WRITTEN BY LT.COLONEL CHARLES WADE Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Even before the primary elections, President Bush’s military service was a political issue as was Senator Kerry’s military service which he touted and others questioned. Reporters continue to seek comment from candidates, political operatives, and pundits. It seems that everyone is an expert, and everyone has an answer. Some of the more interesting responses have come from Republican senators who typically begin by asserting that they honor Senator Kerry’s Viet Nam service, but… Honor: What is that all about? What virtues are honorable? More important, what virtues are both militarily and politically relevant as well as honorable? In politics, today’s vice may be tomorrow’s virtue. Warriors, on the other hand, live or die by constant and immutable virtues. Warriors honor those virtues, and the virtue of loyalty is the most honored. Veterans of the Viet Nam era bitterly resented the disloyalty of those who turned their backs to the military and were glorified by the press for doing so. Among the more notorious were Jane Fonda, Joan Baez, and many of the media glitterati. A few, such as Bob Hope, Martha Raye, and John Wayne, refused to turn their backs to America’s armed forces. They were loyal, and that was an honorable thing. Among the Viet Nam era’s veterans who actually served in combat was Lieutenant John Kerry. He distinguished himself on the battlefield and was well decorated for it. Yet, while we were still engaged in mortal combat with the enemy, John Kerry in a melodramatic gesture of defiance trashed his decorations and in so doing demeaned the honor of every warrior who wore the same medals. He was disloyal to his peers, and that was not an honorable thing. When he spoke to the Congress of the United States, he gave disproportionate, unbalanced, and misleading testimony that undermined the integrity of the military leadership. John Kerry was disloyal to the armed forces, and that was not an honorable thing. On worldwide television, he marched in the streets and lent false credence to those who served the purposes of a national enemy. John Kerry was disloyal to our nation, and that was not an honorable thing. Thirty years ago, long before George W. Bush crossed the political horizon, my comrades in arms and I were acutely aware of John Kerry. We had seen numerous Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart medals awarded to many friends none of whom postured themselves as heroes, but John Kerry did. And to our astonishment, a committee of our legislature gave to that erstwhile junior officer our national stage from which to bleat his sophomoric theories of world affairs and national strategy. When John Kerry testified, I was teaching cadets at the Air Force Academy, and we studied the scruffily-groomed upstart. His wearing of a disgracefully tatty facsimile of a field uniform, to which he had inappropriately attached ribbons, was an affront to the dignity of both the Navy and the Congress. Yet, members of Congress fawned over that ragamuffin who with unmitigated gall presumed to represent the views of people who wore the uniform. From his bad example, Air Force cadets received a lesson in how not to behave. Despite its shamefulness however, John Kerry’s demeanor was insignificant compared to the betrayal of his words. Ho Chi Minh could not have done better had he himself written the script. The dishonor of John Kerry’s testimony in Washington totally eclipsed the honor of his service in the field. John Kerry’s disrespect could be forgiven, but he was disloyal, and that was not an honorable thing. John Kerry knowingly contributed to a cause that robbed those in the field of the one weapon we desperately needed and did not have -- a political will to win. At the hands of irresolute politicians and bureaucrats the war was needlessly protracted, lives were lost, and prisoners languished only to the advantage of an ever-so-patient enemy. American indecision was not North Viet Nam’s ally by happenstance. It was predictable, and it was predicted by Ho Chi Minh who orchestrated it with great calculation. It was decisive in their victory over the United States -- not on the battlefield but in the streets and on the floor of an irresolute legislature cowed by disloyal propagandists at the forefront of whom stood Abbie Hoffman, Jane Fonda, and John Kerry. Theirs is the legacy of carnage wrought by the Khmer Rouge across Cambodia’s Killing Fields. But, in the larger scheme of world affairs, the Communist rape of Indo-China is far from the most damaging consequence of their disloyalty. Much more detrimental to the long-term prospects for world peace were the budding foes who would grow politically strong by feeding on the diminution of America’s credibility. Our enemies learned well this lesson of Viet Nam. On a 21st century battlefield that extends from Iraq to our hometowns, Americans are fighting those once-budding enemies who are now capable of applying lethal tactics with global reach and relentless determination. Again, the notion that Americans do not have the political will to fight a long campaign is being trumpeted by the enemies of democracy. For three decades, the evidentiary backbone of their propaganda has been the defeat of the United States at the hands of Stalinist dictators in North Viet Nam. John Kerry played a part in that