KERRY'S WAR TALK
New York Post online
July 29, 2004 -- When John Kerry takes to the podium tonight to accept his party's presi dential nomination, Priority One will be to convince voters he's tough on terror.
Expect him to brandish his service in Vietnam as evidence of his "special understanding" of war.
And to claim that he'd never give anyone a veto over U.S. security, even as he embraces "international cooperation" — to the delight of Paris, Berlin and Kofi Annan's Turtle Bay bandits.
Better to look at his actual record.
Starting, say, with statements by Susan Rice, a Kerry national-security adviser, who just yesterday swore fealty to former Ambassador Joe Wilson.
Wilson is the guy who suggested that President Bush lied when, citing British reports, he claimed Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Africa.
Wilson insisted last year that the Bush folks had ignored his findings, which he said contradicted Bush's claim.
But now that a bipartisan Senate report and a British report have both found that, in fact, it was Wilson who lied and that his findings actually supported Bush's claim, the former envoy says it was all just an honest mistake.
He "misspoke," he says.
Nonetheless, Rice yesterday told The Post's Deborah Orin that Wilson will continue to advise the campaign.
"I know Joe Wilson well," she said. "I have great respect for his integrity and his commitment to . . . our security."
Even if he is a high-stakes liar.
Confused?
You're not alone.
Kerry claims the Iraq war was "wrong," in part because it was based on bad information about Saddam's weapons programs — information, it now seems, that came from one of his own advisers.
Who else has advised Kerry?
Until recently, Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy "Sock-Docs" Berger was also aiding the campaign — the same Sandy Berger who repeatedly counseled against targeting Osama bin Laden.
And so it goes.
But Kerry's questionable judgment on security issues goes way back — to the '70s — and continues right up to, and after, 9/11.
Most recently, Kerry voted for Operation Iraqi Freedom — then, promptly, against the $87 billion needed actually to fight the war.
Plus:
* In the '70s, Kerry maliciously accused U.S. soldiers of atrocities in Vietnam and insisted that all U.S. military actions be directed by the United Nations.
* In the '80s, he opposed Ronald Reagan's efforts to rebuild the military. "I will fight to cut the overall defense budget," he said, arguing that such efforts bore no "relevancy to the threat this nation is facing."
He called for a four-year, $200 billion defense cut, including cancellation of 27 weapons systems, in 1985.
* In 1993, he proposed cuts in submarines, light-infantry units in the Army, tactical fighter wings in the Air Force, mine-hunting ships in the Navy and overall troop strength.
* In 1994, he proposed $45 billion in defense and intelligence cuts. That was after the first World Trade Center attack.
* He voted with a minority of senators against the Persian Gulf war of 1991.
* At home, Kerry has railed against the Patriot Act, as he likely will do tonight, even though he voted for it, and even though it's proven to have been a key weapon in the Terror War.
Tonight, Kerry likely also will repeat his biggest national-security criticism of the current administration: Bush's failure to gain France's and Germany's cooperation for the Iraqi war.
But if the president had given Berlin and Paris the last word on Iraq, Saddam would still be in power — ripping off the Oil-For-Food program while waiting for U.N. sanctions to fade away so he could resume his quest for WMDs.
And what will Kerry have to say tonight about America's longtime, most unshakable ally in the Mideast, Israel — the area's only democracy and a key focus for the War on Terror?
Would a Kerry presidency mean a return to U.S. pressure on the Jewish state to hunker down and absorb every suicide bombing the terrorists care to inflict?
Would he coddle Yasser Arafat, who launched a four-year terror war in Israel, as President Clinton did?
That's hard to say.
But the Kerry record generates scant confidence in the candidate's willingness to use force in pursuit of American security issues. At the end of the day, that outweighs what happened in Vietnam almost four decades ago.
There's a war on, not of America's choosing.
Is Kerry really prepared to fight it? |
