Beginning
with the first televised presidential debate between Richard Nixon and the original
JFK 44 years ago, style has often trumped substance in presidential campaigns.
Aided by a set of questions authored by PBS's Jim Lehrer, which played directly
into the hands of John Kerry and left President George Bush playing defense, the
first presidential debate of 2004 was no exception. While the candidates' style
points were close -- much closer than many expected -- it is substance, not style,
which provides for the national-security interests of the United States.
While
taking stage right to President Bush in last night's debate, Senator Kerry's stand
-- or stands, shall we say -- on issues of national security placed him at far,
far stage left. Style notwithstanding, the substance of Kerry's exchange on national
security was anything but reassuring.
"My position on Iraq has been consistent."
Sen. Kerry repeated those same words some half dozen times over the course of
the 90-minute debate, so we just can't resist saying it: "Methinks he doth protest
too much." (Of some mention, Kerry referenced his Vietnam "service" about half
a dozen times, too.) Highlighting the "consistency" of his position, over the
course of 90 minutes Kerry managed to say the war with Iraq was a "colossal error
of judgment" on the part of the President and referred to the war as a "distraction"
from "the real war on terror," but he managed to add that he believed Saddam was
a threat when he voted to authorize the use of force, that the Iraqi people deserved
to be free, and that he could "win the peace," while beginning to withdraw U.S.
forces within six months, making our "bribed and coerced" allies, whose contributions
he "respects," pick up the slack.
He also implied he'd build a real coalition
for Iraq, including France and Germany, and open reconstruction contracts to those
nations -- the very ones who profited most (illegally under UNSC sanctions) from
Saddam's rule, and who have both refused (as recently as this week) to be a part
of any such coalition, even in the eventuality of a Kerry presidency. Consistent
eh?
On the subject of our troops engaged in Iraq, Kerry remarked, "I
understand what the president is talking about because I know what it means to
lose people in combat. And the question, ‘Is it worth the cost?,' reminds me of
my own thinking when I came back from fighting in that war. And it reminds me
that it is vital for us not to confuse the war -- ever -- with the warriors. That
happened before."
More to the point, who was the one perpetuating that
confusion? Was Kerry criticizing the war when he testified before Congress in
1971 of war crimes by U.S. forces in Vietnam? NO! -- Kerry was accusing U.S. troops
in the field of countless atrocities, playing directly into the hands of the Communist
North.
Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever
to defect from the Soviet bloc, said of Kerry's anti-American activities during
the Vietnam War: "KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American
power, judgment, and credibility. ... As a spy chief and a general in the former
Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to
the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements."
General
Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnam's most decorated military leader, wrote in retrospect
that if not for the disunity created by Kerry and his ilk, Hanoi would have ultimately
surrendered.
Kerry can't have it both ways. His undermining of U.S. resolve,
and that of our allies, in the war against terrorism, specifically on the Iraqi
warfront with Jihadistan, is a direct assault on Americans fighting in Iraq. American
and Allied Forces, and countless Iraqis, are being injured and killed because
of the political dissent Kerry and his ilk are fomenting -- not unlike the American
casualties Kerry's 1971 protests caused in Vietnam.
Back to the war at
hand, Kerry relentlessly attacked President Bush, saying, "Saddam Hussein didn't
attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us." Then, when asked about the most dangerous
security threat in the world today, Kerry didn't hesitate to reply, "Nuclear proliferation,"
to which President Bush added, "in the hands of terrorists." Though we can --
and have -- laid bare Kerry's national-security credentials, President Bush said
it best, last night: "To say there's only one focus in the war on terror
doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror...the front of this
war is in more than one place."
Though he recognizes nuclear proliferation
to be the imminent threat to our nation's security interests, Kerry seems not
to grasp -- dare we say it -- the "nuances" of dealing with such a threat. The
Senator apparently thinks he can publicly ridicule Russian President Vladmir Putin
as a tyrant one minute, then vow to secure all fissile materiel in the former
Soviet bloc within four years the next minute. Does Kerry really believe we can
do this apart from Russian cooperation? Who's the brazen unilateralist now?
To
wit, Kerry's debate performance on these other fronts was equally disastrous.
On the subject of Iran, Kerry was obviously confused on the whole issue of nuclear
technology, as well as the historical facts concerning the sanctions against Iran.
