Kerry—A Security Threat

An Imminent Threat To U.S. National Security

John Kerry and his Administration, if elected, would place U.S. National Security in grave peril.  The likely composition of a Kerry Administration would be the extreme Left-Wing of the Democrat Party - featuring people from the peace movement, anti-military, anti-intelligence gathering anti-Patriot Act and anti National Security factions, etc.

These people would be more interested in dismantling the U.S. military and turning our national security interests over to the United Nations than in aggressively pursuing the war against global terrorism. Election of Kerry would promote a new security threat to our country - anti-military Left-Wing Democrats running the U.S. war against global terrorism. This would be national insanity!

 

Kerry – An Imminent Threat to U.S. National Security
Commentary by: Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)  

Kerry Betrays His Comrades In Arms.  In my article Bush and Uncommon Valor,  I state that although it is fair to recognize Sen. Kerry's four-month war record and medals, it is what he did after leaving the military that deserves the greatest scrutiny. He became a turncoat by misrepresenting to the American public what our soldiers were doing in Southeast Asia. As part of the anti-war movement with Jane Fonda, he maligned, mocked and discredited our soldiers. He lied about what our soldiers were doing in combat. He defamed our brave fighting men.  

The greatest insult our citizens could inflict upon the U.S. military would be to vote into office as Commander-in-Chief the very person who betrayed our soldiers while they were still fighting and dying on the battlefield and in air combat.  Few politicians are as experienced as John Kerry on how to undermine the government of the United States of America. He achieved this goal in the early seventies during the Vietnam War and is now doing it again.  Kerry’s and Gore’s message to our troops is that their lives have been needlessly put in jeopardy by their Commander-in-Chief and that the war in Iraq was unnecessary. 

Kerry’s has an Anti National Security Voting Record.  To understand the threat posed by Kerry (and his followers) to U.S. National Security, one must start with Kerry’s doubts, fears and hesitancy to ever use military force based on his statements both during and after the Vietnam War.  For over 20 years, Kerry’s voting record in the Senate has time and again validated that his Vietnam War error thinking about national security has not perceptibly changed. 

Kerry has a 20 year record of voting against major weapon systems needed by the military for its mission.

Kerry has a 20 year record of voting against CIA funding of the human intelligence needed to preclude attacks on our citizens in the U.S. (such as 9/11) and overseas (such as our embassies, military barracks and ships).

Kerry, although having voted for Patriot Act, now has flip-flopped on its key provisions, which if eliminated, would appreciably degrade United States ability to protect its citizens from future terrorist attacks.

Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, then flip-flopped his position and voted not to fund the equipment needed by our troops to fight the war.  John Kerry did what a Commander-in-Chief would never do; he deserted our troops on the battlefield.  

Kerry’s National Security flip-flop record on national security is both unprincipled and opportunistic.

Kerry Undermines the War on Global Terrorism. By sabotaging our Commander-in-Chief, his Administration and the war against global terrorism, John Kerry and the Left-Wing of the Democrat party and its supporters are seriously undermining U.S. National Security.  Instead of supporting our national leadership (in taking the battle to our terrorist enemies), a cabal of power-hungry politicians, their vitriolic followers and liberal media elites have done everything they could to undercut our war on terror, our troops on the battlefield and the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Armed Forces. Recommend viewing this video:      The Faces of John Kerry’s Democrat Party

Kerry Doesn’t Support Our Troops. The relentless Kerry rant (of doom and gloom, negativism and defeatism) is more than despicable, since our troops are risking their lives and doing everything humanly possible to preclude future attacks on United States – by fighting World War III on enemy soil, not ours. The men and women of the Armed Forces deserve our full support. They are fighting for your survival, your families’ survival, and your grandchildren’s survival. Every terrorist apprehended or killed in the Middle East is one less terrorist that can come to the U.S. to kill thousands of our people. Introducing positive change to the Middle East enhances the likelihood of winning the war against global terrorism.  Telling or implying to the troops that their lives are being needlessly put in jeopardy by their Commander-in-Chief is beyond contemptible. 

Kerry’s Surrogate Gore Alleges Hornets Nest.   It has been alleged that our activities in Afghanistan and Iraq has created a hornets nest of terrorists.  The inference here is that the U.S. should have done nothing since any action taken by us would aggravate the terrorists and create more terrorists.  This maybe explains why the Clinton / Gore Administration didn’t aggressively pursue terrorists after the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 (or after other attacks against our citizens and soldiers in 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2000).  Their foreign policy must have been: don’t create hornets nests.  But weren’t the hornet nests already growing in the Middle East long before we went into Afghanistan and Iraq? Did they all love us in the Middle East prior to 9/11 and then begin to hate us only after we responded post 9/11?  

