Me? I don’t like 24-hour rules. Certain conclusions prove themselves without delay.
Today, in Vietnam, hanging among the pictures of the North Vietnamese heroes who helped win the war with the United States, hangs a picture of John Kerry. In this picture, he is shaking hands with the enemy leaders of that communist nation. This meeting with the nation’s enemies took place, secretly, in Paris, France, while brave Americans were dying at the hands of that very enemy. Along with Hanoi Jane Fonda, he is considered a hero to the communist Vietnamese.
While John Kerry went before Congress in 1971, spewing forth accusations of war crimes against his fellow soldiers still fighting in Vietnam and was secretly meeting with the enemy in a foreign nation, the enemy was using his accusations, torturing American prisoners, trying to force them to admit to the war crimes Kerry was accusing them of. This is to me blatantly and “purposely aiding the nation’s enemies.” In my dictionary, this is the meaning of the word “treason.”
Amen. See, that’s the thing: for as long as I’ve been alive John Kerry has sought to undermine the United States on the global stage. This Hanoi thing? It’s just another in a long list.
In 1970, during his first run for Congress, Kerry told the Harvard Crimson that he wanted US troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the UN. He made a UN mandate a condition for the deployment of US forces in later years. He was able to get behind Bill Clinton’s deployment of US forces in Bosnia because Clinton had kept them under the tight rein of the UN permanent representative.[...]
In 1970, while still a reserve officer in the US Navy, Kerry undertook private contacts with the Vietnamese communist delegation in Paris. In his 1971 speech he is remembered and reviled by many veterans for accusing all American soldiers of committing atrocities and war crimes. What has been overlooked in his 1971 speech is that he also supported the Vietnamese communist cause, mouthing every plank of their political platform as his own. Were these extreme left-wing views merely the misadventures of a war-embittered youth? Hardly.
Kerry continued to pursue Hanoi’s foreign policy interests in the Senate, even at the expense of his often-stated preference for the UN. In 1990, in a rare act of post-Cold War political unity, the UN Security Council approved a plan to end the war in Cambodia with a UN temporary administration to organise elections in the country. This was the plan, remember, that the Australian government and then Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans were deeply involved in realising. Yet Kerry opposed it. Instead, he wanted the Vietnamese-installed Hun Sen, formerly of the Khmer Rouge, to organise elections.
It seems that Kerry’s preference for a UN role in conflict resolution is mainly to shackle American power, but not the power of his favourite little dictatorships.
John Kerry may be “reporting for duty,” but the real question is: to whom?