What Did Kerry Really Say?
by Barbara Stock
Monday, October 04, 2004
I had no plans to write about the first debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry, but after reading the transcript, so many of Kerry’s statements were so bizarre that I can only encourage people to take the time to read the transcript of the debate. While the Democrats are giddy that on style, Kerry ''won'' the debate, all they can say about President Bush is that he ''smirked'' or seemed ''irritated.'' I have no doubt that President Bush was irritated. So was I.
One topic that sent painful shivers through my central nervous system was John Kerry’s constant referrals to the benefits of turning to the United Nations in times of need. This was a clever ploy. As president, Mr. Bush could not denigrate this bloated and corrupt world body. Bush could not point out the on-going investigations in our own Congress as well as an internal investigation into the theft of food and medicine money from the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, as the President of the United States, Bush must deal with the United Nations and he was simply not free to speak his mind on the matter. As a senator and candidate, Kerry could praise the United Nations to his heart’s content and all President Bush could do was try to contain his frustration.
The hideous crimes committed against the Iraqi people appear to have been carried out by Kerry’s new best friends, France and Germany and many in the hierarchy of the United Nations. Again, as the present leader of the free world, Bush could not voice his true opinion on the treachery of Chirac and Schroeder and their involvement with Saddam Hussein. Should Kerry be elected, the United Nations will return to its usual course of uselessness and thievery and men like Chirac and Schroeder, who sold Saddam the very weapons now being used to kill our troops, will be met with open arms and their advice will be sought when it comes to the defense of America.
Playing on the general ignorance of the American people, Kerry accused Bush of ''$500 million [of taxpayer money] going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq, and the president is cutting the COPS program in America?'' This program, initiated under Clinton was never a permanent program. In fact, it only offered partial funding for three years. Those accepting the funding had to guarantee a fourth year. After that, the cities would have to either let the new cops go or pay their salaries themselves. That is the way the program was set up. Bush had nothing to do with it. Sending money to train Iraqi policemen in sufficient numbers to protect the streets of their cities would enable the president to reduce our troop numbers and start bringing our soldiers home. Isn’t that the goal? Would a President Kerry do it any differently?
Once again, heaping undeserved praise on the corrupt and cowardly United Nations, Kerry revealed his true plans for the future of Iraq and ultimately, the United States--United Nations determination and control. He said: ''The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run.'' I’m sorry, Senator Kerry, but under no circumstances should President Bush turn the future of Iraq over to Kofi Annan. The Iraqi people’s lives were under United Nations protection for the ten years prior to the war and they were starved to death as graft and corruption became the business of the day. Annan did not do his job. There was a time I believed that the only thing the United Nations could do well was pass out food. Now I realize that the United Nations can’t even do that if there is money to be made. The United Nations consistently turned a blind eye to mass butchering of innocent Iraqi people by Saddam. Why should the Iraqi people have any faith in this corrupt world body?
Have people forgotten that the United Nations had an office in Iraq after Baghdad fell? Because of Annan’s arrogance, protection offered by the United States was refused. The U.N. building was bombed and Annan promptly pulled his people out against the wishes of the dying U.N. representative. Only much later did Annan admit it was his desire ''not to be associated with the United States'' that left the new Iraqi United Nations mission open to attack.
Perhaps the most telling comment was what I consider a ''Freudian slip.'' Kerry said, ''I've laid out a plan by which I think we can be successful in Iraq: with a summit, by doing better training, faster, by cutting--by doing what we need to do with respect to the U.N. and the elections.'' What did he mean by ''cutting?'' Cutting troop numbers? Cutting funding? Cutting and running? Cutting what, Mr. Kerry? How does one train a policeman or guardsman in Iraq any faster than is presently being done? It is anyone’s guess as to what good a ''summit'' would do in hastening our exit from Iraq. Quite frankly, the United Nations and honest elections are a joke.
The final comment comes from this statement from Kerry where he showed his true colors when it comes to defending America. When asked about pre-emptive strikes to keep America safe from enemies, Kerry began to ramble about a ''global test.'' ''But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test 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.'' What if the world, or should I say old Europe and the United Nations, doesn’t feel you have a ''legitimate'' reason, Mr. Kerry? Will you then not defend the country, bowing to world opinion? Will Kerry stand by and debate the issue as the terrorists prepare a massive attack because France has oil interests with the leader of a country supporting al Qaeda or some other terrorist group?
This entire 90 minute debate comes down to one question: Which man will protect the United States and the American people to the best of his ability? John Kerry will heavily consult world leaders for their acceptance. He will seek assistance from the United Nations and trust it to actually support the United States, something it rarely does.
President Bush realizes that sometimes you have to take control of your own future. The war on terror is not new. It started in the 1970’s in Iran. It’s very possible that it will end in Iran. John Kerry and the European Union want to give the Islamic fundamentalist leaders of Iran a loaded gun in the form of nuclear fuel. George Bush does not. That was tried in North Korea by another Democratic president. I think history shows clearly that this kind of ''diplomacy'' doesn’t work.
Putting it in common terms, if you had an unarmed murderer in front of you, would you hand him the gun to kill you and then hope he doesn’t use it? America, let’s use some common sense. You don’t arm the enemy and you don’t seek the world’s permission to defend yourself. Looking good standing behind a podium has little to do with making a good commander in chief. It really is that simple. |
