VIETNAM VETERANS FOR ACADEMIC REFORM
The University of Kansas Student Auxiliary
V.V.A.R.: Leading the student revolt on campus against speech codes, political correctness, multiculturalism, gender feminism, dormitory re-education, lying about Vietnam, and other instruments of academic oppression.
Leonard Magruder - Founder/President
Former professor of psychology - Suffolk College, N.Y.
Member: National Association of Scholars
CONTACT: Magruder44@aol.com - Phone: 785-312-9303
THE STRENGTH OF BUSH - THE WEAKNESS OF KERRY - AS MEDIA AND CAMPUS CONTINUE TO DISARM AMERICA
By Leonard Magruder
February 25, 2004
[Note: this is not Part 2 of our new article on Kerry, still working on that.]
There is good news and bad news.
The good news is that there is a new anti-Kerry website, wintersoldier.com. In an ongoing poll they are conducting, now up to 3800 veterans, to the question “Should a man who falsely accused American troops of atrocities serve as Commander-in-Chief?”, 93% have responded with a loud NO. This fits with the same response percentage found by The Wall Street Journal to an article by a Vietnam vet attacking Kerry. Also with an article just out by a San Diego editor saying the ratio in his veteran community is running 100 to 1 against Kerry.
The bad news is that the national TV news, of course, is not mentioning any of this. They are campaigning for Kerry in another betrayal like the Tet Offensive type cover-up. And while attacking the Mel Gibson movie for anti-Semitism, they are not mentioning how left-liberal faculty are threatening chaos on campus by creating a tidal wave of anti-Semitism, standing by, as they did at San Francisco State Univ.,while Muslim students physically attack Jewish students. They are also not questioning the sugary nonsense that faculty is using to hide from students the truth about the lethal danger built into Islam. There is even more scary news in another poll. This one reports, on the question of what is most important in their vote for a president, 29% - economy, 16% - health care, 6%- terrorism. The media and our professors are disarming the nation.
For a detailed analysis of the corruption in our universities and media see our Manifesto against Leftist Tyranny and Vietnam and the Media.
There was an interesting contrast between Bush and Kerry on the pages of CSPC (Center for the Study of Popular Culture) today:
Bush: Grand Strategist (excerpts)
By Tom Blankley - Editorial page editor - The Washington Times”
A new book argues that President Bush has developed and is ably implementing only the third American grand strategy in our history. The author of this book, Surprise, Security, and the American Experience, is John Lewis Gaddis, professor of military and naval history at Yale University, one of the nation’s most eminent diplomatic historians. In other words, this comes from the pinnacle of the liberal Ivy League academic establishment. It makes a strong case that Mr. Bush stands in a select category with presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and James Monroe in implementing one of only three grand strategies of American foreign policy in our two-century history. Mr. Gaddis observes that Mr. Bush “undertook a decisive and courageous reassessment of American grand strategy following the shock of the 9/11 attacks. At his doctrine’s center, Bush placed the democratization of the Middle East and the urgent need to prevent terrorists and rogue states from getting nuclear weapons. Bush also boldly rejected the constraints of an outmoded international system.” It is worth noting that John Kerry and the other Democrats’ central criticism of Mr. Bush—the prosaic argument that he should have taken no action without UN approval—is rejected by Mr. Gaddis as being a proposed policy that would be constrained by an “outmoded international system.”
So far the military action in Iraq has produced a modest improvement in American and global economic conditions; an intensified dialogue within the Arab world about political reform; a withdrawal of American forces from Saudi Arabia; and an increasing nervousness on the part of the Syrian and Iranian governments as they contemplated the consequences of being surrounded by American clients or surrogates. The United States has emerged as a more powerful and purposeful actor within the international system than it had been on September 11, 2001. His grand strategy is actually looking toward the culmination of the Wilsonian project of a world safe for Democracy, even in the Middle East.
Is Mr. Bush becoming an historic world leader in the same category as FDR, as the eminent Ivy League professor argues? Or is he just a lying nitwit, as the eminent Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe argues? I suspect that as this election year progresses, that may end up being the decisive debate. You can put me on the side of the professor.”
[Note: the full article is now archived on http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1229]
John Podhortz - columnist, New York Post
Kerry used to hang out at 156 Fifth Avenue - the headquarters of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Kerry was present at those offices in September 1970, when the group decided to write then-Mayor John V. Lindsay and demand that the city refuse to welcome the National Guard Association, which had its 1970 convention in New York at the Americana Hotel. Kerry’s group set up a picket line in front of the hotel and staged a protest rally against the Guard on Sept. 17, 1970. Why would they do such a thing? Here, from a mimeographed flyer is the sort of rhetoric Kerry and Co. used to gather anti-war forces:
“The National Guard Uses Your Tax Dollar:
· To support the military-industrial complex
· To honor war criminals - Westmoreland, Laird, Nixon, etc.
· To applaud campus murders by National Guard units
· To encourage armed attacks on minority communities”
The decision to stage this defamatory protest against the National Guard was made in John Kerry’s presence and with his full knowledge. Executive-committee minutes for Vietnam Veterans Against the War note that among the six “members attending,” a meeting to plan the protest, was “John Kerry-NE Rep.” Now, Kerry and others will tell you that Vietnam Veterans Against the War was a group dedicated to advancing the interests of American servicemen—protecting them, bringing them home, helping them.
