« The Blogroll For Bush Exceeds 300 Blogs! | Home | Hillary Takes a Stab At Stand-Up Comedy »
Kerry’s 7 Empty Promises Plan for Winning The War On Terror
By Matt Margolis | February 27, 2004
Today, John Kerry
1. Direct Military Action. John Kerry will always be prepared to use military force when necessary to neutralize terrorists and drain the swamps where they breed.
This point goes into further detail about deploying “The best-equipped forces backed by the most accurate intelligence.”
At this point, most people can dismiss the entire plan as empty rhetoric that completely contrasts with Kerry’s record. As has been noted before, Kerry voted against many defense programs, including the B-1 Bomber, B-2 Stealth Bomber, the F-14, F-15, F-16, the AV-8B harrier vertical takeoff and landing jet fighters, AH-64 Apache Helicopters, Patriot Missiles, Aegis Air Defense Cruiser, the Trident Missile System for U.S. Submarines, M-1 Abrams Tanks, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Tomahawk Cruise Missile.
If John Kerry wants the best-equipped military, why has he never voted for program to equip them with new technology and weapons?
Kerry’s promise to give the military the most accurate intelligence also doesn’t jive with his record in the Senate. Since 1993, Kerry has repeatedly voted to cut billions of dollars from our intelligence community, and even proposed freezing the intelligence budget.
Kerry’s First Point also calls for an increase of “Active Duty End Strength,” his plan states:
John Kerry has called for a temporary increase of about 40,000 active-duty Army troops: 20,000 in such specialties as military police and civil affairs, and 20,000 combat.
Interestingly enough, this completely conflicts with Kerry’s statement at the debate from last night:
KUCINICH: “You said you want to send 40,000 more troops [to Iraq].”
KERRY: “I have never said that.”
KUCINICH: “You never said you wanted to bring 40,000 more troops ever?”
KERRY: “No …”
Kerry has said similar things in the past as well. And yes, including Iraq.
2. Improve International Intelligence and Law Enforcement. John Kerry will lead our nation in building strong international cooperation to ensure that America has the best information available and works effectively to cut financing for terrorist organizations.
Once again, Kerry’s promises on improving anything for the intelligence community just don’t hold water. Kerry talks about ensuring “intelligence agencies receive the most accurate and timely information” but how can you do that without giving them adequate funding?
3. Cut Off the Flow of Terrorist Funds
Is this some new idea of Kerry’s? Please…
4. Control the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Control the spread??? Control it? How about “Stop the Spread of WMD????” Just what exactly are Kerry’s priorities here?
I also question Kerry’s true commitment to dealing with the WMD issue because Kerry is same guy who for years was telling us Saddam Hussein was a threat and then once the war began was accusing Bush of misleading the country.
Further discrediting Kerry’s commitment to this WMD issue, after Libya agreed to dismantle it’s WMD program (out of Qaddafi’s fear of sharing the same fate as Saddam Hussein,) Kerry, while at least recognizing the significance of Libya’s agreement and then criticized the circumstances: “If the President can put aside his go it alone unilateralism to engage with a longtime enemy like Qaddafi, why are the ideologues in this Administration so hesitant to negotiate with North Korea to end their nuclear weapons programs?”
5. Win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. John Kerry will bring real security in Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent terrorists from reemerging in Afghanistan or establishing a base in Iraq.
In this point, Kerry’s plan states it wants to “broaden the coalition in Iraq,” and “include the UN.” What I don’t understand is why Kerry thinks our coalition in Iraq is not legitimate, when he supported intervention of our military in Kosovo, which had a smaller coalition and no UN approval to back it up.
[6]. Win the War of Ideas and the Future of a Younge[r] Generation
What sticks out in this point is the strategy of assisting “Civil society through human rights groups, independent media, and labor unions.”
What? Is this sensitivity training or something? Is Kerry going to enlist Democratic Underground or IndyMedia to “build bridges?”
[7]. Secure America’s Homeland
Kerry’s final point here is also supplemented with a lot of empty promises that have no reflection of Kerry’s record. The plan states “Kerry will ensure our first defenders are equipped, that we can respond to biological attacks, and air transportation security is made safer.”
The only thing we have to judge Kerry on is his record, and when his record conflicts with his promises, then all we have is piece of fiction.
I will put my trust in the one person whose promises to win the war on terror can be backed up with actions. George W. Bush is that one person.
Topics: Liberal Idiots |
Related Posts:
February 28th, 2004 at 8:59 am
Directly after approval of the UN, of course. And you know we should probably also always get a second opinion from the EU as to our use of force to protect ourselves.
February 28th, 2004 at 7:59 pm
Next week Kerry will have flip flopped and will be denying most of these things.
February 29th, 2004 at 12:42 am
By the way what is ” International Intelligence and Law Enforcement”
The UN? There’s no “world police” last time I checked
February 29th, 2004 at 9:59 am
“If the President can put aside his go it alone unilateralism to engage with a longtime enemy like Qaddafi, why are the ideologues in this Administration so hesitant to negotiate with North Korea to end their nuclear weapons programs?”
Of for the love of… Kerry is STILL spouting off that kind of rhetoric? Qaddfi gave up the ghost not because of any direct diplomacy by the administration, but because he was scared to death he was next on the list. Wonderful thing “Peace through Strength.”
And the NorK’s? Oh spare me. Has Kerry even been paying attention to the news? Does this man even have a clue what is going on? Yes, those questions are rhetorical.
March 1st, 2004 at 12:20 pm
Carnival of the Bush Bloggers
The Carnival of the Bush Bloggers: March 1, 2004 Edition
March 1st, 2004 at 7:09 pm
Kosovo was the marking point when German Luftwafe bombed enemy teritory for the first time after WWII. So how was that coalition broader than the coalition with Fillipinos and Bulgarians? (they probably do not have planes that can fly that far all the way to the Middle East. They have to shlepp on the US planes - let me check the definition of “dead weight” in the dictionary)
October 16th, 2004 at 3:58 pm
Matt,
People like you who support Bush’s “War on Terror” just don’t know the world that we live in very well. Bush has, by stupidly going into Iraq, helped recruit more terrorists all over the Islamic world. Most of the Middle Eastern Muslims are moderate or were until Bush invaded Afghanistan (without finishing the job of stabilizing the country) and Iraq. More military firepower won’t make the world safer - we must include Arab countries in fighting extremists - Bush hasn’t done that. Kerry would. Bush stopped the dialog between Palestine and Israel. When you stop talking the danger starts. Clinton kept the two sides talking and there was one hell of a lot less violence than there is now. What do I know about the military and the Middle East? I served four years in the Army as a Persian and Arab linguist and have lived and traveled in the region for more than nine years. I can tell you now that a lot of educated Arabs supported Bush in 2000 (I tried to tell them!), but are incredibly angry with him now. Don’t help Bush destroy the earth that we all (should at least) hold so dear!
Mark
December 8th, 2004 at 1:27 am
John Kerry is a good man. He served his country honorably when he volunteered to go to Vietnam and he deserved every one of his medals and purple hearts, regardless of what those Swift Boat Veterans say. However, I am disgusted by the fact that Kerry threw somebody else’s medals and ribbons away while he was protesting the Vietnam war. I also am outraged when he called his own comrades “war criminals” in a speech to Congress in 1971. Not only that, he changed his positions too frequently on the campaign trail. I would have voted for John Kerry and John Kerry would have EASILY defeated George W. Bush in a landslide if only he didn’t flip-flop so much and if his plans weren’t that vague. But because of Kerry’s flip-flopping ways and nuanced positions, Bush won the election. I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if we haven’t seen the last of John Kerry.