- The Washington Times - Friday, September 17, 2004

Remember when former Sen. Bob Kerrey said Bill Clinton was an “unusually good liar — unusually good”? Well, surely by now Democrats realize John Kerry is an unusually bad candidate — unusually bad. Just consider:

Mr. Kerry has never said why he should be president, other than to fulfill a lifelong dream. He inappropriately boasts of his war heroism, when experience tells us authentic heroes rarely brag about their heroism.

The Swift Boat Veterans have deeply discredited numerous parts of his Vietnam record, but Mr. Kerry hasn’t even attempted a factual rebuttal to any of the charges. He has been forced to admit — despite testifying the memory was “seared, seared in me” — he wasn’t in Cambodia, Christmas 1968, at the orders of Richard Nixon, who wasn’t yet president.

He has had to virtually admit no hostile fire accompanied his first Purple Heart incident, so he didn’t deserve that award.

He has personally attacked President Bush’s National Guard Service and Vice President Dick Cheney’s “five deferments” and contrasted it with his volunteering for two tours of duty in Vietnam. But he hasn’t answered John O’Neill’s charge that his first tour was 100 miles off the shore of Vietnam, and he didn’t volunteer for service until he was about to be drafted. Besides, who in their right mind would believe Mr. Kerry would volunteer to risk his life in a war he adamantly opposed?

He either perjured himself in his antiwar testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in admitting he committed atrocities or he actually committed atrocities, which is worse. American prisoners of war have said their communist captors used his slander of our troops against them.

He was present at a VVAW meeting where assassinations of public officials were discussed. Whether he voted against them or left the meeting, he has never explained why he associated with such a group of sadistic thugs.

He admitted to being in Paris and having “talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.” Under whose authority? For what possibly legitimate purpose?

He castigates Mr. Bush — preposterously — for having no plan to win the peace in Iraq. But he has never explained how he would be qualified to plan for any peace, given his disastrous predictions of no bloodbath or refugee problem upon U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.

He was rated the most liberal senator in 2003 by the nonpartisan National Journal. And that doesn’t even begin to tell the story of his egregiously anti-defense and anti-intelligence record for his entire 20 years in the Senate.

He has failed to denounce Michael Moore’s deceits, but demands Mr. Bush denounce the Swiftees’ truths.

He insists Iraq isn’t part of the War on Terror yet claims we’ve lost 1,000 people in the War on Terror.

He hasn’t explained how his Silver Star citation was signed by Navy Secretary John Lehman years after the fact when Mr. Lehman denies signing it. He also hasn’t explained how a “combat V” was affixed to the citation when such designations never accompany a Silver Star. Where is Dan Rather?

He refuses to release all his military and medical records and hides behind his biographer Douglas Brinkley, who contradicts him, saying Kerry alone possesses authority over his records.

He brutalized Mr. Cheney for saying America would be safer under Bush-Cheney but in the next breath said he would make America safer.

He swears he voted for the Iraq war resolution because Mr. Bush promised he would attack only as a last resort. Since there were no such conditions in the resolution and no one else corroborates his claim, are we to assume Mr. Bush gave Mr. Kerry these assurances confidentially, based on their close friendship?

He says he won’t delegate our national security to other nations, but incessantly complains, essentially, about Mr. Bush’s failure to delegate our national security to other nations.

He claimed foreign leaders prefer him for president. Why was he talking to them, under whose authority and about what?

He has ducked the press for more than a month after excoriating Mr. Bush for hiding from the press. He won’t answer “hypotheticals” about what he would do on fundamental issues as president. He says he has a plan to withdraw troops but when pressed admits he won’t know enough about the conditions on the ground until he’s president. He admitted life begins at conception, but is pro-abortion anyway.

He has made incredibly destructive and bogus claims about Republican plans to disenfranchise a million black voters.

He has said President Bush isn’t being tough on North Korea, when before Democrats were mortified at his “reckless” saber-rattling against that nation.

Are you dizzy yet?

David Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide