Presbyterian pastor writes
an open letter to U.S. military personnel
Explains why he is
supporting and honoring them by supporting John Kerry
[10-13-04]
We've received a note commenting on
this open letter, and we invite you to add your comments.
Just send a
note!
The Rev. Scott Alan Nesbitt, of
Ainsworth, Iowa, has sent us this letter:
To our brave men and women serving in the
military:
Some people will tell you that I do not
support you because I am voting for John Kerry. Please don't fall for their
lies. In fact, I hope that by the end of this letter I will have convinced
you that my vote for Kerry is a sign of how truly profound and sincere my
support is for you.
First, let me say that I believe President
Bush has not leveled with you or with the nation. To those of you who first
entered Iraq, he promised that U.S. soldiers would be home by June of 2003.
Almost a year and a half later, there is no end in sight for U.S. military
involvement in Iraq.
On that famous day when he landed on the
USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush proclaimed that your mission was
accomplished. Yet we have lost over 1,000 U.S. soldiers in combat since
then. It's troubling enough that this number is higher than what we lost
during the actual operation. But what is even more disturbing is a fact
raised by James Carville in his book Had Enough?. He points out that this
figure is higher than the combined total of post-conflict American
combat casualties in Germany, Japan, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo: Zero.
Furthermore, while he proudly struts and
declares his support for fair compensation to military personnel and their
families, Mr. Bush fails to mention one little fact. He sought to cut
increases in monthly "imminent danger" pay from $225 to $150, and family
separation allowance from $250 to $100. And to think that a few months
before that, in January 2003, he said, "I want to make sure that our
soldiers have the best possible pay."
Of course, let's not forget that
unbelievably crazy plan to charge soldiers wounded in Iraq for their meals
when they got to military hospitals. Thankfully, that poor idea fell apart
as soon as the media got hold of it.
In October of 2003 the President told
troops, "I want to thank you for your willingness to heed the important call
and I want to thank your families." He must have forgotten his gratitude
because only two weeks later he opposed a proposal to give National Guard
and Reserve members access to Pentagon health insurance. He voiced his
opposition despite the General Accounting Office report's estimation that
one in every five Guard members has no health insurance.
I won't even get into the nonsense about
Mr. Bush's proposed cut of $1.5 billion for military housing. Suffice it to
say that this cut came after the House Armed Services Committee concluded
that thousands of military families lived in "decrepit and dilapidated
military housing." In my opinion, the above details are damning enough for
the President, and I didn't even mention the fumbling manner he's handled
Afghanistan. But I've only scratched the surface. Consider Mr. Bush's
treatment of veterans.
According to Molly Ivins in the 6/10/04
edition of the Des Moines Register, "Just before Memorial Day, Veterans
Affairs Secretary, Anthony Principi, said 'Our active military respond
better to Republicans' because of 'the tremendous support President Bush has
provided for our military and our veterans.' That same day the White House
announced plans for massive cuts for veterans' health care for 2006."
George Bush also gave extravagant praise to
U.S. veterans in January of 2004, during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical
Center. On the very same day, thousands of veterans discovered that the
White House was "immediately cutting off their access to the VA Healthcare
System."
Now, you can argue till the cows come home
as to whether John Kerry's Purple Hearts were for shrapnel wounds or paper
cuts. I don't care. And even if George Bush showed up everywhere he was
supposed to be during those Vietnam War years, it doesn't matter.
What does matter is the fact that John
Kerry risked his life in combat situations and George Bush didn't. So,
simply put, Mr. Kerry knows what it is like to be in battle and, if nothing
else, his experience makes him more qualified for the title
"Commander-in-Chief."
Additionally, because he knows the hell of
war, I trust John Kerry's competence and commitment to help our troops in
Iraq and Afghanistan to "win the peace." Listening to his plans for our
troops, I believe Kerry genuinely wants our military personnel to come home
from completing a job well done, to come home safely, and to come home soon.
Most importantly, John Kerry speaks of
building coalitions, providing sufficient numbers of troops to crucial
areas, giving our service people what they need to do their work
effectively, and focusing our energy and resources in those important places
that have been neglected. Whether you agree with the details of his plans is
beside the point. The thing to note is that he has a plan. All Mr. Bush can
do is smile into the camera and declare that freedom is making progress.
I know that you are doing good work in
tough areas. There are numerous ways in which the lives of Iraqis and
Afghanis are better because of the sacrifices you have made. We, as they,
are eternally indebted to you, and we are grateful for the things you have
been doing night and day in some of the harshest places on earth. Every day
I pray for you, as it is the very least I can do. But I must also do my part
to vote out the most inept U.S. President in history, lest he continue to
treat you with such deception and disrespect.
In the end, there will be numerous things
to consider when voting for President of the United States. Will your choice
be the man who already sits in the White House, whose track record of
military support is--at the very best--woefully inadequate? Or will it be
the man from New England who shows greater promise and potential to support
our men and women in uniform?
Before you mark your ballot, I urge you to
ask yourself, "Which man has the greater integrity to be
Commander-in-Chief?" In light of George Bush's dismal record, the right
choice for me can only be John Kerry.
Sincerely,
The Rev. Scott Alan Nesbitt
Ainsworth, IA
