 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tiptie
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 138
Location: Colorado
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:14 am Post subject: Putting Kerry to His “Global Test” |
 |
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200410011607.asp
This is too good for just a link.
| Quote: | Larry Kudlow
October 01, 2004, 4:07 p.m.
Putting Kerry to His “Global Test”
What about January 12, 1991?
One of the more interesting parts of the Bush-Kerry debate in Coral Gables, Florida, was Senator Kerry’s reference to Papa Bush’s Persian Gulf War decision not to go into Baghdad thirteen years ago because there was no viable exit strategy. Undoubtedly, Kerry was intending to needle George W. Bush with this fatherly reference of caution, and perhaps Kerry is choosing to associate himself with Bush pere’s foreign policy. But like most of Kerry’s arguments, this too contains the flawed seeds of contradiction and equivocation.
Regrettably, President George W. Bush did not seize the moment to remind 55 million television viewers that on January 12, 1991, Sen. Kerry actually voted against .J.RES.2, the congressional authorization that empowered President Bush 41 to liberate Kuwait after Saddam Hussein’s cruel invasion. This little bit of history sheds much light on Kerry’s past and casts a dark shadow over any of his new promises to successfully execute today’s war in Iraq.
Time and again on the campaign trail Kerry argues for a grand international alliance to win the Iraq war. He repeated this in the debate. But in 1991 the U.S. headed a grand alliance of 36 nations that was fully backed by a United Nations resolution. And Kerry still opposed that war to liberate Kuwait. The U.N.-backed coalition included Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar. All the pieces were there, including the cause of justice. Still he voted against it. How, knowing this, can anyone believe Kerry when he says he will show us a better way to defeat our terrorist enemies today?
If ever there was a military action that passed the “global test” — which Kerry argued for in the debate — the Persian Gulf War was it. It overwhelmingly met Kerry’s dubious standard — and still he opposed it. This reveals a credibility problem of the first order. Almost defining credulity, Kerry said in a brief statement on the Senate floor, in an accompaniment to his vote against the Persian Gulf War, that “The president made a mistake to unilaterally increase troops, set a date, and make war so probable.”
Clearly, Kerry has a very strong aversion to the use of military power under virtually any circumstance. Of course, this raises serious questions about Kerry’s ability to conduct any military operations against our fundamentalist radical-Islamist enemies. Can we really believe that the man who has called the war in Iraq a “grand diversion,” a “colossal error,” an “incredible mess,” and the “wrong war” in the “wrong place” at the “wrong time” — pessimistic and defeatist statements all — is capable of waging a strong foreign policy and prosecuting a military action of any sort? What’s really left here is the portrait of a politician steeped in ambiguity and equivocation who at bottom has a strong aversion to war of any kind, for any reason.
In one of his better moments in a somewhat energy-less debating performance, President Bush did in fact take Kerry to the woodshed for his notion of a “global test.” So did Bush’s vice president. In a campaign rally after the debate, Dick Cheney said, “We will never seek a permission slip to defend America.”
It seems to me that the American electorate knows full well that what’s at stake come November is not the next secretary general of the United Nations but the next president of the United States. In Bush’s closing statement he said, “I’ll never turn over America’s national-security needs to leaders of other countries. . . . and will continue to spread freedom. I believe in the transformational power of liberty. And I believe both a free Afghanistan and a free Iraq will serve as a powerful example for millions who plead in silence for liberty in the broader Middle East.” This excellent content will triumph over some stylistic mistakes. Kerry’s poor content, however, may have dug him into a deeper electoral hole.
The latest Gallup Poll of 615 registered voters who watched the presidential debate contains some startling results: On debate performance Kerry wins 53 percent to 37 percent. However, as to who would better handle the situation in Iraq, Bush wins 54 to 43. Who do these voters trust more to handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief? Bush 54, Kerry 44. Who’s more believable? Bush 50, Kerry 45. More likable? Bush 48, Kerry 41. And the grand whopper — Who is tough enough for the job? Bush 54, Kerry 37.
