Obama Appointments - The Missourian: Editorials

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Obama Appointments

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:00 pm

According to reports out of Washington, D.C., President Obama is considering either Sen. John Kerry or Susan Rice to be the next Secretary of State. Neither should be appointed.

Rice was involved in the coverup of the Benghazi attack and her record in dealing with countries in Africa is scandalous. Kerry’s war record is suspect and during the Vietnam War he worked against our government in the antiwar movement after his release from the Navy. He damaged troop morale by exploiting war crimes of  a few that brought dishonor to the majority of soldiers who served their country in an honorable fashion.

Kerry’s name also is being mentioned as a possible Secretary of Defense. It’s just as disturbing as would be his nomination to head the State Department.

If he is nominated for either position, there undoubtedly would be a battle in the Senate during confirmation hearings.

Seth Lipsky, who covered the Vietnam War for the GI daily Stars and Stripes, wrote a commentary for The Wall Street Journal that the president and his inner circle should read. He pointed out all of the antiwar activities by Kerry. Perhaps John O’Neill of The Swift Veterans for Truth made the best recommendation about Kerry, saying he “is well qualified  to be the Secretary of Defense . . . of Cuba or Venezuela,” according to Lipsky. The Swift Boat group opposed Kerry when he ran for president in 2004.

“The Swift Boat vets exposed his libels against American GIs and debunked his claims of heroism in the Mekong Delta. They recalled how, when the war in Vietnam was still being fought, Mr. Kerry met in Paris with Madam Binh of the Viet Cong and later endorsed the Viet Cong’s peace proposal,” Lipsky wrote. Kerry, in the minds of men he served with, was no hero, a phony, a constant complainer, and his superior officers were glad to ship him back to the U.S.

Even the president has said that any war crimes committed were the “misdeeds of a few” and that the honorable service of the many should be praised. The question is, does the president know about Kerry’s record during the war and how he exploited the misdeeds of a few and tarnished the records of the many who served honorably? How could he consider this man for any high post in government? Talk about poor judgment!

Surely, there are qualified people who could serve better in those secretary roles than Kerry, a Jane Fonda in men’s clothing.

/opinion/editorials