Skip to comments.“Personal Reasons of Necessity” The self-serving senator
Posted on 04/30/2004 6:51:51 AM PDT by pookie18
Back in February 1992, John Kerry stood up on the Senate floor, "driven by personal reasons of necessity." He professed to be saddened by then-Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey's criticism during the Democratic primaries of Bill Clinton's lack of service in Vietnam. "We do not need to divide America over who served and how," Kerry said. "I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."
Kerry's "personal reasons of necessity" always have to do with what is personally necessary to serve his ambition at any given moment. And whenever he says, "I have personally always believed [fill in the blank]," it is likely: 1) he doesn't believe it; 2) he either didn't believe it at some time prior, or is about to stop believing in it. So it is with his deep, personal belief about making Vietnam service, or lack thereof, strictly off-limits.
When Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe attacked President Bush's National Guard service earlier this year, Kerry insisted: "I have asked surrogates not to. In fact, when I have heard of a surrogate doing that I have said please don't, it is not an issue to me, and I have never made an issue, in the course of my entire career, out of what choices anybody made about where they served or didn't serve."
This is what Al Franken would refer to as a "lie." In 1996, Kerry faced a stiff challenge for re-election from then-Massachusetts Gov. William Weld. In one debate Kerry made an issue out of Vietnam in precisely the way he says he never has. As a Massachusetts newspaper reported, "Kerry landed one of the harshest and most personal blows of the campaign when he pointedly referred to Weld's lack of service in Vietnam."
It is a pattern for Kerry. In March 2002, he "chastised two top Republicans who had not served in the military for their criticism of Democratic leaders," according to the Boston Globe. Kerry bellowed at a Democratic dinner: "Let me be clear tonight to Sen. Lott and to Tom DeLay: One of the lessons that I learned in Vietnam, a war they did not have to endure...was that if I ever reached a position of responsibility, I would never stop asking questions that make a democracy strong."
Another apparent Kerry lie was this line during the initial spat over Bush's Guard service: "I have suggested to some people who are my advocates, who've gone that line of attack, it's not one that I plan to do ... I don't plan to do that, and I've asked them not to."
But the Washington Post reported at the time: "Kerry aides were not upset about McAuliffe's negative tone, Democratic sources said. Instead, they were worried that the party chairman had raised the charge too early preventing Kerry from making more effective use of a potent issue later this year if he is the Democratic nominee."
The Post's reporting has been borne out by events over the past week. When the Bush campaign aired an ad criticizing Kerry's defense votes, he immediately countered by questioning the non-service of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. A few days later, when ABC News broke a story questioning the consistency of Kerry's account of whether he threw his medals or his ribbons away in a 1971 anti-war protest, Kerry took his Vietnam-baiting right to the top: "I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard ..."
Kerry mascot Max Cleland has gone further. "This country is now paying dearly for George Bush's lack of experience in war," said Cleland. So the Kerry team is practically arguing that only Vietnam veterans are capable of running the country's foreign-policy responsibly on behalf of a candidate who said a lack of Vietnam service would never be an issue! Such are the dictates of John Kerry's "personal reasons of necessity."
Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
Don't be silly - Frankin knows full well that liberals don't lie, and they don't have sex with that woman, and they still have their medals - they threw the ribbons, and they won the last election - but it was stolen, etc. etc.
Or whatever the story is today, tomorrow it will be different. They have to keep in constant communication to keep the story straight. Whatever the story is that day.
Kennedy had resigned his seat, I believe, so he was not a "sitting" senator. Therefore, I don't think a sitting senator has ever been elected president...has to do with a very visible voting record for their opponents to attack.
Cleland's war experience is blowing himself into several pieces while drunk, but hey it was in Vietnam so that makes him an expert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.