The media are too busy repackaging old Iraq news in an October offensive against President Bush's re-election to investigate truly startling evidence unearthed this week that the Communist Party may have been directing John Kerry's anti-war activities in the early 1970s.
The evidence, contained in captured communist records on file at the Vietnam Center at Texas Tech University, shows a well-coordinated effort by the Communist Party to recruit U.S. servicemen to become part of the American anti-war movement. The objective was to organize high-profile activities to undermine support for the Vietnam War, including holding hearings on alleged war crimes, lobbying Congress to oppose the war, exploiting the families of American POWs and urging servicemen to return their service medals.
Not only did John Kerry and his group Vietnam Veterans Against the War follow this game plan, but Mr. Kerry went to Paris to meet with the communist official designated as the point of contact for guiding these activities. In June 1970, Mr. Kerry met with Mme. Binh, foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government (Viet Cong) of South Vietnam and a delegate to the Paris peace talks. The documents discovered last weekend — one titled "Circular on Antiwar Movements in the U.S." — was disseminated in Vietnam in the spring of 1971, and the other titled "Directive" was captured by U.S. forces in April 1971 — are available for viewing at www.wintersoldier.com. They reveal a detailed plan to use anti-war activists in the United States as propagandists for the communist cause in Vietnam.
So why isn't the mainstream media all over this story? If Mr. Kerry — wittingly or not — was carrying out directives from Hanoi, or perhaps even Moscow, the American people have the right to know before they decide whether to elect him president on Tuesday. But the networks and major dailies were too busy covering a hysterical report that 380 tons of explosives went missing from an Iraqi depot in the early days of the U.S. invasion to inquire into Mr. Kerry's dubious activities in the anti-war movement.
A vote against Kerry
Tuesday's winner will not start from scratch but from where we are now, standing with the women of Bamiyan, Afghanistan. Back in Washington recently, Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, said those women were warned that Taliban remnants would attack polling places during the Oct. 9 elections. So the women performed the ritual bathing and said the prayers of those facing death. Then, rising at 3 a.m., they trekked an hour to wait in line for the polls to open at 7 a.m. In the province of Kunar an explosion 100 meters from a long line of waiting voters did not cause anyone to leave the line.
Which candidate can be trusted to keep faith with these people? Surely not the man whose party is increasingly influenced by its Michael Moore faction. Surely not the man whose most important vote in his 20 Senate years opposed using force to expel Iraq from Kuwait in 1991. Iraqi forces had crossed an international border to eradicate a sovereign nation, but Kerry does not regret voting to oppose the forceful reversal of this aggression.
However, his career is one of multiple tepid regrets. Carefully parsed, his rhetorical ambiguities, which seem designed to discourage deciphering, suggest that he regrets not only his vote for Justice Antonin Scalia but also votes for the 2002 Iraq resolution, for No Child Left Behind, for the Patriot Act.
When he intimates that medical marvels will quickly follow his termination of a nonexistent "ban" on stem cell research, his dishonesty exceeds even his philistinism. His synthetic alarm about possible conscription would cost him his reputation for honesty, had he one after warning seniors that Bush will cut Social Security benefits up to 45 percent.
Regarding entitlements, Kerry's campaign has been of breathtaking banality. Some great challenges arrive without preambles -- the Depression, Pearl Harbor, Sept. 11, 2001. Others are precisely predicted. One such is the baby boomers' coming retirement. America's economy cannot retain its dynamism during this demographic deluge if it must support the welfare state as currently configured.
But Kerry is dismally believable when he vows that nothing will be done about this during his presidency. He promises no increase in Social Security taxes and no cut in benefits, and he shows no interest in original thinking about other ameliorative measures.