defeat and shares the blame for its disastrous consequences. Today, our political will is being undermined by the same treachery preached by the same people using the same twisted vocabulary, and that is not an honorable thing. On the morning of September the 11th in the year 2001 while New York was in flames, Katie Couric spoke on TV to an international audience and suggested that the attack on the World Trade Center was the fault of America and its new president. Déjà vu! Media glitterati including the likes of Couric and Michael Moore predictably have joined Senator Kerry as he replays his Viet Nam era role. When our warriors die at the hands of a determined enemy dedicated to the destruction of American civilization, Kerry and his crowd aim their politically-motivated fury not at our enemy but at our national command authority. They foment a popular disloyalty that if carried to its logical conclusion will result in a failure of America’s political will to win, and that is not an honorable thing. Loyalty travels along a two-way street between the private soldier at the bottom and Congress at the top of a long chain of command. Our constitution assigns only to Congress the power to make war and along with it the responsibility for all war made. Of all actions taken by our national legislature, only the making of war is related to section 3 of the judicial article of the constitution which criminalizes disloyal behavior like adhering to, aiding, and comforting national enemies. Of all acts passed by our national legislature, only the defining of national enemies and the making of war are constitutionally linked to national loyalty. Consequently, prudent legislators will be wary and circumspect prior to making war. Prudent legislators will vigorously and exhaustively examine, question, and debate proposals before they make war. They will do this, because once they collectively legislate war, their individual loyalty to that legislation becomes constitutionally linked to the loyalty that every legislator owes to the troops who must unquestioningly serve the legislated national cause. In war, loyalty is optional at neither end of the chain of command. Prudent legislators will cautiously exercise their war-making power, because in making war, incumbent legislators must accept a unique constraint on their political behavior. Uniquely when Congress makes war, all national legislators are constitutionally expected to individually support their collectively approved legislation. When Congress collectively draws the sword, each and every senator and representative becomes individually responsible for the steadiness of the hand that wields the sword. For incumbent legislators on the national campaign trail, regardless of inconvenience to their electoral prospects or other political expedience, undermining confidence in the chain of command is not an honorable thing. Senator Kerry has made an election issue of service during the Viet Nam War. He and his politicos have dredged up that sorry chapter, and from those same politicos one still hears the hollow and time-worn phrase, “I support the troops, but….” The notion that a national legislator can support our troops whilst simultaneously promoting disloyalty to our troops’ national cause or their national command authority is a fiction authored during the Viet Nam era. Anyone seeking similarities between Viet Nam and Iraq need look no farther than ‘Loyalty Street.’ From there, one can clearly see the rampant disloyalty on Capitol Hill. To achieve their own selfish ambitions, Senator Kerry and a host of national legislators are sacrificing national loyalty on an alter of political expedience, and that is not an honorable thing. The Kerry campaign has attempted to discredit executives within the national command authority by maligning their military service (or lack thereof) during the Viet Nam era. In so doing, John Kerry’s allies and, amazingly, John Kerry himself demonstrate their hapless and probably hopeless ignorance of yet another lesson of Viet Nam: military service was never an issue. Whether or not John Wayne or George W. Bush or Bill Clinton or even John Kerry ever wore a uniform was not then and is not now an issue. As an indicator of ability to discharge the duties of elected office, military service is immaterial -- a non-issue. The issue was and is about loyalty to those who do wear the uniform. The issue is about national loyalty to those who the nation has sent to war -- not only the privates but also their NCOs, their officers, and their national command authority. The issue is about national loyalty to a national military campaign against a national enemy by authority of our national legislature. The issue is, in a word, patriotism. And despite its annoyance to Teddy Kennedy and Dan Rather and Whoopi Goldberg, it is not unreasonable to question the patriotism of John Kerry or any other sitting senator who would be disloyal to a national military campaign, because national loyalty is patriotism. Skeptical? Read Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language where it explains, “patriotism: n. devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty.” Thus, the opening question is answered. Yes. There most certainly is a virtue that is both militarily and politically relevant as well as honorable. National loyalty is highly relevant, and it is an honorable thing.

Military Service as a Political Issue and the Lessons of Vietnam

Written by Lt. Colonel Charles Wade
Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Even before the primary elections, President Bush’s military service was a political issue as was Senator Kerry’s military service which he touted and others questioned. Reporters continue to seek comment from candidates, political operatives, and pundits. It seems that everyone is an expert, and everyone has an answer. Some of the more interesting responses have come from Republican senators who typically begin by asserting that they honor Senator Kerry’s Viet Nam service, but…

Honor: What is that all about? What virtues are honorable? More important, what virtues are both militarily and politically relevant as well as honorable?

In politics, today’s vice may be tomorrow’s virtue. Warriors, on the other hand, live or die by constant and immutable virtues. Warriors honor those virtues, and the virtue of loyalty is the most honored. Veterans of the Viet Nam era bitterly resented the disloyalty of those who turned their backs to the military and were glorified by the press for doing so. Among the more notorious were Jane Fonda, Joan Baez, and many of the media glitterati. A few, such as Bob Hope, Martha Raye, and John Wayne, refused to turn their backs to America’s armed forces. They were loyal, and that was an honorable thing.

Among the Viet Nam era’s veterans who actually served in combat was Lieutenant John Kerry. He distinguished himself on the battlefield and was well decorated for it. Yet, while we were still engaged in mortal combat with the enemy, John Kerry in a melodramatic gesture of defiance trashed his decorations and in so doing demeaned the honor of every warrior who wore the same medals. He was disloyal to his peers, and that was not an honorable thing. When he spoke to the Congress of the United States, he gave disproportionate, unbalanced, and misleading testimony that undermined the integrity of the military leadership. John Kerry was disloyal to the armed forces, and that was not an honorable thing. On worldwide television, he marched in the streets and lent false credence to those who served the purposes of a national enemy. John Kerry was disloyal to our nation, and that was not an honorable thing.

Thirty years ago, long before George W. Bush crossed the political horizon, my comrades in arms and I were acutely aware of John Kerry. We had seen numerous Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart medals awarded to many friends none of whom postured themselves as heroes, but John Kerry did. And to our astonishment, a committee of our legislature gave to that erstwhile junior officer our national stage from which to bleat his sophomoric theories of world affairs and national strategy. When John Kerry testified, I was teaching cadets at the Air Force Academy, and we studied the scruffily-groomed upstart. His wearing of a disgracefully tatty facsimile of a field uniform, to which he had inappropriately attached ribbons, was an affront to the dignity of both the Navy and the Congress. Yet, members of Congress fawned over that ragamuffin who with unmitigated gall presumed to represent the views of people who wore the uniform. From his bad example, Air Force cadets received a lesson in how not to behave. Despite its shamefulness however, John Kerry’s demeanor was insignificant compared to the betrayal of his words. Ho Chi Minh could not have done better had he himself written the script. The dishonor of John Kerry’s testimony in Washington totally eclipsed the honor of his service in the field. John Kerry’s disrespect could be forgiven, but he was disloyal, and that was not an honorable thing.

John Kerry knowingly contributed to a cause that robbed those in the field of the one weapon we desperately needed and did not have -- a political will to win. At the hands of irresolute politicians and bureaucrats the war was needlessly protracted, lives were lost, and prisoners languished only to the advantage of an ever-so-patient enemy. American indecision was not North Viet Nam’s ally by happenstance. It was predictable, and it was predicted by Ho Chi Minh who orchestrated it with great calculation. It was decisive in their victory over the United States -- not on the battlefield but in the streets and on the floor of an irresolute legislature cowed by disloyal propagandists at the forefront of whom stood Abbie Hoffman, Jane Fonda, and John Kerry. Theirs is the legacy of carnage wrought by the Khmer Rouge across Cambodia’s Killing Fields. But, in the larger scheme of world affairs, the Communist rape of Indo-China is far from the most damaging consequence of their disloyalty. Much more detrimental to the long-term prospects for world peace were the budding foes who would grow politically strong by feeding on the diminution of America’s credibility. Our enemies learned well this lesson of Viet Nam.

On a 21st century battlefield that extends from Iraq to our hometowns, Americans are fighting those once-budding enemies who are now capable of applying lethal tactics with global reach and relentless determination. Again, the notion that Americans do not have the political will to fight a long campaign is being trumpeted by the enemies of democracy. For three decades, the evidentiary backbone of their propaganda has been the defeat of the United States at the hands of Stalinist dictators in North Viet Nam. John Kerry played a part in that defeat and shares the blame for its disastrous consequences. Today, our political will is being undermined by the same treachery preached by the same people using the same twisted vocabulary, and that is not an honorable thing.

On the morning of September the 11th in the year 2001 while New York was in flames, Katie Couric spoke on TV to an international audience and suggested that the attack on the World Trade Center was the fault of America and its new president. Déjà vu! Media glitterati including the likes of Couric and Michael Moore predictably have joined Senator Kerry as he replays his Viet Nam era role. When our warriors die at the hands of a determined enemy dedicated to the destruction of American civilization, Kerry and his crowd aim their politically-motivated fury not at our enemy but at our national command authority. They foment a popular disloyalty that if carried to its logical conclusion will result in a failure of America’s political will to win, and that is not an honorable thing.

Loyalty travels along a two-way street between the private soldier at the bottom and Congress at the top of a long chain of command. Our constitution assigns only to Congress the power to make war and along with it the responsibility for all war made. Of all actions taken by our national legislature, only the making of war is related to section 3 of the judicial article of the constitution which criminalizes disloyal behavior like adhering to, aiding, and comforting national enemies. Of all acts passed by our national legislature, only the defining of national enemies and the making of war are constitutionally linked to national loyalty. Consequently, prudent legislators will be wary and circumspect prior to making war. Prudent legislators will vigorously and exhaustively examine, question, and debate proposals before they make war. They will do this, because once they collectively legislate war, their individual loyalty to that legislation becomes constitutionally linked to the loyalty that every legislator owes to the troops who must unquestioningly serve the legislated national cause. In war, loyalty is optional at neither end of the chain of command.

Prudent legislators will cautiously exercise their war-making power, because in making war, incumbent legislators must accept a unique constraint on their political behavior. Uniquely when Congress makes war, all national legislators are constitutionally expected to individually support their collectively approved legislation. When Congress collectively draws the sword, each and every senator and representative becomes individually responsible for the steadiness of the hand that wields the sword. For incumbent legislators on the national campaign trail, regardless of inconvenience to their electoral prospects or other political expedience, undermining confidence in the chain of command is not an honorable thing.

Senator Kerry has made an election issue of service during the Viet Nam War. He and his politicos have dredged up that sorry chapter, and from those same politicos one still hears the hollow and time-worn phrase, “I support the troops, but….” The notion that a national legislator can support our troops whilst simultaneously promoting disloyalty to our troops’ national cause or their national command authority is a fiction authored during the Viet Nam era. Anyone seeking similarities between Viet Nam and Iraq need look no farther than ‘Loyalty Street.’ From there, one can clearly see the rampant disloyalty on Capitol Hill. To achieve their own selfish ambitions, Senator Kerry and a host of national legislators are sacrificing national loyalty on an alter of political expedience, and that is not an honorable thing.

The Kerry campaign has attempted to discredit executives within the national command authority by maligning their military service (or lack thereof) during the Viet Nam era. In so doing, John Kerry’s allies and, amazingly, John Kerry himself demonstrate their hapless and probably hopeless ignorance of yet another lesson of Viet Nam: military service was never an issue. Whether or not John Wayne or George W. Bush or Bill Clinton or even John Kerry ever wore a uniform was not then and is not now an issue. As an indicator of ability to discharge the duties of elected office, military service is immaterial -- a non-issue. The issue was and is about loyalty to those who do wear the uniform. The issue is about national loyalty to those who the nation has sent to war -- not only the privates but also their NCOs, their officers, and their national command authority. The issue is about national loyalty to a national military campaign against a national enemy by authority of our national legislature. The issue is, in a word, patriotism. And despite its annoyance to Teddy Kennedy and Dan Rather and Whoopi Goldberg, it is not unreasonable to question the patriotism of John Kerry or any other sitting senator who would be disloyal to a national military campaign, because national loyalty is patriotism. Skeptical? Read Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language where it explains, “patriotism: n. devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty.”

Thus, the opening question is answered. Yes. There most certainly is a virtue that is both militarily and politically relevant as well as honorable. National loyalty is highly relevant, and it is an honorable thing.

THE story of the 2004 election that no TV or Cable newsroom wants America to know.
Note : IF it was on 60 Minutes 1st, they would tell you.

Click Here for NY Sun 10/13/04
Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge

http://www.nysun.com/article/3107

A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry
had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge.
There has been no response to that inquiry.

Click Here for Wall Street Journal 10/13/04
Op Ed on Kerry's Mystery Navy Discharge

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005752

Click Here for
the Stolen Honor documentary that Kerry
and the Democrats do not want YOU to see.

http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/samples.asp

Send this url to your e-mail lists and media contacts.

Media contacts in all 50 States

http://congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/

Click Here for
The Final 2 Swift Boat Vets Ads!

Windows Media

They Served

http://swift3.he.net/~swift3/theyserved.wmv

Why?

http://swift3.he.net/~swift3/why.wmv

Real Player

They Served

http://swift3.he.net/~swift3/theyserved.rm

Why?

http://swift3.he.net/~swift3/why.rm

Quick Time

They Served

http://swift3.he.net/~swift3/theyserved.mov

Why?

http://swift3.he.net/~swift3/why.mov

AOL

They Served

http://swift3.he.net/~swift3/theyserved.mpg

Why?

http://swift3.he.net/~swift3/why.mpg

Click Here for
the other Swift Boat Vets Ads!

HANOI KERRY
CLICK HERE TO SIGN FORM 180

BUSH DID

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?
WHAT IS YOUR SECRET?
WHAT DON'T YOU WANT
AMERICA AND THE PRESS TO KNOW?

Hanoi Kerry : Help is on the way!
Hanoi Jane Partners with MoveOn.Org
Click Here

"First I picked Edwards BUT now I pick Hanoi Jane!"

Edwards played football in 1971 when he turned 18
instead of serving in Vietnam.
Hanoi Jane at least was a Viet Cong!
Just like me!

Hanoi Jane and I know how to demoralize US Troops serving today!

We hate US Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We hate all US Troops!

We lie about them in 2004 the same as we did in the 60's and 70's!

We vow to insult and undermine Iraq Prime Minister Ayad Allawi

We vow to protect the UN and the Oil for Food Scandal

We vow to keep secret the ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida

We vow to free Saddam Hussein with help from our old friend Ramsey Clark.

John F. Kerry
Timeline of a traitor.
Click Here

Free online version of
Kerry's "The New Soldier"
You can read it online right now.

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.