Thursday, October 12, 2006

Kerry Hitches Fading Star to Falling Star

October 12, 2006

In today’s donation begging email from Senator John Kerry (who is believed to have once served in Viet Nam), Falling Star, John Laesch, running for Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert’s seat in the House, is added to the “October slate of veterans running for Congress.” Democrat Veterans, that is.

With the addition of 32 year-old Laesch, they now claim another “veteran” to their ranks of the “fighting dems.” Laesch is billed as “served as an intelligence analyst in Bahrain, monitoring terrorist activity and analyzing foreign political and military structures, winning numerous citations and meritoriously rising 5 ranks within 3 years...” Sounds pretty impressive and he, Kerry and supporters have no problem billing him as capable of unseating long time sitting Dennis Hastert.

Laesch himself says, “As your next congressman, I will rely on my military experience and expertise in the region to open a meaningful discussion in Congress on the Iraq War.”

This claim is right out of the John ‘F’in Kerry handbook of exaggerating your Military Service for political gain. I will not disparage Laesch’s service, no need to. But, let’s look at his claims of his “Military experience” and “expertise.”

“served as an intelligence analyst in Bahrain, monitoring terrorist activity and analyzing foreign political and military structures”


In his own blog on his site he also says in regards to President Clinton’s 1998 Cruise Missile attack on Afghanistan in an effort to get Osama Bin Laden, “My first job was to make sure that a cruise missile route from a sea-based platform would have clear sailing over Pakistan and all the way to Afghanistan.” I find that claim to be a pretty high order for an enlisted analyst.

While enlisted and NCOs (non-commissioned officers, or sergeants) perform the back bone of most work within the Military, Intelligence is usually entrusted to Commissioned Officers, with enlisted doing some, not all, of the grunt work in analyzing and the Officer overseeing and finally approving what they analyze and present.

Further into the same article on his blog, we read, “I want to underscore that I was an Iranian analyst instead of a counterterrorism analyst.” Oh? But, he makes claims of so much “experience” and “expertise” in fighting terrorism.

“winning numerous citations and meritoriously rising 5 ranks within 3 years”


Odd that “numerous citations” are listed nearly everywhere he is supported, but not one citation is ever shown. Were these “citations” actually “letters of commendations,” medals, or simply yearly EERs (enlisted efficiency reports)? It would be nice to see them since they are so prominently listed in his qualifications. Is it just me, or do we see a pattern here of making claims of Military Service by another Democrat with no revelation into their actual record?

However, this “meritorious rising of 5 ranks within 3 years” is most laughable of all. Achieving the rank of E-5 within 3 years is about normal. During Viet Nam, I was promoted to the permanent rank of E-5 upon completion of my 17th month of Army Service, the minimum time mandated. Prior to that, I was given the temporary rank of “acting Sergeant E-5” while receiving the pay of an E-4 still. All the responsibility, but none of the pay.

Unlike John Kerry, I imagine Laesch’s 3 years of service was honorable and he performed his duties with normal ability. I don’t see any need to exaggerate his service other than to give the impression of a greater expertise than he actually holds. Again, right out of the John Kerry handbook of grabbing political power.

John Laesch is well within his legal and constitutional right to run for any office he desires. Voters in Illinois will decide if he is qualified for office or not. However, voters are entitled to the truth of his qualifications without exaggerations of Military Service.

John Kerry seems to be pushing this notion of the “fighting dems,” a small group of former Military Service members running for office as Democrats. They are billed as if they are the only former Service members or Veterans holding any “moral authority” to speak out or comment on the War in Iraq.

Naturally, each and every one of these “fighting dems” support Kerry’s “cut and run” philosophy of tactical retreat from a war we are actually winning, again.

Kerry, obviously a narcissist who can’t get past his own pitiful performance that cost him the 2004 election to the Presidency, is once again latching on to those who he hopes will build up his own minimal service, before returning to the country to head the anti-war effort in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. I imagine Kerry thinks he actually matters to the citizens of the country.

Laesch, on the other hand, seems to think he stands a chance running to unseat Hastert with the qualifications of exaggerated Military service and currently being a carpenter.

John, look back on your mentors past. Exaggerated service claims come back to bite you. Bragging about your service gets one nowhere, especially with other Veterans. We see right through you and beyond.

If you are serious about running for the House, better distance yourself from the likes of loser Kerry and stick to the issues. Going on Hardball and making false claims about exaggerated scandals of disgraced former Representative Foley “sexually abusing” a page and Hastert covering up for him may sound good and get applause in DailyKos or Democratic Underground, but undecided voters will just laugh, as they seek someone who will actually stand on values.

Kerry’s star is fading, yours is falling. Enjoy the limelight while it lasts.

Lew

1 comment:

Jeremayakovka said...

During my year+ as a Democrat (early 04-late 05), I hoped very much to find vets come forward to offer honorable, constructive leadership. Those of us who got behind Wes Clark were certain that he was the only Dem prez candidate with a military record to really run on. (True, the endorsements from Michael Moore, Madonna, and George McGovern were a little shaky, and maybe he ended up nothing more, as one writer said, than the Clintons' "sacrifical lamb.")

More than that, I watched Clark up close for a couple of days on the campaign trail -- speaking at a Veterans' Hall and talking one-on-one with college students in a bar. Like many Americans I was, still am, hungry for competent, straight-talking leadership with a military record to go with it.

The kinds of questions and follow-up questions you're asking of this candidate are very pertinent. I hope that curious voters are curious enough to consider the points you're making.

Just the facts, Ma'am (or Sir).