A letter writer and veteran of the Gulf War recently wrote the following: "It is unbelievable to me that some letter writers are questioning John Kerry's ability to be (sic) commander-in-chief." The writer does not go on to provide any evidence supporting Kerry's abilities other than stating that Kerry has combat experience. That alone is not a qualification. There are a great many veterans, (I for one) who do not believe that Kerry is worthy of the position of president of the United States and Commander-in-Chief (or even senator) for many serious reasons.

Despite his rhetorical attempts to be on all sides of all issues, Kerry is a Leftist who has exhibited a pattern of anti-defense and anti-intelligence votes in the Senate. It would be fair to say that Kerry's political leanings are not conducive to our national security interests, and Kerry's overall character is questionable. He was part of the "pro-Hanoi" Jane Fonda crowd of the early 1970s, which viciously maligned American soldiers during the Vietnam era. His active participation in Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) provided documented support to the quest of North Vietnam and both his actions, as well as Jane Fonda's, would be considered by many as treasonous. As we all know, treasonous acts are not acceptable character qualities for a proposed Commander-in-Chief. When Kerry spoke before the Senate after his Vietnam experience, he not only trashed the military as an institution, but the soldiers who put their lives on the line. Many who have served in the military, and their families as well, perceive Kerry's public disparagement of our troops as unforgivable acts. Furthermore, in his attempts to disparage the Armed Forces engaged in the conflict in Vietnam, he provided false testimony before the Senate, i.e. he is a liar. He and his organization of protesters presented unsubstantiated and false allegations of atrocities. For example:

Elton Mazione, claiming Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) credentials, Kerry's organization, along with his friends, John Laboon, Eddie Swetz, and Kenneth Van Lesser. They claimed to kill children and remove body parts as part of the notorious Phoenix program. They were neither in Phoenix nor in Vietnam.

Kerry's VVAW leader friend from 1971, Al Hubbard, lied about being an officer, Vietnam veteran, and sustaining war injuries. Michael Harbert, another VVAW crony of Kerry, lied about his Vietnam service.

Frank Dux: He charged many recognizable Vietnam vets with using techniques bordering on war crimes. Dux was a fraud and non-Vietnam veteran.

Yoshia K. Chee claimed we in Vietnam routinely resorted to the most hideous forms of torture, threw people out of helicopters, and decapitated prisoners. He was a phony.

Mike Beamon, an alleged SEAL and Phoenix assassin, was never in the military.

The senator's own VVAW and similar groups relied upon people like: K. Barton Osborn, a Vietnam veteran who testified of atrocities to Congress. He told of prisoners being thrown out of helicopters, a woman starved to death, a prisoner being killed by a 6-inch dowel pushed through his ear. Osborn was not involved in Phoenix, refused to name names, and provided no documentation.

Lieutenants Francis Reitemeyer and Michael J. Cohn. Both sought conscientious objector status because of Phoenix. Reitemeyer testified to being assigned to Phoenix as an adviser and maintained a kill quota of 50 bodies a month. They became famous as My Lai hit the news. Neither served in Vietnam, in Phoenix, or had any firsthand information. Reitemeyer later denied receiving any assassination training.

Kerry's comments as an anti-war activist were: a) substantially hogwash, b) notably biased against members of the military, c) very damaging for anyone aspiring to be president and Commander-in-Chief, and, d) unworthy of any American, as the clear intent was to comprehensively besmirch the Armed Forces and its members.

Kerry has met one of a few definitions, but none of them is "Patriot." 1. He may have been credulous and believed his allegations -- making him a "fool" if they proved false; 2. making him an "opportunist" using it to advance his career if they were true (he never turned over any of the documentation he promised in the hearings, most likely due to problems with the credentials of those making the allegations); 3. a "criminal" if he knew from personal experience that he was guilty, as he stated, of that which he accused others.

So your choices are fool, opportunist, or criminal -- which of these do you prefer? He not only has never tried to help the intelligence community or our Armed Forces, but he has vehemently fought them every step of the way when we try to protect the American people from threats. He has voted against defense and intelligence spending bills at every opportunity including during time of war. The fact that Kerry has consistently voted in the Senate to eviscerate military and intelligence spending only reinforces the notion that his radical views persist and are not in step with mainstream America. The man is not fit to lead this nation or to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

This article was published in the St. Augustine Record