John Kerry as Commander in Chief: What the Convention Didn’t Say

George C. Landrith

The Democratic convention was surprising – not for what was said, but for what was not said. John Kerry has served in the U.S. Senate for two decades – during the Reagan years, the first Bush years, the Clinton years, and the current Bush years. Someone should have mentioned Kerry’s Senate record. Yet, virtually nothing was said about it.

During the convention, we were reminded virtually every few minutes that Kerry served four months in Vietnam. But, Kerry’s 20-year Senate record received virtually no attention.

Many veterans question Kerry’s military record and even more detest him for fanning the flames of hatred against returning Vietnam veterans with his false accusations of war crimes. I cannot dismiss their concerns, but I am willing to stipulate that during those 4 months in Vietnam Kerry led his crew of six honorably and won recognition for his service.

I am not questioning what Kerry did in Vietnam. I am asking why the things Kerry has done since Vietnam did not receive more attention. Why did Kerry ignore his 20 years in the Senate?

Kerry lags far behind President George Bush in polls on the question of who will better defend America and defeat terror. Kerry must close that gap if he hopes to win the election. So why didn’t Kerry use his 20-year Senate career to prove he can be trusted to lead and defend America? Why only talk about four months in Vietnam?

Kerry’s 20-year Senate record shows that he does not have the vision or resolve to vigorously defend America. The focus on Vietnam was a diversionary tactic – to distract us from his Senate years.

Throughout his career, Kerry has cut defense and intelligence funding. One of the reasons we lacked good intelligence leading up to 9/11, was that during the 1980s and 90s, Kerry helped gut our intelligence apparatus. Now he says, we should trust him to rebuild it.

When communism was entrenched in Central America, Ronald Reagan fought to financially assist our neighbors free themselves from the oppressive regimes. Kerry opposed freedom for our neighbors, supported communist dictators and mass-murderers like Daniel Ortega, and even called them “reformers.” Today, there are free elections in Nicaragua. Kerry gets no credit. He was on the wrong side of history.

When America liberated Grenada from the grasp of an oppressive communist regime, Kerry opposed it. Today, Grenada is a democracy. But Kerry can claim no credit. Again, he was on the wrong side of history.

When Soviet communism threatened America and most folks doubted America could defeat communism, Kerry shared their pessimism and supported appeasement. His goal was to get along with the communists, not defeat them. Kerry opposed deployment of upgraded missile systems to deter the Soviet threat. Kerry even opposed missile defense. Kerry opposed virtually every weapons system our armed forces currently use.

Reagan sought victory over communism. Kerry wanted co-existence. Soviet communism is now dead. The gulags are no more. Hundreds of millions of former Soviets now enjoy freedom. Soviet missiles no longer point at America. But Kerry cannot claim credit. He was on the wrong side of history.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Kerry opposed liberation. A decade later, when the war in Iraq was voted on, Kerry reluctantly supported it. But only a few months later, Kerry voted against funding the troops in the field – voting against supplying needed body armor, equipment, and supplies.

In defense of his vote, Kerry explains that he “voted for [funding the troops] before [he] voted against it.” That is not the explanation of a decisive leader.

In a recent poll, the citizens of Massachusetts, who know John Kerry best, overwhelming said that if elected president, Kerry would cut defense, regardless of what he says.

On important national defense issues, time after time Senator Kerry has been on the wrong side of history. Kerry has consistently sought something less than victory. Little wonder Kerry focused on his four months in Vietnam rather than his 20 years in the Senate.

###

Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property rights.

george@ff.org