Skip to comments.1980: John Kerry says he supports the draft; Cautions President on escalation of rhetoric vs Russia
Posted on 06/13/2004 4:00:04 PM PDT by nwrep
NOTE: President Carter used his 1980 SOTU speech to address the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the American hostages taken by Iran. He called for increasing military spending, reducing restrictions on the CIA, and revival of the selective services registration.
Many on the left, like Noam Chomsky, attacked him for his response to the crisis, others, like Sen. McGovern supported him, while John Kerry offered qualified support and equivocation.
January 25, 1980
by Richard H. Stewart Globe Staff
Antiwar activists from the Vietnam era are not as united about President Jimmy Carter's tough-sounding [State of the Union] speech on the Persian Gulf as they were about the war in Vietnam.
In interviews yesterday, academics like Prof. Noam Chomsky of MIT and Prof. Howard Zinn of Boston University reacted to Carter's address to Congress Wednesday night by expressing concern that the heightened nationalism in the United States will result in increased expenditures for the military at the expense of domestic needs.
John Kerry, now a State Street attorney but during the Vietnam war the man who organized Vietnam veterans opposed to the war, said he agreed that Carter "has to make a statement about American interests in that area (the Persian Gulf), but I would like to see a greater effort made to bring our allies into that declaration."
Kerry said he would like to see Carter "use caution in the escalation of the rhetoric" involved in the warnings to Russia.
As he did during the Vietnam era, Kerry said he favors the draft - but a "fairly administered and equitable draft" that does not favor the rich and well-educated over the poor.
Can't even stop talking out of both sides of his mouth about his own, sheesh!
The interesting thing is how the reaction of the left has changed little in a quarter of a century...
That's because the motivating principle- hatred of America and contempt for the majority of its citizens- hasn't changed at all.
Yeah. Getting worse all the time, if you think about it...
Yes, he wants "greater effort" to bring allies into the effort, which effort? THE EFFORT TO MAKE A DECLARATION ABOUT WHAT ARE AMERICAN INTERESTS!
That in itself does not even make sense. A declaration even has to refrain from unilateralism. This is not a practical concern [that is, it has nothing to do with the needs or risks in a specific situation], it occurs at the philosophical level. America must not speak in its own voice. Its voice [and action] must be muffled through the consensus of others' interests and voices.
[This also relates to the premise of his diplomat father who wrote a book advancing this premise of non-unilateral speech and action]
This reflex in Kerry must not be simply ambivalence or fip-flopping or indecision, I think it is an inveterate tactic in how he seeks to get in the way of American purpose, to deflect it, to distract it, to delay it, to weaken it, ultimately, to defeat it.
The same thing that both he and the French were about in the pre-Iraq war period, are this tactic.
This is essentially a belief of utter opposition to the premise of American exceptionalism. This is how he is one with the French. It is why he does not ever want us to act by ourselves. He won't say that this is the reason [he has to hide this fact at all costs, because it is political suicide], which is really to say that he does not want American interests to prevail.
Does anyone have any evidence that Senator Kerry has ever actually made a public statement which expressed a firm idea, concept, statement, or position? Has he always been so "nuanced" that no-one can ever know his position on anything? WHO IS THIS GUY?
He knows what he wants, in the sense he knows what he has to try to stop. His grudging support of war or assertion or anything else, is always based on a political calculation that this grudging "support" is the most effective tactic to get in the way of American assertion.
I tried to make this point above in post #8. I think this may be a way to make sense of what he is up to. It is an extension of his father's philosophy who was a diplomat who opposed American voice and action.
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.