Questions for Kerry (Mudvillegazette)
More Questions (Peter Kirsanow)
10. You have repeatedly said the White House has questioned your patriotism and service (they have not - this is a lie) as a means to open the door to attack the service of Dick Cheney and George Bush. You criticized Cheney's deferments, yet you yourself applied for a deferment and were denied. You have stated you went to Vietnam because you wanted to defend your country, yet you are on record as having opposed the war in several interviews before you left. You stated you volunteered for dangerous Swift duty, yet the Swift boat mission was not a combat mission at the time you volunteered. Is it possible that you're accusing Cheney of draft-dodging and Bush of being AWOL to distract voters from the fact that you met with the North Vietnamese in Paris during time of war? Come to think of it, have we seen your drill records, Mr. Kerry? h/t D. Mendoza for the CNS article.
There is widespread misunderstanding in the media about the nature of drill obligations and whether Mr. Kerry would have been subject to the UCMJ during that time. While I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that he most likely would not have been: he was neither in training, nor was he on active drill status at the time he traveled to Paris. He was unlikely to have been wearing the uniform.
I have not read the laws referred to in Corsi's article, so I cannot pass judgement on that issue, however it raises an interesting question as to Kerry's judgement and loyalties. Whether or not he broke the law technically is almost irrelevant in my mind. Obviously if he did break the law, that is bad. But even if he did not: do we really want a man serving as President who, after serving in our Armed Forces, traveled to Paris, met with the enemy during time of war when we had POWs in captivity, then returned to this country and openly advocated the enemy position?
This is not only a betrayal of his comrades and country, but a declaration of principle that is alarming in the extreme. Combine it with his statements about Communism in his Winter Soldier testimony, and you have something that should give any serious voter pause:
I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those needs with almost any kind of political structure, giving it one name or the other. In this name it is democratic; in others it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist.
Keep in mind that Kerry was a Yale-educated, 27 year old man, not an unsophisticated child. He appears to have thought that Communism was as good as any other system of government. In other places in his testimony, he states that Communism was not a danger and that the South Vietnamese could not tell the difference between Communism and democracy. Tell that to the Boat people or the S. Vietnamese army. Or the thousands who were slaughtered when Saigon fell.
Regardless of whether a law was broken, going to Paris to talk to the North Vietnamese seems an incredibly foolish thing to have done.
By comparison, it makes the furor over whether George Bush missed a flight physical and a few drill periods (and if one knows anything about flying, this is hardly remarkable - what is the point of taking a flight physical if one knows one is transferring to a non-flying billet?) look silly.
I doubt Kerry will sign the Form 180. I doubt we will get the answers. I doubt Kerry can answer; I doubt Kerry . . . . . .