SwiftVets.com

[silenthunter]

This is classically good from the ever classy Federalist.

While it's probably easy, I nonetheless do not know how to make a link to an article in a journal--I'm not even sure how to make a link to the journal itself. So please pardon the length. This is good, though. Good talking points.

_____----********O********----______
THE PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

8/6/04

Kerry is AWOL from Iraq...

"I will be a commander-in-chief who will never mislead us into war," claims John Kerry, with a none-too-subtle implication that President George W. Bush lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

On that note, we decided to take a look at the historical record. Indeed, we wanted to know precisely what the senator from Massachusetts had been saying all along about the Butcher of Baghdad. Lo and behold, we found that Kerry makes a compelling argument in support of President's Bush's actions to free the Iraqi people -- and the world -- from Saddam's terror.

Back in 1991, Kerry voted against the use of force in removing Iraq from neighboring Kuwait (S. J. Res. 2), later explaining that he only "voted against the timing of it. I said very clearly in my statement on the Senate floor that I was committed to getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait...and that I was prepared to go to war if it took that...."

Regarding Bill Clinton's attacks on Iraqi targets, Kerry said in 1997, "So clearly the allies may not like it...where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity?"

A year later, after additional bombing, Kerry said, "We have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt [Saddam's] regime and to encourage the forces of democracy. ... [H]e can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack. ... I believe that in the post-Cold War period this issue of proliferation, particularly in the hands of Saddam Hussein, is critical."

Three months after the 9/11 attack on our countrymen by state-supported Jihadi terrorists, Kerry argued, "Saddam is one who is and has acted like a terrorist. ... For instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. ... He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable."

Reiterating his position on Saddam prior to 9/11, Kerry said, "[I] think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections...." He then added, "I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11."

Regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, Kerry said, "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue [to combat terrorism], for instance, Saddam Hussein."

Regarding diplomatic solutions and the Bush administration's efforts to get the UN to enforce the Security Council's unanimous mandates on Iraqi arms, Kerry said, in May of 2002, "[Saddam is] buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes. We're precisely doing that. And I think that's what Colin Powell did today."

In July of 2002, Kerry told the Democrat Leadership Council, "I agree completely with this Administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq.... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991."

That's "completely," fellow Patriots.

A month later in a New York Times op-ed, Kerry asserted, "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

That's even if it's "mostly at the hands of the United States."

In September of 2002, a year after 9/11, Kerry said: "It is imperative that we issue an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, and that would require immediate and full compliance, and if Hussein doesn't comply, the United States must be prepared to go in and...if need be, largely alone remove Saddam Hussein from power. There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home. ...[Saddam] may even miscalculate and slide these [WMD] off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat."

A few days later, he told MSNBC, "The president...always reserves the right to act unilaterally to protect the interests of our country." On 11 October 2002, Kerry voted for the Iraq War Resolution (H.J. Res. 114).

That's "unilaterally."

In May of 2003, Kerry defended that vote, saying, "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." But when Howard Dean turned up the heat with his anti-war message, Kerry began to waffle. Announcing his candidacy, Kerry's support for regime change morphed into, "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations."

Notice the head of the pin on which Kerry is now attempting to dance. He's claiming that he only "voted to threaten the use of force." In other words, he's now insisting that he only voted to deliver a hollow threat. Not exactly a profile in courage, eh?

As the Demo-primary season approached, Kerry began to hone his newfound opposition to the removal of Saddam: "They rushed to war. They were intent on going to war."

When it came time to provide supplemental appropriations for our troops in Iraq, Kerry (who planned to run his campaign on his veteran status) claimed, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

But on 17 October 2003, Kerry abandoned our troops, voting against S. 1689, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction. Thus, he put pure political expedience ahead of his obligation to arm and equip our fighting forces -- specifically those fighting forces currently standing in harm's way.

In January of this year, when asked if he was "one of the anti-war candidates," Kerry answered firmly, "I am -- yeah." After announcing his running mate in March, he said of John Edwards, "I'm proud to say that John joined me in voting against that $87 billion...."

Got that? He's actually "proud" of having stiffed our troops.

Last month, when asked by CBS if his vote for the removal of Saddam was a mistake (which, politically, it clearly was), Kerry fumbled his answer: "What -- what -- what I voted for, you -- you -- you see, you're playing here. What -- what I voted for was a -- an authority for the president to go to war as a last resort if Saddam Hussein did not disarm and we needed to go to war." When pressed for a direct answer to the question, Kerry responded curtly, "I think I answered your question."

When asked why he "voted for the war, but didn't vote for the money to finance the war," Kerry responded, "That's not a flip-flop. That's not a flip-flop."

And this week, Kerry claims, "I believe this administration is actually encouraging the recruitment of terrorists. The policies of this administration, I believe and others believe very deeply, have resulted in an increase of animosity and anger focused on the United States of America." (Here we suppose "others" is in reference to the same yet-to-be-identified foreign leaders who Kerry claims support his candidacy.)

The reality is, of course, that it's our very existence, and not our actions, that the Jihadis really object to. Kerry's failure to acknowledge this fact is indicative of just how deeply he has delved into the fevered swamp.

Last week, greeting Demo-conventioneers with a limp Clintonesque salute, Kerry intoned that he was "reporting for duty." To which we say, it's about time -- because he has been AWOL from Iraq since he voted to invade.

(To see and hear Kerry's comments on Iraq, link to -- http://kerry-04.org/iraq.php )
_________________
R.E. Gleason, YN2
Navy '67-'71
Staff, Rear Admiral James D. Ramage,
COMCARDIV7, '70-'71
USS Oriskany, CVA34, '69-'71

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it won't be needed until someone tries to take it away." -- Thomas Jefferson