A Default on the War against Global Terrorism could cost the lives of many U.S. citizens.  How many citizens’ lives would be lost during a Kerry Administration should the anti-war, anti-military, anti-intelligence gathering Left-Wing of the Democrat party default on the war against global terrorism? How many citizens’ lives would be lost (even after a Kerry Administration leaves office) as a consequence of defaulting on the war against global terrorism? Terrorism must be dealt with; it can’t be put on the shelf for the U.N. to debate. Also, action against terrorism can’t be deferred to protect poll numbers or win an election. The overriding focus must be protecting the people of the United States—no matter what the political consequences. 

Kerry, Gore and Kennedy Unwittingly Invite Terrorist Attacks. The Left-Wing of the Democrat party discredits and undermines our wartime leadership to regain political power. In so doing, their treacherous statements (globally propagated) send a clear message to terrorist networks that the U.S. lacks the unity and resolve to win the war against global terrorism.  See The coalition of the Wild-eyed. These Left-Wing messages provide an incentive to terrorists to attack us at home and kill more of our troops abroad. Also, these treacherous statements slowly but surely sap the Will of the American people to persevere and win World War III. By sabotaging our Commander-in-Chief, his Administration and the war against global terrorism, John Kerry, the Left-Wing of the Democrat Party and its supporters are undermining U.S. National Security. 

Kerry Uses Wartime Tragedy (such as casualties) to Up Election Chances. The November elections will be a defining moment for the war on global terrorism. Time is running out. Most politicians have now seen what happens politically to Commanders-In-Chiefs, when they are courageous enough to risk their Presidency in doing the right thing; that is, fighting terrorism on the soil of nations that have harbored terrorists – such as Afghanistan and Iraq. They see that leaders are raked over the coals every 15 minutes 24 hours a day by the mass liberal media propaganda machine and the Lift-Wing of the Democrat party. Every setback in the war against global terrorism is turned into incessant political attacks against the Commander-in-Chief, the Administration and Armed Forces. Setbacks (such as the Abu Ghraib prison ignominy, intensified war fighting and war casualties) are viewed by the Left-Wing of the Democrat Party as a political bonanza – something to be exploited over and over again - no matter how much damage is done to U.S. National Security or to our war against global terrorism. Every setback is viewed by the Left-Wing as just another chance to get the Democrat Party in power. Think about this question: What is the future of our country if we chose to systemically take apart the leaders that act to protect us in favor of those who are willing (for political power) to subvert us?  The Faces of John Kerry’s Democrat Party

National Survival is at Stake. So long as President Bush is Commander-in-Chief, National Security decisions will be focused on how best to protect the American people. What John Kerry would do is anybody’s guess. But if we, as a nation, let this cancer of terrorism grow without tackling it head on – our national survival is certainly at stake. The time to deal with the problem is here and now; not after our towns and cities are under attack all over the United States. Despite 9/11, many of our citizens have not begun to understand how serious the threat of global terrorism is to this nation and how serious the threat will be to their children and grand children. If our citizens truly understood the enormous threat to their families, they wouldn’t be investing their time on John Kerry – a person who is clueless on what to do about it – other than dump the problem on the United Nations and ask the world for more support. A Kerry Administration would be saturated with anti-war, anti-military, anti-intelligence gathering people. These are the people inside Kerry’s immediate circle of influence. These would be the worst people to put in charge of fighting the war against global terrorism. They are more likely to want to dismantle our military than take any aggressive action to deal the terrorist threat. Our national security would be in grave danger should John Kerry get elected.     

National Security and the November 2, 2004 Election. The national security of our country rests with your vote in the November election and so does the future of your children and grand children. Your voting decision - this election year - may be the most important one you ever make. 

Vote for George W. Bush if you want: (1) the fight against global terrorism to be conducted on the terrorist’s soil or on the soil of those who harbor terrorists; (2) if you want a Commander-in-Chief that is steadfast and focused on winning the war on global terrorism and protecting the homeland; (3) an administration of topnotch professionals to fight the war against global terrorism (President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge).

Vote for John F. Kerry if you want: (1) to fight the war on terror in the towns and cities of United States; (2) a Commander-in-Chief that has a record of flip-flops on national security issues and is not steadfast; (3) the U.N. (the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, etc.) and a motley group of peace movement activists, anti-war, anti-military, anti-intelligence gathering people to default on - rather than fight the war against global terrorism.

For those interesting in entertaining positive outcomes to our war on global terrorism, I highly recommend the book: “ENDGAME – The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror” by Lt. General Thomas McInerney and Maj. General Paul Vallely. Also, if interested in understanding media manipulation, read Journalistic Fraud by Bob Kohn. 

