John Kerry likes to shine the spotlight away
from one of the larger issues in this presidential campaign, whether or not
he has a problem with credibility. The credibility flap-de-jour (sorry, that
was French wasn’t it) is whether or not he tossed his medals over the White
House fence back in 1971. But the real problem isn’t as mundane as what he
did or didn’t toss over a fence, at issue is whether he possesses
credibility, integrity. So far, I’m not sure I have seen any.
The Kerry campaign has gone to great lengths to slap the "there’s a question
about his credibility” label on President Bush. In the early days of the
campaign they rallied around the WMD issue, proclaiming the president "led
us into war by overstating the facts about WMD.” They hammered on this issue
hoping the electorate would forget that everyone else in the world held the
same intelligence as the truth. As the facts about the intelligence
deficiencies came to light even those firmly placed in the Kerry camp
allowed the issue to die realizing that anyone in President Bush’s position
more than likely would’ve done the same thing given the same information and
circumstances. Remember, Kerry voted to authorize the president to use force
based on that same information.
Then we had the quasi-slanderous attack on the president’s service record.
The Kerry campaign claimed President Bush hadn’t served honorably in the
Texas Air National Guard despite the fact he possessed an honorable
discharge. Terry McAuliffe even went so far as to say the president went
AWOL. But after all was said and done, and after President Bush willingly
released all of his service records – something Kerry hasn’t done completely
– this issue too was found to be inconsequential, born out of the divisive
nature of the Kerry campaign’s politics.
These two issues alone could spark great debate over Kerry’s credibility. He
raised two issues that he knew harbored no merit before he went public with
the accusations yet he did so anyway, all for political gain. I believe we
could’ve swallowed all of the afore mentioned, chalking it all up to
election year politics and the heatedly partisan climate of our political
system and it probably wouldn’t have affected Kerry at all. But, most likely
to Kerry’s dismay, there is more.
The credibility issue-de-jour, or "phony controversy” as Kerry is calling
it, is whether or not he threw his medals over the White House fence in
1971. Kerry went on Good Morning America and proclaimed he only threw some
of his ribbons over the fence and that he tossed another disgruntled
veteran’s medals over the fence for him. This is reiterated on Kerry’s
campaign website. But on November 6th, 1971, Kerry said something quite
different. During an interview with a television station Kerry proclaimed
he, "gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals." When the
interviewer asked about his Purple Hearts and Silver Star Kerry said, "Above
that, I gave my others," – not someone else’s but his. Yesterday he said he
"gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals," today he says
he only "gave back” a few of his ribbons. I suppose it’s a good thing for us
Kerry’s statements are on the media record or perhaps we would’ve never
gotten to the bottom of that one.
Then we have the SUV matter. Kerry told supporters at a Houston "Earth Day"
rally he truly disliked gas-guzzling SUV’s because they were poor for the
environment. Because of that he once proposed a 50-cent gas tax increase
(hmm…tax increase). But when asked by reporters about the SUV parked in his
driveway he responded that he doesn’t "own an SUV.” He went on to say, "The
family has the SUV. I don't have it." He states this in light of the fact
his "family” owns not only the 1995 Chevrolet Suburban in question but a
1993 Land Rover Defender, a 1989 Jeep Cherokee, a 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee
and a 2001 Audi Allroad as well. I guess it’s okay to hate SUV’s as much as
Kerry does and not have a problem with five of them belonging to your
"family" but it doesn’t speak well for someone who wants to be viewed as
credible.
Yet another credibility issue facing John Kerry has to do with the $87
billion appropriation for the efforts currently underway in Iraq. Every
major media outlet has Kerry saying, "I actually did vote for the $87
billion, before I voted against it.” Kerry contends he voted for the $87
billion appropriation simply by stating he would have supported the bill if
repealing a portion of the Bush tax cuts had financed it. Kerry made that
proposal in an amendment he cosponsored; the Senate rejected the amendment
before approving the $87 billion – a supplemental appropriation that
included funding for body armor. The truth of the matter is Kerry voted yes
for an amendment to the $87 billion appropriation bill and no on the actual
bill. Where he voted "yea” for the $87 billion has yet to been seen.
As I said, the issue at hand isn’t as mundane as whether Kerry threw his
ribbons or medals (or someone else’s), owns an SUV or whether he voted yes
before voting no. The real and more disturbing issue at hand is Kerry’s
absolute need to be on both sides of every issue. His addiction to this
balance/counter-balance approach to every issue – and his voting record is
full of it (no pun intended) – brings up a very valid concern about his
credibility. Can he be trusted to take a stand on an issue? Can he be
trusted to keep his word both to our citizenry and the governments of the
world? Can he be trusted to see tough issues like the War on Terror through
to completion? These are all matters of credibility. Kerry’s is
questionable, to say the least. And that, dear readers, is not a phony
controversy.Frank Salvato is a political media
consultant and the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us. He served as an editor
and is a contributing writer for The Washington Dispatch. He writes
regularly for GOPUSA, OpinionEditorials, Men’s News Daily, Canada Free Press
& AmericanDaily. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has
appeared as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, The Kevin Matthews Radio Show
(Chicago) and The Brad Messer Radio Show (San Antonio). His pieces have been
recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are occasionally
featured in The Washington Times and The London Morning Paper as well as
other national and international publications.
 |
