10/2/2004
Presidential Debate
Ok forget the fact that John Kerry has taken so many different positions on the issues facing the country that he would benefit from an overview of the most interesting debate — the one John Kerry is having with himself. He’s been for the war, against the war and for it and against it again. Last week, he became an anti-war candidate again. This is a fatal flaw and the American people see through it. John Kerry is not able to take a principled position and is the wrong choice to guide America through this critical time.
While taking stage right to President Bush in last night’s debate, Senator Kerry’s stand — or stands, I might say — on issues of national security placed him at far, far stage left. Style notwithstanding, the substance of Kerry’s exchange on national security was anything but reassuring.
“My position on Iraq has been consistent.” Sen. Kerry repeated those same words some half dozen times over the course of the 90-minute debate, so we just can’t resist saying it: “Methinks he doth protest too much.” (Of some mention, Kerry referenced his Vietnam “service” about half a dozen times, too.) Highlighting the “consistency” of his position, over the course of 90 minutes Kerry managed to say the war with Iraq was a “colossal error of judgment” on the part of the President and referred to the war as a “distraction” from “the real war on terror,” but he managed to add that he believed Saddam was a threat when he voted to authorize the use of force, that the Iraqi people deserved to be free, and that he could “win the peace,” while beginning to withdraw U.S. forces within six months, making our “bribed and coerced” allies, whose contributions he “respects,” pick up the slack. He also implied he’d build a real coalition for Iraq, including France and Germany, and open reconstruction contracts to those nations — the very ones who profited most (illegally under UNSC sanctions) from Saddam’s rule, and who have both refused (as recently as this week) to be a part of any such coalition, even in the eventuality of a Kerry presidency. Consistent eh?
On the subject of our troops engaged in Iraq, Kerry remarked, “I understand what the president is talking about because I know what it means to lose people in combat. And the question, ‘Is it worth the cost?,’ reminds me of my own thinking when I came back from fighting in that war. And it reminds me that it is vital for us not to confuse the war — ever — with the warriors. That happened before.”
More to the point, who was the one perpetuating that confusion? Was Kerry criticizing the war when he testified before Congress in 1971 of war crimes by U.S. forces in Vietnam? NO! — Kerry was accusing U.S. troops in the field of countless atrocities, playing directly into the hands of the Communist North. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, said of Kerry’s anti-American activities during the Vietnam War, “KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. … As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements.” General Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnam’s most decorated military leader, wrote in retrospect that if not for the disunity created by Kerry and his ilk, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered.
Kerry can’t have it both ways. His undermining of U.S. resolve, and that of our allies, in the war against terrorism, specifically on the Iraqi warfront with Jihadistan, is a direct assault on Americans fighting in Iraq. American and Allied Forces, and countless Iraqis, are being injured and killed because of the political dissent Kerry and his ilk are fomenting — not unlike the American casualties Kerry’s 1971 protests caused in Vietnam.
Back to the war at hand, Kerry relentlessly attacked President Bush, saying, “Saddam Hussein didn’t attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us.” Then, when asked about the most dangerous security threat in the world today, Kerry didn’t hesitate to reply, “Nuclear proliferation,” to which President Bush added, “in the hands of terrorists.” Though we can — and have — laid bare Kerry’s national-security credentials, President Bush said it best, last night: “To say there’s only one focus in the war on terror doesn’t really understand the nature of the war on terror…the front of this war is in more than one place.”
Though he recognizes nuclear proliferation to be the imminent threat to our nation’s security interests, Kerry seems not to grasp — dare I say it — the “nuances” of dealing with such a threat. The Senator apparently thinks he can publicly ridicule Russian President Vladmir Putin as a tyrant one minute, then vow to secure all fissile materiel in the former Soviet bloc within four years the next minute. Does Kerry really believe we can do this apart from Russian cooperation? Who’s the brazen unilateralist now?
To wit, Kerry’s debate performance on these other fronts was equally disastrous. On the subject of Iran, Kerry was obviously confused on the whole issue of nuclear technology, as well as the historical facts concerning the sanctions against Iran.
The man who thought he spent Christmas in Cambodia first said we needed sanctions against Iran, then, when confronted with the fact that there are sanctions against Iran — and you can’t sanction them again — Kerry blamed the President for the “unilateral” nature of those sanctions, to which Mr. Bush corrected, again, that those sanctions were in place “long before I came to Washington.” Indeed, 29 October 1987, for the first set of sanctions, under President Reagan. 16 March 1995, under President Clinton, for a second set. 19 August 1997 for another set of sanctions, again under then President Clinton. Again, consistent?
By way of contrast, on the subject of North Korean nuclear armament, Kerry bemoaned the President’s decision to abandon bilateral talks with dictator Kim Jung Il in favor of multilateral pressure — a coalition, some might say — involving China, Russia, South Korea and Japan. For some reason, when President Bush employs multilateral diplomacy it’s a bad idea; Kerry would return to Clinton’s tried-and-failed diplomacy of appeasement — the same diplomacy under which North Korea was able to advance its nuclear program in secret, even adding enriched uranium to its plutonium-based weapons development.
And that’s just how “consistent” Kerry can be in 90 minutes; let’s not even think about four years.
Perhaps the key moment of the debate, as well as the point most clearly delineating just how stage left Kerry is on national security, was his comment, “No president through all of American history has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you’ve got to do it in a way that passes the test. That passes the global test [original emphasis] where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing. And you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”
Mr. Bush replied, “I’m not exactly sure what you mean: passes the ‘global test.’ You take pre-emptive action if you pass a global test? My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people.”
