|
Kerry coming unhinged?
It’s starting to become plausible that Kerry is, not to put too fine a point on it, nuts. He’s now saying that he would have authorized war even if he had known there were no WMDs. This totally contradicts everything he’s been saying for the last year and a half. In recent months, for example, he has been suggesting that had he been president, we would not have been at war. During the same period has also repeatedly attacked Bush for “misleading” us into war, i.e., misleading us about the WMDs, meaning that had Bush not “lied” about WMDs, we wouldn’t have been at war at all. Before that, he had said repeatedly that even after he voted to authorize Bush to go to war, that vote was intended not to authorize Bush to go to war, but only to authorize Bush to threaten Hussein so that Hussein would allow WMD inspections. But now Kerry’s saying he would have voted to authorize war even with no WMDs. So what happens to an entire year’s worth of Kerry’s angry statements that Bush’s failure to continue the inspections for a much longer period of time was the worst thing Bush did? Apparently, the man is so used to lying that he doesn’t know he’s doing it. This explains why he told his biographer Brinkley the exact opposite about Christmas Eve 1968—that he had been in Vietnam—from what he had been repeating for the previous 25 years, on the floor of the U.S. Senate and in numerous other venues—an elaborate story of being in Cambodia on that Christmas Eve. As he wrote in the Boston Herald in October 1979:
I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.Of course, Nixon did not take over the presidency from Lyndon Johnson until January 20, 1969, a rather salient fact of history for a college educated and politically astute navy officer serving in Vietnam at the time; and I don’t think the issue of U.S. troops being in Cambodia even came up during Johnson’s term. Kerry is apparently projecting backwards into December 1968 the Cambodia controversy from a later period, when he had returned home. In any case, Kerry has gone to the bank on one story for 25 years about his anti-war epiphany in Cambodia, and now he tells a completely different story to his biographer that makes a lie out of the first story, and he doesn’t even seem to realize he’s done this.
The Democrats thought that with Kerry they were getting the un-Dean. Now it turns out that Kerry is as unhinged as Howard, only without the energy and verve.
Is the time approaching to bring back another memory from Kerry’s glory days of the early 1970s—and have him do an Eagleton? Email entry |