 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Becky
Seaman
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 179
Location: Georgia
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 4:54 pm Post subject: Putting Kerry to His 'Global Test' |
 |
|
A must read for those of us that watched the debate
and gagged at Kerry's need for Global approval before
protecting our country - liar, liar, pants on fire!:
| Quote: | Larry Kudlow
October 1, 2004
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 S.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. |
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larrykudlow/lk20041001.shtml
_________________
“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a
scarce man, and brave, and hated and
scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid
join him, for then it costs nothing to be a
patriot.”
- Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dimsdale
Captain
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 527
Location: Massachusetts: the belly of the beast
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
_________________
Everytime he had a choice, Kerry chose to side with communists rather than the United States. |
|
| 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