This tells all. The foreign-policy difference between Kerry and Bush is not multilateralism versus unilateralism. Both are, at times, legitimate tools of foreign policy, but not policies themselves. The difference, rather, is one of globalism versus national sovereignty in the promotion and defense of U.S. interests abroad. Kerry’s globalist agenda, by his own admission, would sacrifice U.S. protection of her citizens and soldiers abroad to the caprices of the International Criminal Court. Kerry would seek UN approval for “preemptively” defending the United States — approval of the same agency that so effectively issued no fewer than 17 resolutions against Saddam’s Iraq and refused to enforce any of them, with Kofi Annan recently declaring the resolutions’ enforcement “illegal.”
With an approving reference to Charles DeGaulle, the French president who abandoned the U.S.-led coalition in the defense of the free world at a crucial moment of the Cold War, Kerry said he would restore our “credibility” with such leaders around the world.I unapologetically reply: It’s time for these foreign leaders — the likes of France and Germany, who have continued unhesitatingly to obstruct U.S. interests abroad and security around the globe — to restore their credibility with us.
National security is not for the faint of heart, and John Kerry’s feints of heart prove that the Senator from Massachusetts, replete with his history of foreign policy waffling and betrayal of the national trust, is simply not up to the task.
On the eve of our assault on al-Qa’ida and other Jihadistan forces in Afghanistan, President Bush addressed the nation, and closed with these words: “We will not waiver, we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail.” Indeed!
Quote of the week…
“If America shows uncertainly or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. That’s not going to happen so long as I’m your president. … We will continue to stay on the offense. We will fight the terrorists around the world so we do not have to face them here at home. We’ll continue to build our alliances. I’ll never turn over America’s national-security needs to leaders of other countries as we continue to build those alliances.” –President George W. Bush
Here are a few more of Kerry’s “Flips” in previous statements and “Flops” in the debate.
On Iraq as a source for terrorist WMD… Flip: “Saddam Hussein has already used these [WMD] and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That…is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis.” Flop: Now Kerry says Iraq posed no terrorist threat, but then flips again in the middle of the debate, saying, “I have always agreed on that, and from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat.”
On support for American forces in combat… Flip: Kerry voted against $87 billion in funding to equip our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with essential supplies like ammunition and body armor even though he said before the vote, “I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to ‘ to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That’s irresponsible.” He explained later, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” Flop: Now Kerry now says, “My message to the troops is…help is on the way. I believe those troops deserve better than what they are getting today.”
On “lies”… Flip: Kerry accused President Bush of lying: “This administration has lied to us. They have misled us.” Flop: Kerry now says to the moderator, “Well, I’ve never, ever used the harshest word [”lie”] as you just did.”
Memo to “undecided” voters: If Thursday night’s debate left you wondering who really has the right stuff to be president, link to — http://kerry-04.org/right_wrong.php
The pre-debate positioning and challenging was fascinating to watch.
“You cannot expect to lead this world if you try to take both sides of every position,” President Bush challenged Kerry earlier in the week.
And Mr. Bush joshed of Kerry’s multi-positioned nuances, “It’s been a little tough to prepare [for the debate] because he [John Kerry] keeps changing positions on the war on the terror. He voted for the use of force in Iraq and then didn’t vote to fund the troops. He complained that we’re not spending enough money to help in reconstruction in Iraq and now he’s saying we’re spending too much. He said it was the right decision to go into Iraq and now he calls it the wrong war. He could probably spend 90 minutes debating himself.”
Vice President Dick Cheney also took up the theme, saying, “The idea that somehow we could pull back and simply sit behind our oceans and not aggressively be going after the terrorists and those who sponsor terrorists, I think misreads the situation completely. …I’m waiting to see what he will say Thursday night. It’ll be interesting.”
Meanwhile, Kerry shot back, attempting to find his footing, “I’m looking forward to tomorrow night for an opportunity to share with Americans the truth, not the sound bites, not the advertisements, the truth.”
The truth? Well, the central political “truth” for Campaign Kerry is that his support is eroding. The announcement that the Rev. Je$$e Ja¢k$on is joining up came just as polling showed that black voters are not inclined to pull the lever for the John-John ticket. Moreover, Kerry is losing female voters’ support, too. And the three key battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, recently counted safely within the Demo column, are now trending toward Bush country.
No wonder Kerry climbed aboard the national-security bandwagon this week, tacking toward the steady Bush take on Iraq with this: “Look, we have to succeed. There are more terrorists in Iraq today then there were before, and you can’t allow it to become an unstable regime that’s a haven for terrorism.”
John Edwards kept up the attack, softly though, saying, “The truth is they’re [Team Bush] trying to exploit one of our nation’s greatest tragedies for personal gain. It is immoral, and it is wrong. This isn’t a Republican issue or a Democratic [sic] issue.” So, Edward is charging that when Bush campaigners address national security, it’s out of bounds. But when he and his cadre want to advance the topic…
On Wednesday, Edwards further claimed, “Umm…it [extending the war with Jihadistan into Iraq] certainly made us more vulnerable to the possibility of a nuclear attack. What I know is true is that Iran and North Korea have moved forward with their nuclear-weapons program [sic]. This President has basically ceded the responsibility for dealing with Iran to the Europeans and with the North Koreans to the Chinese — which is a huge mistake because they create such a threat to America that it creates a much more serious nuclear threat to America.”
What?
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