John Wambough is a retired Air Force colonel with 28 years of service. During his career in the Air Force, Colonel Wambough flew F-105 and F-111 tactical fighter aircraft. His combat tour in Southeast Asia was in the F-105s with the 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron. He was a Fighter Squadron Commander (F – 111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom) and later Group Commander at the same base. He served on the Air Staff and Joint Staff in the Pentagon -- and attended the National War College. He was head of the Joint Studies Group at Tactical Command Headquarters, Langley AFB, Virginia and completed his service in the Air Force as Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group and Commandant of the United States Air Force Air Ground Operations School -- at Hurlburt Field, Florida. He retired in March 1990 – having served 28 years in the Air Force. Contact Wambough at j-bwambough@cox.net

 

Left-Wing Democrats Kerry and Gore Allege “Catastrophic” Bush National Security Policies
by: Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) 

Be mindful that if Left-Wing Democrats had been in charge post 9/11, none of the below successes would have ever happened. (Three days into the Afghanistan War, the Left was calling it a Quagmire and doom and gloom scenarios were being manufactured hourly). However, no fear, had Kerry been President, he would have taken his terrorist problem to the United Nations; the U.N. would still be passing meaningless resolutions; negotiations with the Taliban Regime would be ongoing; the economic relationships the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese had with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq would have remained in tack; and the corruption of the U.N. Oil for Food Program would have never been exposed. In the meantime, the terrorists would have been able to devote their full energies to further attacks on the United States.

Also, Kerry would likely be telling the American people that he was working the terrorist problem harder and smarter with the International Community than any Republican Administrative. No fear, fighting terrorism would have been the top priority of a Kerry Administration—just like it was in the Clinton-Gore Administration—but no action.  Wars are bad for poll numbers and especially for Democrats—given their political philosophy of anti war, anti military, anti intelligence; anti national defense; anti-etc.; plus their well-known wartime indecisiveness and incapacitation caused by their perspectives of doom and gloom.

Below are some of the results of President Bush’s so-called “Catastrophic” policies. These results show what can happen when courage, strategic thinking, and the National Security of United States is put above courting polls and political popularity—nationally and internationally. Think about this question: What is the future of our country if we chose to systemically take apart the leaders that act to protect us in favor of those who are willing (for political power) to subvert us?  Here are results of an Armed Forces and a Commander-in-Chief that went after terrorists and terrorist nations to prevent future attacks on the U.S.

 

Eradicated al-Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan; removed the terrorist Taliban regime from power; elections scheduled 2004.

Millions of girls now can go to school in Afghanistan; millions of women have rights they didn’t have with the Taliban regime.

Removed the threat of Saddam Hussein in the Middle East and the national security threat he posed to the United States.

Stopped the torture and mass killings of Iraqis. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s killed by Saddam’s Regime.

Returned sovereignty to the Iraqi people June 2004; national elections scheduled January 2005.  

Introduced democracy to 50 million people. Each soldier that died, was injured or served in the Coalition made this happen. Thank you.

Captured or killed key terrorist leaders; disrupted and seized terrorist finances; destroyed terrorist weapons and training camps.

Fought terrorism on Middle East soil rather than U.S. soil; terrorists were drawn to Iraq instead of the United States.

Liberated millions of children (girls included) and gave millions of new textbooks to students that don’t teach hate.

Liberated millions of women from degrading treatment and established an environment conducive to a better future.

Infused a new dynamic in the Middle East of human rights, freedom, prosperity and hope for millions of people.

Removed the fear of terror and despair for millions of people in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Transformed terrorists breeding grounds (for attacks against the U.S.) to breeding grounds of promise and hope. 

Started a Five Point Plan for Iraq’s sovereignty, independence, security, freedom, and prosperity.

The citizens of the United States, our Armed Forces, our Commander-in-Chief  and the Bush Administration should be proud of the above foreign policy, national security and humanitarian successes. Yet, Left-Wing Democrats charge that these results represent “the worst strategic and military miscalculations and mistakes in the history of the United States of America.”  Let me predict that history will side with the President George W. Bush as it did with President Ronald W. Reagan; and not with the pessimism and rage of John Kerry, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi and the mass liberal media—agenda driven—propaganda machine. Click Here The coalition of the Wild-eyed

 

Colonel Condemns Denigration of President and Guard
By Thomas D. Segel,  March 8, 2004

"An element of the Democrat Party, as represented by Senator John F. Kerry from Massachusetts and Terry McAuliffe of the Democrat National Committee, will stoop to any depth to obtain political power, to include attacking the motives of our service members, Air National Guard and reserve. It is a fringe element that is willing to undermine the confidence of our fighting forces in the midst of our global war on terrorism. It is a fringe element that places political power higher on their priority list than the United States national security; otherwise they wouldn't be denigrating and diminishing Air National Guard and reserve service in an effort to undermine the credibility of the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces." These are the words of Air Force Colonel John H. Wambough. Now retired, he speaks from a position of knowledge and experience, having been both a fighter pilot and a major unit commander.