John Kerry was a key midwife in the birthing of one of the worst myths ever fostered in this country: The myth of the crazed, violent, dangerous Vietnam vet who had come back to America to wreak the same kind of devastation here he had wreaked in Southeast Asia.
The following are excerpts from the response of William F. Buckley Jr. to John Kerry’s testimony to Congress, made in a commencement address to the United States Military Academy in West Point in 1971, shortly after Kerry made his statement to Congress. I am sure the whole Academy was appalled to hear that an officer had made such comments in a time of war.
An Ignorant Young Man
1971 Speech by William F. Buckley, Jr.
I read ten days ago the full text of the quite remarkable address delivered by John Kerry before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Mr. Kerry, in introducing himself to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made it plain that he was there to speak not only for himself, but for what he called “a very much larger group of veterans in this country.” In Southeast Asia, he said, he saw “not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” He went on to enumerate precisely such crimes as are being committed. Mr. Kerry informed Congress that what threatens the United States is “not Reds, “ but “the crimes” we are committing. He tells us that we have “created a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who have returned with a sense of anger.” Most specifically he singled out for criticism a sentence uttered by Mr. Agnew here at West Point a year ago: “Some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse.” Mr. Kerry insists that the so-called misfits ( the war protestors ) are the true heroes, inasmuch as it was they who “were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dared to.” [To see that this is ridiculous, see our documentary, How the Campus Lied About Vietnam.] “To attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom is the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.”
It is then, we reason retrospectively, not alone an act of hypocrisy that caused the joint chiefs of staff and the heads of the civilian departments engaged in strategic calculations to make the recommendations they made over the past ten years, to three Presidents of the United States: it was not merely hypocrisy, but criminal hypocrisy. The nature of that hypocrisy? “All,” Mr. Kerry sums up, “that we were told about the mystical war against Communism.” The indictment is complete. It is the indictment of an ignorant young man who is willing to condemn in words that would have been appropriately used in Nuremberg the governing class of America: the legislators, the generals, the statesmen. And, reaching beyond them, the people, who named the governors to their positions of responsibility and ratified their decisions in several elections. The point I want to raise is this: If America is everything that John Kerry says it is, what is it appropriate for us to do? The stain described by John Kerry goes too deep to be bleached out by conventional remorse or resolution: better the destruction of America, if, to see ourselves truly, we need to look into the mirror John Kerry holds up for us. If we are a nation of sadists, of kid-killers and torturers, of hypocrites and criminals, let us be done with it, and pray that a great flood or fire will destroy us.
The America that listens so patiently to its John Kerrys, the America that shouldered the great burden of preserving oases of freedom after the great curtain came down with that Bolshevik subtlety that finally expressed itself in a Wall... the America that all but sank under the general obloquy, in order to stand by, in Southeast Asia, a commitment it had soberly made, to the cause of Containment - I shall listen patiently, decades hence, to those who argue that our commitment in Vietnam and our attempt to redeem it were tragically misconceived. I shall not listen to those who say that it was less than the highest tribute to national motivation, to collective idealism, and to international rectitude.
Without organized force, and the threat of the use of it under certain circumstances, there is no freedom, anywhere. Without freedom, there is no true humanity. If America is the monster of John Kerry, burn your commissions tomorrow morning and take others, which will not bind you in the depraved conspiracy you have heard described. If it is otherwise, remember: the freedom John Kerry enjoys, and the freedom I enjoy, are, quite simply, the result of your dedication.
The fact that Kerry’s 1971 statement was the entire subject of a commencement address at West Point gives some idea of its impact at the time. It was considerable. There is no doubt, as many of Vietnam veterans are currently claiming, that it gave added strength to the war protestors, thereby prolonging the war. As we showed in our last article, the war protestors were largely rooting for the Viet Cong.
Vietnam combat veteran and professor of strategy at the Naval War College Mackubin Thomas Owens has put it best in an a recent article in, The National Review:
Today, Senator Kerry appeals to veterans in his quest for the White House. He invokes his Vietnam service at every turn. But...how can he?
If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn’t possibly be proud of his Vietnam service. Who can be proud of committing war crimes of the sort that Kerry recounted in his 1971 testimony? But if he is proud of his service today, perhaps it is because he always knew that his indictment in 1971 was a piece of political theatre that he, an aspiring politician, exploited merely as a “good issue.” If this is true, he should apologize to all the men who served in that war, for slandering them to advance his political future.”
[Note: The full article is archived at this link: http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200401270825.asp]
That is the dilemma that our media, imagining itself once again knowing what is best for the American people, gambling with the fate of a nation facing possibly nuclear destruction from a crazed religion, refuses to pose to Senator Kerry.
Founder/President, V.V.A.R.
Phone: 785-312-9303
RETURN TO MAGRUDER ARTICLE INDEX
Website Design Courtesy of Annette R. Hall, http://www.i-served.com.