Although only a generation separates these two men, the distance between them is vast. Both were trained in
the art of combat, but shared little of the same sense of mission. Their view of the government that they fought for, could
not be farther apart. One killed under orders, the other decided to do the same on his own. A hero's honor was bestowed for
service on the first, while the ultimate penalty is the sanction for the other. One would think that it is clear who should
be the man honored, and the one despised. But is it as simple as it seems?
The dedication and determination of a Navy Seal is beyond reproach. Few men have the metal to endure the depths
of inner strength to achieve this recognition by their peers. No one can take away the achievement of this band of skilled
predators. They are the 'best of the best' at what they do. Bob Kerrey ranks at the top of this elite group of select warriors.
His personal sacrifice goes beyond the suffering of most of us. We have no right to judge his conduct from that which has
been made public. His demons have long struck a severe toll on his conscience and his suffering continues far after the pain
stopped and the wounds healed.
But has this torment been shed for a just cause? Did he and his men serve America or did they defend solely
a corrupt government? The answer is clear for me, but is it for you? Tim McVeigh served in a popular war, one fought to keep
the oil flowing. The country showered enthusiasm for the visual images of bunkers and bridges being obliterated. The 'good
guys' kicked butt, few were lost, and the 'New World Order' was protected. So why did McVeigh become disillusioned over a
war that was supposed to be fought for the right purpose, this time? Surely there was no contradiction in the Gulf as there
was in Nam! But that truth isn't as clear as the society would wish you to believe. Maybe, McVeigh was not as convinced as
Kerrey that he was working for the proper master?
The mission that McVeigh viewed he was on, is not shared by many Americans. Certainly the methods that were
used and there 'rules of engagement' are condemned by all but the most desperate. The record is clear, however; that the Federal
Government conducted their own My Lai Massacre. There was no Lt. William Calley to take the fall, while Janet Reno never was
charged, so she could be acquitted, as was Captain Ernest Medina. Those who died in Oklahoma City are mourned and McVeigh
will pay the price for his deeds. But for those within the American version of the Central Committee, it was just business
But what about the noble Kerrey? Was he not the Senate vote that broke the tie in favor of the biggest tax
increase that is Clinton's legacy? Who does more damage to the society? The corrupt politician or the terrorist? Kerrey hasn't
demonstrated a history of corruption. But he continues to serve the same ill-fated master as he did in the swamps of Asia.
War is the worst of experiences! It should be avoided with the same vigor that it is waged. But the wars that are now being
fought are those against our own people, directed by those who are sworn to service and protect. The damage to society from
the passage of those new taxes took a toll just as acute, as the carnage of the federal building. Most will not agree with
this assessment, you say I'm doing OK. How could you compare more federal control to murder? The arrogant rule by the few
unceasingly continues to expand their power over the rest of us. Those who support and vote for this march into bondage, betrays
their Country. They become part of the 'New World Order', themselves. What were the underlying reasons we were told that all
those wars were waged? Protecting the American 'way of life' was the goal! And each time another war is fought, we end up
losing a bigger part of our Nation, no matter how the outcome of the battle turns out. The ringing truth of this tragic outcome
cannot be reasonably denied. The difference between the McVeigh approach is that the antagonist becomes the victim; while
the Kerrey method, lulls all of us into a deep sleep of anesthesia. Most of us never awake!
Yes there is a great difference between the two men. One is a hero the other a traitor. The character of Kerrey
is that of the hero, while McVeigh embraced murder among his own ranks. But Kerrey serves the dishonest master, while McVeigh
sought to confront that foe with immoral force. It is a surprise that there are so few McVeigh's, but it is readily understandable
that there are so many Kerrey's . . . The real medals that the politician was awarded are for servicing the 'ruling class',
while the poison that the militant will absorb, is for his cause.
For those of you who say the difference is so clear, think again; and reserve your cheers for the protectors
of a ruined regime. It just might be that neither are models to defend.
SARTRE - April 28, 2001