The
man who thought he spent Christmas in Cambodia first said we needed sanctions
against Iran, then, when confronted with the fact that there are sanctions against
Iran -- and you can't sanction them again -- Kerry blamed the President for the
"unilateral" nature of those sanctions, to which Mr. Bush corrected, again, that
those sanctions were in place "long before I came to Washington." Indeed, 29 October
1987, for the first set of sanctions, under President Reagan. 16 March 1995, under
President Clinton, for a second set. 19 August 1997 for another set of sanctions,
again under then President Clinton. Again, consistent?
By way of contrast,
on the subject of North Korean nuclear armament, Kerry bemoaned the President's
decision to abandon bilateral talks with dictator Kim Jung Il in favor of multilateral
pressure -- a coalition, some might say -- involving China, Russia, South Korea
and Japan. For some reason, when President Bush employs multilateral diplomacy
it's a bad idea; Kerry would return to Clinton's tried-and-failed diplomacy of
appeasement -- the same diplomacy under which North Korea was able to advance
its nuclear program in secret, even adding enriched uranium to its plutonium-based
weapons development.
And that's just how "consistent" Kerry can be in 90
minutes; let's not even think about four years.
Perhaps the key moment of
the debate, as well as the point most clearly delineating just how stage left
Kerry is on national security, was his comment, "No president through all
of American history has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in
any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you
do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test. That passes the
global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing
what you're doing. And you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate
reasons."
Mr. Bush replied: "I'm not exactly sure what you mean:
passes the 'global test.' You take pre-emptive action if you pass a global test?
My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people."
This
tells all. The foreign-policy difference between Kerry and Bush is not multilateralism
versus unilateralism. Both are, at times, legitimate tools of foreign policy,
but not policies themselves. The difference, rather, is one of globalism versus
national sovereignty in the promotion and defense of U.S. interests abroad. Kerry's
globalist agenda, by his own admission, would sacrifice U.S. protection of her
citizens and soldiers abroad to the caprices of the International Criminal Court.
Kerry would seek UN approval for "preemptively" defending the United States --
approval of the same agency that so effectively issued no fewer than 17 resolutions
against Saddam's Iraq and refused to enforce any of them, with Kofi Annan recently
declaring the resolutions' enforcement "illegal."
With an approving reference
to Charles DeGaulle, the French president who abandoned the U.S.-led coalition
in the defense of the free world at a crucial moment of the Cold War, Kerry said
he would restore our "credibility" with such leaders around the world. The Patriot
unapologetically replies: It's time for these foreign leaders -- the likes of
France and Germany, who have continued unhesitatingly to obstruct U.S. interests
abroad and security around the globe -- to restore their credibility with us.
National security is not for the faint of heart, and John Kerry's feints
of heart prove that the Senator from Massachusetts, replete with his history of
foreign policy waffling and betrayal of the national trust, is simply not up to
the task.
On the eve of our assault on al-Qa'ida and other Jihadistan forces
in Afghanistan, President Bush addressed the nation, and closed with these words:
"We will not waiver, we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.
Peace and freedom will prevail." Indeed!
Quote of the week... "If America
shows uncertainly or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy.
That's not going to happen so long as I'm your president. ... We will continue
to stay on the offense. We will fight the terrorists around the world so we do
not have to face them here at home. We'll continue to build our alliances. I'll
never turn over America's national-security needs to leaders of other countries
as we continue to build those alliances." --President George W. Bush
Kerry
Waivers...
Here are a few more of Kerry's "Flips" in previous statements
and "Flops" in the debate last night.
On Iraq as a source for terrorist
WMD...
Flip: "Saddam Hussein has already used these [WMD] and has made
it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity
and secrecy, to continue to do so. That...is a threat with respect to the potential
of terrorist activities on a global basis."
Flop: Now Kerry says Iraq posed
no terrorist threat, but then flips again in the middle of the debate, saying,
"I have always agreed on that, and from the beginning, I did vote to give the
authority because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat." On support for American
forces in combat...
Flip: Kerry voted against $87 billion in funding to
equip our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with essential supplies like ammunition
and body armor even though he said before the vote, "I don't think any United
States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to – to
whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."
He explained later, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against
it."
Flop: Now Kerry now says, "My message to the troops is...help is on
the way. I believe those troops deserve better than what they are getting today."
On
"lies"...
Flip: Kerry accused President Bush of lying: "This administration
has lied to us. They have misled us."
Flop: Kerry now says to the moderator,
"Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word ["lie"] as you just did."
Mark
Alexander is Executive Editor and Publisher of The Federalist Patriot..
Subscribe
to The Federalist Patriot -- It's right and it's free!
