This story was from Harvard, no idea if it's true, but it's from 1970. I noticed that all the usual right wing suspects picked up on this article. But I NEVER heard about it, so the * campaign didn't put it front and center. I'm bringing it here, to see if anyone has any info on it, if it's legit, or can be debunked, or is too long ago to matter.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=352185He supports a volunteer Army, "if and only if we can create the controls for it. You're going to have to prepare for the possibility of a national emergency, however." Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
On other issues, Kerry wants "to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care." He also favors a negative income tax and keeping unemployment at a very low level, "even if it means selective economic controls."
You know what, guys, this stuff is crazy -- I just can't believe it's true (there's other crap in the article about him "disobeying" orders to destroy a village in Vietnam -- you can't do that in the bloody military!). Not only does it not sound like Senator John Kerry, it doesn't even sound like war protester John Kerry of 1971. Here's where it came up in 2004:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=357339The Kerry campaign, celebrating primary victories in Virginia and Tennessee last night, declined to comment on the senator’s remarks.
As a candidate for president, Kerry has said he supports the autonomy of the U.S. military and has never called for a scale-back of CIA operations.
Former Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich defended Kerry’s 1970 statements as appropriate for their time.
“In the context of the Vietnam War, those comments are completely understandable,” said Reich, who has endorsed Kerry.
But a spokesperson for President Bush’s reelection campaign said Kerry’s 1970 remarks signaled the senator’s weakness on defense.
“President Bush will never cede the best interests of the national security of the American people to anybody but the president of the United States, along with the Congress,” said the spokesperson, Kevin A. Madden.
The first article is kind of ridiculous, but this second one seems to legitimize the first one. Thoughts on this? Because I'm no spin doctor, and if those old remarks are true, then my friend's distrust of JK does have merit, albeit from remarks so long ago, and not being backed up by his voting record in the Senate. I'm not bringing this up for no reason -- I need to be able to counterattack attacks made, and do so honestly and forthrightly.
Just found this referenced in the Boston Globe article (I guess I forgot this detail):
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtmlSome of Kerry's positions at the time sound naive in retrospect. He was quoted in The Harvard Crimson as saying he would like to "almost eliminate CIA activity" and wanted US troops "dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
So the MSM believed it. Okay -- what are my talking points for this, if it comes up again with this friend of mine? Because, um, I highly disagree with getting rid of the CIA and putting our military under the U.N., but I think JK today ALSO disagrees with that.