coffee at Starbucks. When it comes to facts, "I believe" doesn't count. You weren't there, any more than I or Findalis or Gary was. Further, you don't give any reasons WHY you believe this or that account from those who were closer to the action. Like I said, Kerry was on the ground, and the POW's were mostly up in the air.

Moving on... if we poured all we had against all that Vietnam had, sure, we could have pulverized them. But, we couldn't have fulfilled the mission of defending the freedom of our brave allies and helping them to build a prosperous happy society... because we had damn few allies, the allies we had weren't brave at all, they ran and left our troops to do the fighting, and the top dogs simply milked U.S. taxpayers for millions while, letting our guys do all the fighting.

You can sell loot and conquest on those terms, but you can't sell defending freedom and democracy on those terms. Thus, the war was lost on the home front precisely because the mission was a lie.

The Jakes said...

A soldier can nominate himself for medals? Is that even possible?

Aren't you questioning the decision of Kerry's commanding officers if you question the validity of his medals?

Miggie said...


Glad you asked. Officers can nominate themselves for medals. As far as I know, it is very rare.
Here are the details: