John Kerry: Immoral to allow our kids be killed

Fresh on the heels of the announcement of President Bush authorizing Scooter Libby to “leak” classified material to a reporter on Iraq, failed Presidential hopeful, egotist, self proclaimed ‘War Hero’ (you do know he served in Viet Nam, don’t you?) and anti-war moonbat (when it suits him), John ‘F’in Kerry apparently couldn’t wait to throw in his two cents worth and pile on the President. On Chris Matthews “Hardball,” the legendary program noted for it’s hard tactics against small women and backing down from a challenge of a duel from an aging Senator, sKerry said his piece tonight, partially quoted below.


MATTHEWS:  Was the president at that time being straight with the American people about WMD in Iraq? 

KERRY:  No. 


Strange reply from a person who previously said;


"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

In 1997, in an address before the Senate and long before George Bush was even a candidate for President, sKerry said;


it is not unreasonable to assume that Saddam‘s action {ordering the UN Weapons Inspectors out of Iraq} may have been precipitated by the fear that the U.N. inspectors were getting uncomfortably close to discovering some caches of reprehensible weapons of mass destruction, or facilities to manufacture them, that many have long feared he is doing everything in his power to build, hide, and hoard.


We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has

any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous

consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot

ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and

unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of

weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there

should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly,

in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United

Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are

necessary to force him to relent–and that the United States should

support and participate in those steps.


In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N.

military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy,

as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and

manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military

command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in

a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable



This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise

missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value.

But how long this military action might continue and how it may

escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be

its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for

Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.


Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an

acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted–which I hope will

not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to

have even begun–the United States must not lose its resolve to take



John Kerry speech, “WE MUST BE FIRM WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN,” November 9, 1997 Congressional Record, Page S12254-S12256


And yet, he can today state that President Bush misled and lied to the public about WMDs? He has said he was misled by Bush also, yet, how does he explain his speech 3 years before the 2000 campaign? Bush wasn’t in the Federal Government then, but he was and sitting on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.


On the war today;

MATTHEWS: Senator, you have a plan now, pretty hard, about how we can deal with getting out of Iraq. 

KERRY:  Right.  Well, it’s time to get tough. The policy is broken and, when you go down to the Vietnam War memorial, and you take a look at it, you see that almost half the names that are on that wall were added after our leaders knew that the policy wasn’t working. 

That’s immoral, and I believe it’s immoral today for us to pursue a policy where our kids are dying, losing their limbs, going to Bethesda, Walter Reed, a lifetime of being impaired, because Iraqi politicians won’t compromise, and haven’t since the election was held.

Immoral? What does this person know about morality? After his brief 3 months in combat in Viet Nam, seeking whatever medals he could garner anyway he could, he betrayed his brothers by testifying before the Senate Fulbright Commission on April 21, 1971, stating;

They told the stories at times they 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 countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Subsequent investigations ordered by the Senate revealed many of these “veterans” who “testified” were either not real veterans or were not in Viet Nam to see any of these alleged atrocities.

The country doesn’t know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history;

To John Kerry, apparently we Viet Nam Veterans are merely “monsters.” And he wonders why some 80% or more of us, from all over the Political spectrum opposed his candidacy? Along with his claim of us being “monsters taught to deal and trade in violence,” he stated;

So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America,

Tells us, Mr. Kerry, who was doing the “murder of 200,000 Vietnamese a year?” Was it those same “monsters” you claimed we who served there were above? Who else could it have been?

And after all this, today, April 6, 2006, John ‘F’in sKerry has the audacity to go on the program “Hardball” and call President Bush’s efforts in Iraq “immoral?”


To me, what is really ‘immoral’ is a man who today proudly displays medals he was awarded under somewhat fishy circumstances and also proudly claimed to have thrown them away in protest back in 1971. What is also ‘immoral’ is a man who grasps at any opportunity to be elected to public office, who doesn’t show up for necessary meetings, doesn’t vote on the majority of bills pending, can’t keep his stance or stories straight on his conduct, history and claims, who advocates a governance in opposition to us (advocated the Communist plan for Viet Nam) and thinks he is qualified to sit in the Oval Office as the most powerful man in the world.


No, Mr. Kerry, President Bush’s efforts aren’t what are ‘immoral.’ What is ‘immoral’ is your pitiful performance as both a Naval Officer and a Senator in the United States Senate. What is ‘immoral’ is your never-ending opportunism you use to make yourself a public figure. What is really ‘immoral’ is your drastic turn about on ideas handling Saddam Hussein, depending on who is in the White House.


I thank God Kerry lost his bid for the Presidency and am proud of whatever small contribution I may have made to stop him.






Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: