Let me be frank. John Kerry, who served our country in the Vietnam War, betrayed those of us who fought and militarily WON that war. His betrayal, by virtue of turning against that war, leading a radical segment of the anti-war movement (which included Jane Fonda -- Hanoi Jane) by publicly demonstrating against that war and testifying before Congress against it will be remembered by us to our graves. His perfidy contributed to the weakening of the will of the American people to continue to support the South Vietnamese at a time (after the disastrous -- to the North Vietnamese -- Tet Offensive) when victory was within reach. This betrayal of our anti-communist ally in its greatest time of need resulted in a 'political victory' for Ho Chi Minh and the North Vietnamese communists. It led to imprisonment, re-education, and suffering by hundreds of thousands of our South Vietnamese allies. And it became a subtle but signature demonstration to the world, and especially to our present-day enemies, that America might not be trusted to keep its promises to Third World 'allies' who are threatened by totalitarian forces. Such perceptions have emboldened Islamic fundamentalists to attack us wherever and whenever possible all over the world -- including on our own soil.

       Let me also be 'up front' about my experience in that war. As a Navy carrier combat aviator, I flew missions over North Vietnam. I have friends who were killed, shot down and taken prisoner, brutally tortured, and spent up to seven-and-one-half years as POWs in the Hanoi Hilton and outlying detention camps. I have been shot at day and night over the North. I have evaded SAM missiles.  During one memorable instance, my aircraft was hit and, but for the grace of God, I survived. Anti-aircraft fire blasted a large hole in the horizontal stabilizer only four feet from the jet engines and several smaller holes in the left wing. This very slim margin of 'error' for the anti-aircraft gunners was the fickle thread of fate between my survival and the possibility of a fiery, flaming death or ejection at supersonic speed resulting in severe injury and/or years of captivity and torture in a POW camp. More than a few of my friends suffered the latter fate.

       Obviously, I am proud of my contribution in fighting the Vietnam War. And when that service was completed, like thousands of other volunteers who served, I returned to civilian life, as did a huge majority of Vietnam War Veterans, and became a productive citizen enjoying the opportunities afforded those of us who live in freedom.

       John Kerry, on return from his Vietnam service, not only betrayed us by his 'bogus' portrayal of our part in fighting that war -- he betrayed the American people. And that is the larger story that must be told here. It is a story about John Kerry's generation. This is a generation whom the historians William Strauss and Neil Howe describe as [1] "a destructive generation whose work is not yet over,"  possibly the most dangerous generation in America's history.  John Kerry unwittingly validated that judgment in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention [2]. "'We believed we could change the world,' Kerry said of [his early post-Vietnam days as an anti-war activist]. 'And you know what? We did. But we're not finished.'" Yes, indeed. The damage that they can do with a continuation of the 'Boomer-elite' presidency is worse than was accomplished during the 1990s.

       But this story is much more comprehensive than the animus that some three million or so Vietnam War Veterans may have for the anti-war protesters of the Boomer generation. This story has vast importance in terms of the votes cast in the 2004 presidential election (especially for the 11 million or so Independent voters who may be classified as 'undecided'  -- and consequently, for the survival of American civilization.

       I have written extensively about the 'power elites' of the Boomer generation. Links  in these paragraphs and at the bottom of this essay lead you to the most important of these descriptions.  Those who unmasked themselves immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attack on America are described in the essay, 'Indigenous Enemies Within.' They are the former members of the anti-establishment Weather Underground of the 1960s and their sympathizers who are now comfortably embedded across the land in our nation's academic, media, religious and political institutions. These former anti-Vietnam War activists have been busily undermining our nation's social fabric within the structure of its major institutions over the past three decades. They are now giving aid-and-comfort to our Islamic fundamentalist enemies. These 5th-column Americans will vote lock-step for John Kerry.

       I have written about the inroads made by anti-war activists in our nation's institutions of higher education. As one example, I describe the de-facto 'shadow' Jane Fonda Distinguished Chair of anti-Vietnam War Studies at the U.S. Naval Academy, introduced in the 1990s under cover of a New Age 'ethics' curriculum featuring texts by Peter Singer, Tim O'Brien, and Toni Morrison. The fact that such programs have invaded even one of the nations most venerable military institutions reveals the depth into which the anti-war movement, the radical feminist movement, and the black studies movement has infiltrated all of our nation's leading educational institutions. A summary of the attitudes of these authors is contained at the link, 'A Summary of the Views of John Kerry's Supporters.' All of these people will vote for John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

       John Kerry's testimony before Congress during his radical anti-Vietnam War days in the early 1970s is nearly lock-step with the stories told in famous (for the elite Boomers) anti-Vietnam War novels by Tim O'Brien. A more direct route to these deeply revealing books is via the links, 'Tim O'Brien's Ethics,' 'Going After Cacciato,' and 'In the Lake of the Woods.' All of Tim O'Brien's supporters will be voting for John Kerry.

       A large segment of the vote for John Kerry will come from the supporters of Toni Morrison. Her books which reveal a deep, visceral hatred of men, including black men (incest and bestiality are foundational in her novels), and all white people. Two of these books are reviewed at the links: 'Song of Solomon,' and 'Beloved.' All of Toni Morrison's fans will be voting for John Kerry.

       The one new aspect of all of the above-described supporters of John Kerry is the impact of Michael Moore, the scrubby profaner of documentary filmmaking. His latest movie, 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' is an anti-war, hate-America propaganda film in the genre of Leni Riefenstahl [3] who achieved pariah status in social and artistic circles for her indictment as a Nazi sympathizer (and subsequent four years in prison) at the end of World War II. Her two major works were funded by, and intended to glorify Hitler and the Nazis. I have addressed this aspect of the 2004 presidential election in two new essays on this Web Site. One, 'Small-Town America: The Heartland,' contains a detailed critique of Michael Moore's movie and provides evidence based on personal, professional experience regarding the necessity of America's invasion of Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power.

       The other essay, 'Michael Moore, John, and Me,' describes how three 'home-town boys' from Davison, Michigan could and did take entirely different paths to adulthood from a relatively 'traditional,' 'common-sense' conservative ('Red' town) environment in a 'Blue' county state. It provides insight into why two of these young men can never come 'home' after their experiment with the 'looney Left' and betrayal of the values held by America's heartland. It is a story which is a microcosm of the entire 'Blue' and 'Red' geographical map of the 2000 presidential election. As such it is a microscopic description of the culture war that America is fighting inside its borders. This story, along with the background and subtext of the first essay above, is a story that bears directly on the importance of the 2004 presidential election to the survival of American civilization.

       The political analysts tell us that [4] "...this is a polarized presidential election. Most people have made up their minds...a small percentage of voters are still holding out: 4 percent were unable to offer a preference in the contest between [Bush and Kerry]...An additional 19 percent of those surveyed said they were inclined toward a candidate, but that it was too early to make a final decision...Call them disengaged. In a hotly contested election, they are paying less attention to the campaigns than voters overall are, and they are more likely to be uninformed about the candidates. They are also more likely to identify themselves as moderate and independent...and like other voters, they are divided about the war in Iraq." That is precisely the group of people that I wish to reach with the information on this Web Site.

       Other political analysts observe that [5] "When it comes to registering voters, the two major parties only look in envy -- and dismay -- at the swelling ranks of unaffiliated voters...the proportion of voters who have not identified themselves with either of the major parties has jumped 8 percentage points, from 16 to 24 percent [of all registered voters]…" The article displays a graph which shows that the growth of registered democrats from 1987 to 2004 is 4.8 million, for Republicans 8.0 million and for 'Other,' that is Independents 11.0 million. The latter category will decide the 2004 presidential election.

       A conservative political analyst reveals that [6] "[Politically active delegates] to the Democratic National Convention were well to the left of most rank-and-file Democrats on the fundamental economic, social and national security issues -- more so than the general electorate. For example, an ideological gulf exists over the Iraq war between [those who gathered there] and their party at large and the general voting population. Nine out of ten delegates said the war to topple Saddam Hussein's regime 'was not worth the loss of life and other costs… Although 93 percent of the delegates held that view, another poll shows the country much more evenly divided over Iraq, with 46 percent of all voters still supporting the invasion. Even 21 percent of all Democratic voters still say the war was the right thing to do."

       The analyst continues, "A similar gulf separates the delegates from their party and the rest of the country on the war on terrorism. Seventy-seven percent of the delegates said they were more worried anti-terrorism laws will restrict civil liberties. But only 53 percent of all Democratic voters hold that view, and 43 percent of all voters. Notably, very few delegates -- barely 1 in 6 -- see the Iraq war and terrorism as one of the most important issues in this election." Indeed, the 'power elites,' including John Kerry, are in the vanguard of the anti-war movement of the 21st century.

       In John Kerry's acceptance address, he talked 'tough' on the Islamic terrorists [7]. "'Any attack [on America] will be met with a swift and certain response' [he said]. Got that? If the Empire State Building is taken out, he'll certainly respond to it. Next time around, there won't be any mistakes about where the weapons of mass destruction are, because they'll be in the middle of a big crater in Chicago."

       This brings back many bitter-sweet memories of another New England Democrat telling is that we should 'bear any burden, make any sacrifice, pay any price' in a war to maintain freedom for the South Vietnamese people. And later find elite Boomer generation 'leaders,' such as John Kerry, betray that call to arms by publicly supporting anti-war activists in a campaign to undermine the will of the American people to support that war. John Kerry has not changed. He simply wishes to convince us that he has changed his stripes.

       The Washington Post [8] provides us excerpts of John Kerry's 1971 anti-Vietnam War testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. [He appeared with long hair, a rumpled open-collar Army shirt with his service ribbons displayed over the left breast-pocket]. It is quoted from Kerry's book of that period, 'The New Soldier,' Collier Books, 1971. "I would like to say for the record, and for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniform and their medals, that my being here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry, but as one member of a group of 1,000, which in turn is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country … I would like to talk about the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam."

       "The country doesn't realize it yet but it has created a monster in the form of thousands of men who have been taught to deal and trade in violence and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history -- men who have returned with a sense of anger and betrayal that no one so far has been able to grasp. We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country…"

       "We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum … We watched the United States' falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts …"

       "We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point …"

       "Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, 'the first president to lose a war.' We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? …"

       "Finally, this administration has done us the ultimate dishonor. They have attempted to disown us and the sacrifices we made for this country. In their blindness and their fear they have tried to deny that we are veterans or that we served in Nam. We do not need  their testimony. Our own scars and stumps of limbs are witness enough for others and for ourselves."

       "We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission -- to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last 10 years and more, so when 30 years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say 'Vietnam' and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead the place where America finally turned and where solders like us helped it in the turning."

       And, of course, this testimony did not convey all that Kerry claimed was wrong with the American effort to drive the communists from South Vietnam. The New York Times reveals that April 22, 1971, John Kerry electrified the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with his passionate testimony against the war, and with tales from fellow veterans about the 'absolute horror of what his country, in a sense, made them do' in Southeast Asia [9]. "Summarizing the accounts of American soldiers he had heard at an antiwar conference in Detroit weeks earlier, Mr. Kerry said the men told how 'they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

       The NYT continues. "The full picture is complex. In 1970 and 1971, Mr. Kerry was among the most prominent spokesmen for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, whose major patrons included the actress Jane Fonda, and which later staged takeovers of public buildings and walkouts from Veterans Administration hospitals."

       Although Kerry denies ever being in the company of 'Hanoi Jane' Fonda during any of these radical anti-war events, Bob Novak has evidence that he has appeared with her [10]. "Actually, Kerry and Fonda both were among war resisters with the most extreme positions in criticizing U.S. participation in Vietnam. Kerry, as the New England representative, attended a VVAW executive committee meeting Sept. 11, 1970. Minutes show plans to picket the National Guard Association convention in New York, to sponsor 'war crimes testimony' at the United Nations and to coordinate with Fonda's speaking tour. It was decided at t later VVAW staff meeting to bar the American flag from the organization's offices...A VVAW flier of the period claims 'American soldiers' commit atrocities 'every day' against 'the Vietnamese simply because they are 'Gooks.'' Kerry bought into the VVAW mantra that war crimes were not isolated in Vietnam. He told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that 'in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan,' U.S. troops committed unspeakable atrocities, while they 'ravaged the countryside.'"

       These comments have brought harsh and angry criticism from a host of Vietnam War veterans, some of whom have Web Sites which purport to tell the 'real story' of John Kerry's Vietnam War record, including the details of his actions which resulted in combat medals for valor and his Purple Heart medals. Rather than summarize the information on these sites, I choose to let you visit them as you wish (here are three out of the 152,000 that currently reside on the Internet):

Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry:                  http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com
Vietnam Special Forces Against Kerry:                  http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com 
Veterans Against Kerry                                           http://www.vetsagainstkerry.com

       The Washington Times conveys some of the objections that Vietnam War veterans have to the anti-war statements made by John Kerry [11]. Ted Sampley, who fought in Vietnam and publishes 'U.S. Veteran Dispatch,' recently started a group called Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry (Web Site above). The Web site, which labels the senator 'Hanoi John Kerry,' has attracted thousands of anti-Kerry E-mails and online postings from other veterans. Mr. Sampley remembers Mr. Kerry's testimony [quite] starkly: "He gave the OK to the American people to call U.S. soldiers in Vietnam 'baby killers.'" Of course, all of this is in the same mold as the anti-Vietnam War novels by Tim O'Brien described at the links several paragraphs above.

       The Times also reveals that John Kerry was a key speaker at the antiwar rally at Valley Forge, telling those gathered that "We are here because we above all others have earned the right to criticize the war on Southeast Asia. 'It is not patriotism to ask Americans to die for a mistake,' Mr. Kerry, wearing an Army jacket, told the crowd that included other Vietnam veterans. 'It is not patriotic to allow a president to talk about not being the first president to lose a war, and using us as pawns in that game.'"

       "An organizer for this and many other protests was actress and VVAW supporter Jane Fonda, who later became the symbol of treasonous protest when she went to Hanoi and sat astride an anti-aircraft gun that had surely been used to shoot down American planes. Though Kerry was caught in a photograph with Miss Fonda, the senator has since said they were not close associates."

       Given this record of a former anti-war demonstrator who became a senator from the state of Massachusetts, it is hardly stuff of lending confidence in his ability to become Commander in Chief of a military which is mired knee-deep in the 'slog' of occupying Iraq. With all of the uncertainties, mistakes, experiments gone sour, poor intelligence, and just the age-old vagaries of warfare, the American people are becoming restless about America's occupation of Iraq. In fact, at the time of this writing [12], "most Americans now say that sending U.S. troops to Iraq was a mistake...It is the first time since Vietnam that a majority of Americans has called a major deployment of U.S. forces a mistake. When the war in Iraq began last year, the public by three-to-one said sending troops wasn't a mistake. Just three weeks ago, 58% still held that view. Now 54% say it was a mistake."

       Here we are -- déjà vu all over again. Given the craven record of the 'elite Boomers' when they held executive power during the 1990s and their indecisiveness and inaction on all fronts of the war that Osama bin Laden and other fanatics long ago declared on America, it is hardly time to go back to that well of indecision and weakness. John Kerry, as demonstrated by his anti-war record, is simply not the man for the job. To replace a sitting president just at the time when America has just routed the Taliban in Afghanistan and deposed the cruel, dangerous dictator, Saddam Hussein, in Iraq just when we are starting to marshal all of our nation's resources to combat the Islamic militant threat would be tantamount to having replaced Franklin D. Roosevelt just as our forces were being driven from the Philippines via the Bataan Peninsula. Only a foolish nation, bent on suicide, would even consider such an action.

        Maybe it is time to stop, think a bit, and consult what able historians are saying about the choices we have to make this November. The eminent Scottish historian, Niall Ferguson, addresses this question [13]. "Sen. Kerry has been having it both ways over Iraq...He voted for the resolution in October 2002 that authorized the use of armed force against Saddam Hussein. But last year he voted against the $87 billion package requested ...to finance Iraq's occupation and reconstruction. This war, too, now seems to Sen. Kerry to have been a 'mistake.'"

       Ferguson continues. "This is where lessons from Vietnam are indeed apposite. But they are not the lessons learned by John Kerry. First, fighting the war in Vietnam was not a mistake. Abandoning it was the mistake. I have just returned from a short tour of that country, which allowed me to see firsthand what three decades of Communist rule have achieved there. The very best that can be said is that they achieved nothing. The worst that can be said is that by throwing in the towel in 1973, the U.S. condemned South Vietnam to 30 years of repression, corruption and poverty. And the best proof that these were truly 'lost years' for the people of Vietnam are the current frantic efforts of the country's leaders to bring back capitalism."

       "There is virtually nothing about Ho Chi Minh City today that differentiates it from the Saigon of 1973, except the red flags with the gold stars and the tired old socialist-realist posters. The free market is rampant. In Hue, too, and even in the charmless town of Dong Ha, just south of the former Demilitarized Zone, the streets are lined with small businesses and thronged with scooters propelling people from warehouse to store to Internet café. An ill-informed visitor might be forgiven for wondering if perhaps the U.S. won the Vietnam War in stoppage of time...You have to ask yourself why between one and three million had to die for the sake of a 30-year detour down an ideological cul-de-sac. South Vietnam might be where South Korea is today if the U.S. had not quit."

       Ferguson then addresses the war in Iraq in terms of the lessons learned from the abandonment of South Vietnam. "In many ways, of course, the U.S. finds itself in a quite different predicament in Iraq today. It went to war in the belief that Saddam posed a threat not just to Iraqis but to Americans. In a matter of weeks, the enemy's conventional forces were smashed….The levels of military commitment and of casualties are much lower than in Vietnam. Yet in one respect there is a similarity. If the U.S. withdraws prematurely from Iraq the chances that it will prosper as an economically liberal democracy are slim. It could become an Islamic republic. More likely, it could descend into civil war. In either case, it would take Iraqis a generation to recover, just as it has taken the people of Vietnam a generation to get over the miseries of Marxism-Leninism."

       "But even President Bush himself strikes me as being in too much of a hurry to get out of Iraq. But at least he -- unlike John Kerry -- does not regard the overthrow of Saddam as a mistake, best expunged by cutting off the aid Iraq so desperately needs … It is [John Kerry's] grasp of history -- and its implications for U.S. strategy today -- that looks shaky. And let's not forget: the original 'band of brothers' won their war."

       There we have it in the small. But there is an even broader historical perspective that bears on the point of John Kerry's mettle for the presidency of the United States of America. I have written extensively on the subject. It is imperative to have a 'generational' perspective if one wishes to make an informed choice in the 2004 presidential election. For this, I lean on the history of 'cycles' in Americas past. William Strauss and Neil Howe are authors who have provided us with a detailed history of these cycles. In addition, they have elucidated the possibility of disastrous results for America if we do not check the Idealistic Boomer generation in its grasp for power.

       Strauss and Howe have characterized their prediction of the next secular crisis, based on the social history of the U.S. as [14] "At all four of these moments, Americans perceived their social life to be fragmenting into centrifugal and uncontrollable wildness...At this moment, the generational cycle will approach its moment of maximum opportunity, and danger...We can foresee a full range of possible outcomes, from stirring achievement [a la the aftermath of World War II] to apocalyptic tragedy...Any crisis with a bad ending could bring unprecedented tragedy [a la the disappearance of ancient democratic Greece or the dissolution of the Soviet Union or the horror of the chaotic dissolution of the Rwandan 'nation-state']...If the cycle has any central lesson, it is that each generational type makes its own unique contribution to human progress, something its members alone, among the living, can provide in sufficient measure to keep civilization from veering toward disaster."

       Based on this history, Strauss and Howe counsel America with the following wisdom, "Boomers can best serve civilization by restraining themselves (or letting themselves be restrained by others) until their twilight years, when their spiritual energy would find expression not in midlife leadership, but in elder stewardship."

       This is precisely why a vote for John Kerry, one of the most 'elite' of the 'elite Boomer' generation, is a vote for indecisiveness, doubt, instability, and the possibility of America's failure to emerge from the coming Secular Crisis of our current Fourth Turning period with a successful outcome. You may wish to review the historical basis for this possibility at the links: 'Chaos Theory and the Fourth Turning' and 'Threats to America's Survival.'

       It is imperative that responsible voters at least read these essays and digest their fundamental concepts and meaning before going to the voting booth election day in November of 2004.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Footnotes:
1)  Strauss, Wm. & Howe, Neil, "Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069,"  pp. 314, Quill Publisher, 1991.
2)  Steyn, Mark, "Blowin' in the weird," The Washington Times, 2 August 2004.
3)  Morris, Gary, "Lonesome Leni: The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl," www.brightlightsfilm.com/26/riefenstahl.html, downloaded 17 July 2004.
4)  Connelly, Marjorie, "The Undecided Among Us," The New York Times, 1 August 2004.
5)  Cook, Rhodes, "Moving On: More Voters Are Steering Away From Party Labels," The Washington Post, 27 June 2004.
6)  Lambro, Donald, "Delegates unrepresentative?" The Washington Times, 2 August 2004.
7)  Ibid, Steyn, Mark.
8)  "Excerpts of Kerry's 1971 Vietnam Testimony," The Washington Post, 21 February 2004. From 'The New Soldier,' by John Kerry, Collier Books, New York, 1971.
9)  Purdum, Todd S., "In '71 Antiwar Words, a Complex View of Kerry," The New York Times, 28 February 2004.
10) Novak, Rober D., "Kerry and Hanoi Jane," The Washington Post, 19 February 2004.
11) Hurt, Charles, "Vets refuse to forgive Kerry for antiwar acts," The Washington Times, 20 February 2004.
12) Page, Susan, "Most see Iraq as mistake, but Bush gains," USA TODAY, 25-27 June 2004.
13) Ferguson, Niall, "Imperialists and Running Dogs," The Wall Street Journal, 3 February 2004.
14) Strauss, William and Howe, Neil, "Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069," pp. 374-426, William Morrow & Company, 1991.

                                                                                         Return to:


            Home                      America is at War           John Kerry: The Manchurian Candidate             Stolen Honor