SwiftVets.com

[leeinwv]

http://www.bushcountry.org/

Kerry Makes His Case For Surrender
Back to News/Home Page
News Archives


During last Thursday’s presidential debate on foreign policy, John Kerry made his case for surrender in Iraq. He did not put it in those words, of course, but the message came through loud and clear. Despite his tough talk about killing terrorists and winning the war, John Kerry revealed his true colors in the War on Terror – yellow and powder blue.

Returning to his roots as a Vietnam War protester, Kerry unequivocally denounced Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq. Kerry called it “a colossal error of judgment” and stated that, if he knew then what he knows now, he would not have voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein. Indeed, Kerry claimed that he voted against the $87 billion supplemental bill to provide equipment for our troops in Iraq as a protest against the war – and proudly compared this vote to his anti-Vietnam War activities thirty years ago. Kerry stated: “When I came back from that war, I saw that it was wrong. Some people don’t like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that’s what I did with that vote.” Yes, Kerry admitted that, for partisan political reasons, he voted to deny funding to American soldiers actively engaged in hostilities halfway around the globe against a sworn enemy of the United States. Hardly the actions of someone who claims to “support” our troops and wants to become commander-in-chief. Unfortunately, Bush missed this fundamental point, which is much more significant than a mere “flip-flop” and could have knocked Kerry out of the race.

Continuing with his Vietnam War analogy (the sine qua non of Democratic foreign policy since Jimmy Carter), Kerry repeatedly emphasized during the debate the “incredible mess” we are facing in Iraq. While he studiously avoided using the word “quagmire,” the words he did use conveyed the exact same feeling of despair, failure, and defeat. In one particularly pathetic passage, Kerry cried: “The president just – I don’t know if he sees what’s really happening on there. But it’s getting worse by the day. More soldiers killed in June than before. More in July than June. More in August than July. More in September than August. And now we see beheadings. And we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they’re blowing people up.” Plainly, what Kerry learned in Vietnam was fear, not heroism; retreat, not resolve. Thankfully, John Kerry was not President in 1941, or we would be speaking German right now.

As President Bush acknowledged during the debate, fighting a war is “hard work” and requires sacrifice. But war sometimes is necessary. Unlike Kerry, who seems to have forgotten 9/11, Bush recognizes that we are confronted with a deadly enemy that is motivated by an “ideology of hate” and operates on a worldwide basis with one aim in mind: to kill Americans, Jews, Christians, westerners, and anyone opposed to the spread of militant Islam. Bush’s position is clear: “We have a duty to defeat this enemy.” That means in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and wherever else they are hiding and preparing for their next attack. As Bush sharply retorted in response to Kerry’s charge that Iraq is a “diversion” in the war on terror: “[T]o say that there’s only one focus on the war on terror doesn’t really understand the nature of the war on terror.”

So what is Kerry’s position? To get out of Iraq as quickly as possible. Kerry explicitly stated during the debate that “our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there.” He further claimed that, under his “plan” for Iraq, “we could begin to draw the troops down in six months.” This plan essentially involves turning over the operation to the United Nations, a corrupt and ineffectual organization dominated by Third World dictatorships.

On numerous occasions during the debate, Kerry criticized Bush for not allowing the United Nations to take the lead in dealing with Iraq. Kerry argued that, before the war started, Bush should have “continued those inspections” and “had the patience to go through another round of resolutions” – despite the fact that Saddam Hussein had been deceiving the inspectors and ignoring the resolutions since the first Gulf War. And after the war started, Kerry argued that we should have “d[one] what was necessary to transfer authority” to Kofi Annan. Yes, Kofi Annan! Amazingly, Kerry considers it a bad thing that the operation in Iraq “was always American-run,” and he promises if elected to do “what we need to do with respect to the U.N.” A more abject renunciation of American sovereignty and leadership is scarcely imaginable. Bush should have taken Kerry to task for this position during the debate.

