Junto Boys

USING VIETNAM TO GET ELECTED

If John Kerry is serious about being the leader of this country he will have to quell his opportunism for a moment to explain why Clinton's actions during Vietnam were defendable and his accusations toward Bush are "serious."

The primary season has demonstrated that Kerry has no plan to defend this country. No Democrats save Lierberman has articulated a plan because the hippy element within that party won't hear of it. To be a winning Democrat you've got to explain how Bush fumbled everything and that it was a mistake to depose Saddam. Is that really a serious position to hold if you want to be elected President in this country? I can believe that a large percentage of the registered Democrats in this country would just as soon trade missiles for poppies, but certainly a majority would rather live in a strong nation that chooses to act.

If the Democrats have an argument about how different actions would have made us safer today, I'm all ears. So far, it's been nothing but vague statements about how we should have defeated every last Al Qaeda guy first (More than 75% of them have been disposed of already) or we're alienating the world (noted warmongers France and Germany who have recently traded their bayonets and mustard gas for Birkenstocks) with our unilateral actions.

Those criticisms are probably great applause lines for campaign breakfast, but they are not plans for dealing with the real problem of terrorism. It's not a budget plan that a candidate can just whip up after the convention. Kerry, for instance, has been in the United States Senate long enough to have a ready-made plan for defeating terrorists if he were desirous or capable of doing so. He doesn't mind using the war for political gain by playing Monday morning quarterback on every decision, but he doesn't intend to offer a better plan either. Just put Kerry into the White House and he'll go to work micromanaging the caribou populations in Alaska and the minimum wage hikes that the unions demand.

A President Kerry couldn't lead an assault on terrorism if he wanted to. His allegiances and funding and base are all tied up into a party that shuns any kind of war, regardless of provocation. Vietnam is a great example of how Democrats got us into a bungled war and other Democrats marched in protest and yet it's somehow the Republicans fault. The Republicans have never gotten us into a "Vietnam." They usually spend their time getting us out of one.

In fact, Vietnam isn't even Vietnam. We don't ever discuss the intentions and the reasons we had problems there. Instead we jump to the conclusion that we should have never bothered those noble people; although forgotten is that the same noble people butchered a million of their own when we vacated. No, we don't discuss Vietnam seriously in this country. All it would have taken to win that war was the will to do so. Congress refused to declare war. Johnson ducked out of re-election not knowing how to solve the problem. And Nixon got the ultimate blame according to any random Vietnam movie.

Now John Kerry wants to use Vietnam as a credential for protecting us from terrorism. All the things he said defending Clinton don't count anymore. All that matters is the candidate with the most medals should win. Those medals are supposed to substitute for a real plan for defeating the bad guys. Kerry's service was a fine example of the American soldier, but if you listen to his words from then and now, he doesn't like the idea that America carries the big stick. And we'll need a big stick if we're going to protect this country.