UNCOMFORTABLE
I find it almost impossible to believe that John Kerry would even try to run for the office of President of the United States.
He has a right to do so. I have no strong feeling along those lines. Anyone can announce his aspirations and look forward to having a hand in the nation's future attainments. It is a noble thing to feel a need to be of service to others.
There are few grounds for thinking that one man mightbe better than another at undertaking to do the job of managing the world's strongest nation in the troubled international community. And, especially so at this time in our national history when the world is troubled so deeply in so many unusual ways.
Certainly, by this time Kerry is assured of being the nominee set forth as the candidate of the Democratic Party. As one of our major political parties, this group has a history impressive parade of stalwart citizens who have borne the Democratic Party banner well and with some commendable results. His rise thus far has been steady. His tenacity is evident in limiting himself to repetition of points chosen to vilify the Bush administration from every possible angle regardless of how trivial or how instable such accusation might be. It has worked well for him. He has has been careful to stay within the set criticisms except for such moments as when he vilified the National Guard - now about our sole source of military personnel - as being ” a haven for rich men's sons” He warded off what proved to be a weaker than expected drive from South Carolina by another John and simply stood by as Howard Dean did himself in and scurried back to Vermont At this moment, just eight months before election day, John Kerry appears to be well-established for a run at the Oval Office job.
Why , then should I be “uncomfortable?”
That which is, as yet, going unsaid is danging all around. John Cheery, better than any one person, ought to be aware of the potential disaster which awaits him if his heavy load of past strange conduct becomes well known prior to Convention time. He is running a great risk if he chooses to believe the Republican party operatives will not use “personal” shortcomings of his past life - both military and and civilian - against him in the campaign.
Think again, John. Can you “out talk” the revelation of straight facts about your rather limited military career? Can you explain why you did not report the hundreds of a deadly atrocities committed by American troops which you “witnessed” during your four months stay doing eighteen missions from a vantage point of a river boat in Mekong Delta waters? After asking for and receiving discharge from the armed forces, he became a long-haired anti-war protector dressed in ragged army fatigues. They paraded, burned other people's draft cards and military awards and service medals and records. He actually led a march attacking the capital with toy guns. It's all recorded in newspapers and magazines as photographs and stories detailing the violence of the his group later singled out, by name, by a Vet Nam General who wrote a book about how the anti-war groups here helped them to win the war.
This is “refute or admit” time.
I am “uncomfortable” with someone else, too. Those who have failed to bring this flood of facts into the campaign. With such such hesitation to speak out against unworthy opposition, I find myself becoming concerned about the value of our system itself.
A.L.M. March 8, 2004 [c608wds]