Surely this shows the good sense of the American voter. Debating points are one thing, but truly strong national-security content is a much more important matter.
— Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor, is CEO of Kudlow & Co. and host with Jim Cramer of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer.
|
Emphasis added |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BuffaloJack
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1637
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jataylor11
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 856
Location: Woodbridge, Virginia
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GLOBAL TEST GLOBAL TEST GLOBAL TEST GLOBAL TEST
I believe this should be the catch phrase that people should ask each other for the next 4 weeks ---- What Global Test should the United States pass before securing our country our citizens? What country and leaders should determine what the Global Test is?
The problem is this: The United States is the most successful country in the history of the world. In a little over 200 years we have accumulated something like 40% of the world's wealth while having 2% of the population (I need to check my %s). The result in the words of Mother Teresa "If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends [France, Germany, Mexico] and some genuine enemies [islamic facist terrorists], Succeed anyway." [inserts added].
Why should the United States need to ask permission to defend our security? The United States gives more money in foreign aid than any other country with the possible exception of Japan. When you add what the United States spends in military defense of the world and foreign aid in the world our expenditures no doubt exceed the gross national product of all third world countries combined.
[I'll google these facts and edit this post]
The push for a Global Test, the push for internationalization is so the rest of the world can tax the weath of the United States citizens. There are already proposals out there for the United States to pay a global sales tax. Do we as US citizens want to pay the price of foreign aid, pay the price of a military that protects the world, and pay a global sales tax or global any tax? Ask this question of every liberal you know.
GLOBAL TEST = GLOBAL TAX |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dimsdale
Captain
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 527
Location: Massachusetts: the belly of the beast
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I also put this in a duplicate thread on this board....
This was Kerry's biggest faux pas in the debate. It MUST come back to haunt him, as it is what he has always believed since he was in college.
To wit:
| Quote: |
Early Kerry: Disband CIA, Put U.S. Troops Under U.N. Control
NewsMax.com 1/25/04 Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
As he builds his lead with New Hampshire voters leading up to Tuesday's Democratic primary, Sen. John Kerry is no doubt hoping that copies of an old interview he gave during his first congressional race don't suddenly turn up.
It was 1970 and the ambitious Massachusetts Democrat had just returned from Vietnam, completely soured on America and its influence throughout the world.
Running against the Rev. Robert F. Drinan in Massachusetts' Third District, Kerry granted an interview to the Harvard Crimson.
He told the college paper that it was time to "almost eliminate CIA activity," according to excerpts obtained by the Boston Globe last June. What's more, Kerry wanted U.S. troops "dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
After abandoning his challenge to Drinan, Kerry joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testified before the Senate, where he slammed the soldiers he served with as war criminals.
GIs in Vietnam, Kerry said, had "personally raped [Vietnamese civilians], cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephone to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."
Kerry later admitted he hadn't personally witnessed any of the atrocities he claimed his fellow soldiers had committed. |
What has changed except the date and the threat Kerry poses to the US?
_________________
Everytime he had a choice, Kerry chose to side with communists rather than the United States. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beatrice1000
Resource Specialist
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Let's not forget his other GLOBAL POSITION in that he wants the U.S. to belong to the International Court... Bush made one little comment against that, saying he didn't agree. Can you imagine? Here we are with our own democratic court system, thank you -- but Kerry wants to subject our people, our soldiers -- our citizens to the kangeroo court that actually is in existence, or should be, I think, to deal with situations where countries do not have a viable court system of their own -- or for big genocide matters... Isn't this the same court that indicted Sharon, and Tommy Franks, and, etc. This issue should be highlighted -- I wonder how favorable the Congress is towards Kerry's position. He'd do it, too -- sign the U.S. up for the global court - how can he defend this idea? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rdvrk219
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 6
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