While Kerry may not be as openly craven as George McGovern in 1972 (who promised to bring the troops home from Vietnam in 90 days, consequences be damned), the essence of his position is the same: defeat, retreat, and surrender. What a horrible message to send the American people and our brave fighting men and women overseas. President Bush is right: John Kerry cannot lead this country to victory in Iraq.

Of course, anyone who believes John Kerry truly wants the United States to prevail in Iraq is a fool. Kerry is the most blatantly anti-American candidate the Democrats have ever nominated. Taking his talking points from the “no blood for oil” crowd, Kerry accused Bush during the debate of having “designs” on Iraq and being motivated by “spoils” and greed. Unfortunately, the President did not respond to these false and scurrilous attacks. Kerry also claimed that “[t]here’s a sense of American occupation.” A “sense” among whom? Kerry must have been speaking on behalf of the terrorists and jihadists (and the liberal political-media-academic complex) because neither Prime Minister Allawi nor the tens of thousands of ordinary Iraqis who are enrolling in the provisional government’s security forces (let alone the 35 children who were enjoying some candy from American soldiers when they were blown to bits by terrorists) share this opinion.

Kerry’s further assertion that we must “reach out to the Muslim world” is nothing short of appeasement. Who exactly does he have in mind? We already have constructive relationships with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. So Kerry must mean our enemies, like Iran, Syria, and Libya. Why would Kerry want the United States to “reach out” to them? Did F.D.R. “reach out” to Nazi Germany? Did Kennedy “reach out” to the Soviet Union?

In perfect tune with his anti-American song, John Kerry actually said during the debate that he believes there should be a “global test” that governs American actions at home (for example, through international treaties, such as the Kyoto Accords on “global warming”) and abroad. In Kerry’s own words, the United States should not act to protect its interests unless “you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.” As President Bush rightly pointed out, this is contrary to the President’s solemn duty to protect the American people. Under this test, we never would have overthrown the Taliban, routed Al Qaeda, or deposed Saddam Hussein. Why would Kerry want to give “the world” the right to pass judgment on America in this manner? Does he value foreign opinion more than the opinion of the American people? Obviously he does. But Kerry is not running for President of France, as much as he might like that; he is running for President of the United States – and the American people expect their President to put America first, something John Kerry has never done.

Ultimately, John Kerry wants to give “the world” – whether acting through the United Nations or the “strong alliances” he says we should be building – the right to control the security (and prosperity) of the United States. To foster this treasonous transfer of power, Kerry intends to weaken our ability to protect our national interests by adopting a “last resort” policy that effectively tells our enemies we will never attack them until after they have attacked us, by demanding that other nations carry the burden of fighting our enemies although we are the world’s only superpower, and by shifting resources from defense spending to domestic programs.

Incredibly, Kerry even promised to “shut down” our nuclear weapons program because it sends “mixed messages” to our enemies about nuclear proliferation. In other words, because North Korea and Iran are not to be trusted with nuclear weapons, neither are we. This shocking remark – which recalls Kerry’s support for the nuclear freeze movement during Reagan’s presidency – reflects all at once Kerry’s deeply ingrained pacifism, internationalism, and anti-Americanism. Three traits that George W. Bush, thankfully, does not share.

The pundits may believe that John Kerry “won” the debate on Thursday, but if the American people elect him the next President, we will be the big losers.

Steven M. Warshawsky is an attorney in New York City.
E-mail link for reader comments: smwarshawsky@hotmail.com

[buffman]

It'll be the same thing as Clinton, send some troops in to an area for humanitarian purposes, but after we get hit a couple times, just send in a few cruise missiles, nothing with any backbone to it!
_________________
Never Ever Give Up
America First

[army72]

One thing is certain, he really does fit the 'hate America first' crowd. I am amazed that people continue to follow that clown.

I keep waiting for Bush to drop that bomb during the debate by asking Kerry to clarify his meetings with the enemy then hold up the 180. The talking heads would be forced to explain it to the masses. Maybe ask him about Colliers and ask about the POW/MIA papers that were shreaded.
_________________
Hillary and Kerry in '08? Something smells!!