The Red Pill

Kerry is even flip-flopping in his campaign, as the OpinionJournal reports.

"If George Bush wants to make national security an issue in this campaign, I have three words for him that I know he'll understand. Bring it on!"--John Kerry, quoted in the New York Times, Feb. 1

"Call off the Republican attack dogs."--Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, responding to Dick Cheney's speech on John Kerry's defense record, quoted by the Associated Press, April 26

In the same Meet the Press interview, John Kerry fails to promise that he can really deliver on his claim to create 10 million new jobs - forgetting for the moment that at the current unemployment rate there are less than that many unemployed people in the country - if "something bad" happens or "we are at war". Imagine that.

Russert also asks Kerry if he will pledge not to seek re-election in 2008 should he become president and fail to meet his goals of creating 10 million new jobs and halving the deficit. His answer:

Well, it would depend on the circumstances. If I don't [succeed] because there's a war or something terrible happens, of course I'm not going to make that pledge.

John Kerry accused himself of being a war criminal. And this man is running for President of the United States???
From the April 18, 2004 transcript of Meet the Press.

Kerry mentioned Vietnam five times. As it turns out, he served there. Russert played a clip from an earlier Kerry appearance on "Meet the Press," on April 18, 1971, then asked him about it:

Kerry: There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

I've been trying not to post so many entire articles, but I couldn't help myself with this one. My problem with articles like this is I find it hard to summarize or paraphrase them since they are often so well written already that they don't contain extra fluff that can be removed.

This one comes from the New York Post. It's a scathing commentary on Kennedy. I think it's time the shield of protective sympathy given Teddy because of his family's tragic past be lowered once and for all.

April 7, 2004 -- Guess who's calling Operation Iraqi Freedom "George Bush's Vietnam"?
Teddy Kennedy.

Talk about no shame.

When the Massachusetts senator's brother, President John F. Kennedy, decided in 1963 that the leaders of South Vietnam had to be removed - they were being uncooperative, you see - he had the CIA instigate a coup d'etat that left President Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother stuffed into the back of a truck, riddled with bullets.

JFK's own death followed in short order - but, for Southeast Asia, the damage had been done. Kennedy had set into motion a chain of events that eventually saw the U.S. commitment to South Vietnam grow into an all-out war involving hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops.

At which point liberal Democrats - led by the Kennedy clan - bailed out, leaving it for others to deal with the gawdawful mess they had created.

A more steadfast approach might have spared Southeast Asia the consequences of Hanoi's 1975 victory - the suffering of the Vietnamese boat people, the Cambodian genocide and the reduction of U.S. prestige and credibilty to ruin.



So we understand why many Democrats - Teddy Kennedy in particular - are tortured to this day by the specter of Vietnam.

Their guilt must hang heavy indeed.

But not so heavy that they'll miss a chance to go another round - this time at the expense of American interests in the Mideast.

Kennedy & Co. - abetted by many in the national media - are working overtime to transform Operation Iraqi Freedom into what the senator terms, again, "George Bush's Vietnam."

The news from the war zone yesterday was not good, particularly in the so-called Sunni Triangle near Baghdad. Reports told of sharp fighting and heavy casualties among Marines and civilians.

Tailor-made, in other words, for "I told you so's" from Teddy Kennedy - and for tongue-clucking and knowing nods from the network anchors.

But yesterday's adreneline-charged reports - as with a lot of daily journalism - lacked context.

Yes, the combat was fierce - because Saddam Hussein's loyalists despise democracy and freedom, resent being pushed aside by the United States and its allies and are fighting very hard to restore lost privileges.

In the south, Shi'ite factions are jockying for position, with the radicals instigating their own wave of violence.

But is Iraq a quagmire of the sort that the Kennedy crew once bequeathed America - and seems determined to deliver again?

Certainly Teddy Kennedy has taken it upon himself to serve as public hatchet-man for his Massachusetts colleague, John Kerry.

Kennedy has moved beyond bitter partisanship and unrepentant liberalism; he seems incapable of seeing any good in anyone who disagrees with him.

Now, if that's who John Kerry wants as a frontman, then bring it on.

It'll be hard for America to keep a straight face when Teddy Kennedy starts throwing rhetorical daggers about a "credibility gap" in Washington or political "deceptions" and elected officials who "repeatedly invent 'facts' to support their pre-conceived agenda."

Chappaquiddick, anyone? It's been 35 years, and America still doesn't know what happened there.

But Kennedy and his fellow travelers have allies, especially in the media.

All in all, these folks seem eager to undermine America's ability to defend its interests abroad and to exercise responsible leadership around the globe.

Just like in the good old days.

But while this tack is not likely to work in November, it stands to sow confusion:

* Among America's enemies, who will be unduly encouraged by it, and

* Among America's friends, who have historic cause to wonder about this nation's willingness to honor commitments.

Really, haven't Kennedy & Co. done enough damage?