The Lies, Hypocrisy, and Indifference of John Kerry
by Andy Obermann
17 March 2004
have been able to find two key endorsements for John Kerry by foreign leaders; one came from Iran, the other from North Korea.
John Kerry is a walking
contradiction. He hasn’t held a steady position on any major issue
in his entire record of public service. Now it seems that his past
is really coming back to haunt him. Of all the explanations John Kerry
should give to the American people, I’ll settle for three.
First of all, in case you haven’t heard, foreign leaders from across the
globe have endorsed John Kerry. Well, that is, if you ask the Senator.
You see, several days ago, Kerry, when speaking before a group of Floridians
on the campaign trail, decided it was time to announce this stinging revelation.
“They [unnamed foreign leaders] look at you [Kerry] and say, ‘Boy, you’ve
got to win this. You’ve got to beat this guy [President Bush].
We need a new policy.’”
When pressed to name names, Kerry’s aides declined. “In terms of who
he's talked to, we're not going to discuss that," said spokeswoman Stephanie
Cutter. "I know it would be helpful, but we're not going into that.”
A week later, at a Kerry rally, a man pressed the Senator again. Kerry
replied by questioning the man’s political affiliation and passing him off
as a typical Republican bomb thrower.
Smooth. So, Kerry has decided it isn’t necessary to answer questions
from Republicans. Well, I suppose that would be fine if he were running
to be President of the Democrats, but he’s running to be President of the
United States—Republicans included.
I have been able to find two key endorsements for John Kerry by foreign leaders.
One came from Iran—and the other from North Korea. I’ll even stipulate
that Spain’s newly elected socialist government will follow suit. So,
Kerry may have the socialists and already has two despotic regimes behind
him? Well, I guess they are foreign leaders.
Secondly, a recent report has revealed that Kerry, in 1997, actually supported
unilateral military operations to unseat Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Appearing
on CNN’s “Crossfire”, on Nov. 12, 1997, the great internationalist even declared
that the same UN approval he now preaches for on campaign stops wouldn’t
be necessary for then-President Bill Clinton to launch an offensive against
Saddam’s regime. “The administration is making it clear they don't
even need the UN security council to sign off on a material breach...so furthermore,
I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve
the right to act in its best interests.”
He went on to criticize Germany, France, and Russia, asking where their “backbone” was in standing against Hussein.
Kerry’s 1997 rhetoric sounds vaguely similar to someone from the present
day. Who could that be? Why, President Bush, that’s who.
So, the lesson is, if a Democrat is in office, Saddam is fair game, but if
a Republican is in office, we’re going to war for Halliburton.
Finally, and probably most interesting, is Kerry’s pre-9/11 indifference to warnings concerning airline security.
As we all know, John Kerry is from Massachusetts. And, in case you
need reminding, two of the planes hijacked on 9/11 originated from Logan
International Airport, in Boston, Massachusetts. Here is the interesting
part: On May 7, 2001, Brian Sullivan, a special agent for the Federal
Aviation Administration (who has since retired) warned Kerry of the likelihood
of a hijacking and the ease with which one could occur.
Sullivan attempted to bring Kerry’s attention to a news broadcast exposing
security weaknesses at Logan. Sullivan included a letter detailing
FAA failures and the threat they cause for the American people—and attempt
by the FAA to prevent this information from coming to light. “The FAA
does everything it can to prevent news reports of this nature under the guise
of it being a public safety issue…Think what the result would be of a coordinated
attack which took down several domestic flights on the same day. Considering
the current threats, it is almost likely.”
Kerry, in a reply to Sullivan, seemed indifferent to the warnings of possible
attacks. In the return letter, Kerry informed Sullivan that the tape
of the news program had been forwarded to the Department of Transportation,
and asked that the Office of Inspector General report back to his staff when
conclusions were made. This report came too late.
Steve Elson, also an FAA security specialist, gave Kerry another warning.
In June of 2001, Elson informed Jamie Wise, a Kerry staffer, of the possibility
of attacks, but was turned away because he was not one of Kerry’s constituents.
It isn’t clear if Elson’s concerns ever reached the Senator.
These frightening premonitions came only two months before the September 11 tragedy.
Am I saying the 9/11 is a result of Kerry’s irresponsibility? No.
One would be hard pressed to find any American, Senator or not, who thought
that an attack the scale of 9/11 would be plausible before that fateful day.
I am saying, however, Kerry had the opportunity to look into these issues
further, but, because he did not take the threat seriously, allowed the warnings
to slip through the cracks of bureaucracy.
It is almost sad that Democrats tied their hopes to a man like John Kerry.
If he manages to defeat President Bush in November, America will be the worse
Andy Obermann is majoring in History and Secondary Education at Missouri Valley College.
Email Andy Obermann
this Article to a Friend