The colonel reflects back to the time of the Vietnam War and notes, "George Bush and I were fighter pilots. Lieutenant Bush flew F-102s in the Air National Guard and I flew F-105s in combat. Both of our flying assignments were inherently dangerous...Lieutenant Bush's because of the high performance nature of the fighter interceptor aircraft he was flying, the training required to fly an F-102, and the high risks that come with all weather, day and night intercept missions."

Wambough is enraged at what he calls the flippant slandering of the president by the Kerry-McAuliffe and anti-war left wing of the Democrat Party. "They have relentlessly attacked the service of Lieutenant Bush and by inference other pilots and members of the Air National Guard and reserve forces as cowards and shirkers of responsibility for not being in Vietnam." he says. He also feels using such tactics in an attempt to win an election go beyond the pale.

"Neither Lieutenant Bush nor I had control over mission assignment, where we would be deployed, or how the service would task the units to which we were assigned. Lieutenant Bush would gladly have gone to Vietnam or anywhere else his unit was deployed...but, the reality was Bush had no say as to how his unit would be utilized to support our country's national security interests. Lieutenant Bush's mission, as a squadron fighter interceptor pilot, was to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft inbound to the United States... for example Soviet Nuclear Bombers. Remember, we were still in the Cold War in the 1970s, with Air Defense a high priority mission. Today these same Air Defense forces protect us against aircraft with terrorists on board." he reflects.

Experienced fighter pilots will all agree that flying operational fighter jets is highly dangerous. During training and during routine missions air crews and aircraft are lost. They crash in air-to-air training. They crash on take-offs. They even crash on final approach at their bases. There are weather related dangers, mechanical problems, and problems associated with the human element. In other words, according to Colonel Wambough, "Cowards or people who lack courage don't take the risks Lieutenant Bush took when flying fighter interceptor aircraft. Flying jets in wing formation in weather, and carrying explosive ordnance on board is dangerous work. The pilots of these squadrons did what their country asked them to do. They performed their assigned missions and did it well," he said.

In November 1970 the Commander of the Texas Air National Guard, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, called Lieutenant Bush "a dynamic outstanding young officer". When rating his flight performance, the commander said he was "A top-notch fighter interceptor pilot" and that his skills "far exceed his contemporaries". Killian also wrote, " He is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lieutenant Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and impeccable military training."

In speaking of Bush's release from service to attend Harvard Business School, Wambough recalls that thousands of pilots had been trained and as the Vietnam War begin to phase down there was a surplus of pilots along with relatively few flying jobs. Thus, the active duty, guard and reserve forces were accommodating to those who wanted to pursue alternative career paths.

Colonel Wambough is particularly incensed about the Democrat claims that nobody could remember seeing Lieutenant Bush at training. He says, "Having been a Squadron Commander, I can tell you this...we know the status of our assigned personnel all the time...everyone is accounted for. We report the status of all our squadron personnel daily to a higher level in our organization. Likewise, Lieutenant Bush's Squadron Commander of 30 plus years ago would have known where Lieutenant Bush was and how to contract him should that have been necessary. The bottom line, Lieutenant Bush's documented Air National Guard service exceeded the requirements set forth in his Guard contract and he received an Honorable Discharge."

What is of greatest concern to this retired officer is the opening of old wounds. "Like many veterans of Vietnam, I returned to a country that was, for the most part, unappreciative of the service rendered by our fighting forces. It is sad that this attack on our commander-in-chief results in reopening the feelings and wounds of bygone years..."

He feels it is fair to recognize Senator Kerry's four-month war record and medals. However, he says it is far more important to subject what Kerry did after leaving the military to the greatest scrutiny. "He became a turncoat by misrepresenting to the American public what our soldiers were doing in Southeast Asia. As part of the anti-war movement with Jane Fonda, he maligned, mocked and discredited our soldiers while they were still engaged in battle. He defamed our brave fighting men. He lied about what our soldiers were doing in combat. The ultimate insult our citizens could inflict on the armed forces of the United States would be to vote into office, as commander-in-chief, the person who betrayed his comrades in arms while they were still fighting and dying on the battlefield and in air combat."