Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Morton Kondracke: Bush's 9/11 vs. Kerry's Vietnam
Naples Daily News ^ | 2.17.04 | Mort Kondrake

Posted on 02/16/2004 10:03:44 PM PST by ambrose

Naples Daily News
 
To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/pe_columnists/article/0,2071,NPDN_14960_2659628,00.html
Morton Kondracke: Bush's 9/11 vs. Kerry's Vietnam

By MORTON KONDRACKE, Newspaper Enterprise Association
February 17, 2004

pictureBoth Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and President Bush have had a searing life experience. For Kerry, it was the disaster of Vietnam. For Bush, Sept. 11, 2001. It makes all the difference in their foreign policy views.

While a valiant, decorated combatant, Kerry entered public life condemning the Vietnam War, and his career-long record is one of opposition to uses of American force and the weapons systems needed to carry them out.

Bush, as he explained once again on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, has been "a war president" ever since terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on his watch.

"Every threat had to be reanalyzed," he said, referring to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. "Every potential had to be judged in the context of this war on terrorism. ... We looked at the intelligence and we remembered that he had used weapons, which meant he had weapons. He was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world."

The evidence suggests that Bush may feel some responsibility, even guilt, for not doing enough to counter Al Qaeda before Sept. 11, 2001. Certainly, terrorism had no great priority. There was no "war" against it.

Despite Bush's claim to Tim Russert that he is fully cooperating with the commission investigating Sept. 11, the panel's members are so frustrated with White House roadblocks that they have considered issuing subpoenas. This suggests that Bush is deeply embarrassed at what they might find.

But once Sept. 11 happened, Bush's whole presidency was transformed. He began to "worst case" world threats. Every intelligence service in the world believed that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Former President Bill Clinton believed it. Even Kerry believed it.

And, Bush assumed it was only a matter of time before Hussein would use his WMD again, possibly by handing weapons off to terrorists. So, the president decided that Hussein had to be toppled.

To sell the country on that course, it now appears, he and his aides "cherry-picked" and exaggerated the intelligence, playing up the Iraqi threat and ignoring contrary claims.

Democrats and the anti-war media now are making much of a Defense Intelligence Agency warning that there was "no reliable information whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." But they are cherry-picking, too. The abundance of the evidence was that a WMD arsenal existed.

And so, Bush took the country to war, believing it was "a war of necessity." Was it the right course? Ultimately, the answer depends upon whether the United States can turn Iraq into a stable, semi-democratic country, or whether it cascades into civil war and chaos.

The chances are, Americans will not know for sure before the election whether Bush's risky adventure will end well or badly. They'll have to choose between a "war president" and an "anti-war" challenger.

There seems little question that, had Kerry's policy views prevailed, Hussein would still be in power — in fact, he would have scored a strategic defeat over the United States and might have resumed producing WMD.

While Kerry voted to authorize Bush to go to war after Kerry delivered a speech brimming with assertions that Iraq had WMD and represented "a grave threat," the Senator also said, "I will not support a unilateral U.S. war ... unless the threat is imminent and the multilateral effort [to disarm Iraq] has not proven possible under any circumstances."

Referring to his Vietnam experience, Kerry told the Senate on Oct. 9, 2002, that "I know what it means to fight in a war where [public] consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, where conditions are hostile and the mission is ill-defined."

Under the scenario likely to have unfolded under Kerry policy, United Nations inspectors, of course, would never have found WMD in Iraq. France, Germany and other countries would never have agreed to the use of force. Bush would have had to pull back 100,000 troops massed on Iraq's border.

Thereafter, France and Russia would have resumed efforts to lift sanctions on Iraq. Bush would have lost the confrontation. And Hussein would have won. Is this the right course in the age of terrorism?

It may be difficult for voters to know for sure right now, but there seems little question that Kerry's Vietnam-based experience has led him to wrong choices in the past.

He voted against the first Persian Gulf War in 1991 even though Iraq had invaded a neighbor, the U.N. Security Council had voted to force a withdrawal and Bush's father had formed a multinational alliance to carry it out.

In the 1980s, Kerry backed the nuclear freeze movement, which would have permitted the Soviet Union to retain missile dominance in Europe.

In 1984, Kerry declared in a re-election campaign statement that "Americans feel more threatened by the prospect of war, not less so" after the Reagan administration's defense buildup.

He recommended cutting $45 billion to $53 billion from the defense budget and vowed to "cancel" the MX missile, the B-1 bomber, the Tomahawk cruise missile, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot missile and four fighter aircraft programs.

So, does America choose a president this year who can't get over Vietnam? Or one who can't get over Sept. 11? Domestic choices and character choices have to be made, too, but surely more voters now share Bush's trauma than Kerry's.

Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.

MORE KONDRACKE COLUMNS »

Copyright 2004, Naples Daily News. All Rights Reserved.



TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2004; gwb2004; kerry; kondracke; kondrake; vietgate

1 posted on 02/16/2004 10:03:45 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Pretty damn good article.
2 posted on 02/16/2004 10:07:28 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose; PhiKapMom; My2Cents
This one is bookmarked. I think Mort will vote for POTUS.
3 posted on 02/16/2004 10:10:39 PM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
What weapons systems would we be stuck with had Kerry been successful? Anyone want to chime in . . . ?
4 posted on 02/16/2004 10:11:14 PM PST by rebel_yell2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
So, does America choose a president this year who can't get over Vietnam?

Kerry and the Media will do everything they can to keep Kerry's "anti-war" record from gaining attention.

Witness NBC's keeping Kerry's Meet the Press interview sequestered deep within their vaults.

5 posted on 02/16/2004 10:12:08 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rebel_yell2
Vietnam era weapons. No joke intended.
6 posted on 02/16/2004 10:12:45 PM PST by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
There seems little question that, had Kerry's policy views prevailed, Hussein would still be in power — in fact, he would have scored a strategic defeat over the United States and might have resumed producing WMD.

Along with Libya, Iran, Syria and NK

7 posted on 02/16/2004 10:13:05 PM PST by paul51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Kerry's Vietnam:
8 posted on 02/16/2004 10:19:59 PM PST by BenLurkin (Socialism is Slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
The dims are a 9/10 party in a 9/11 world. They just don't get it.
9 posted on 02/16/2004 10:29:14 PM PST by tkathy (The nihilistic islamofascists and the nihilistic liberals are trying to destroy this country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tkathy; ambrose
I'm having the best time posting this photo. Kerry is sooo Sept 10th.


10 posted on 02/16/2004 10:31:11 PM PST by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
The dims are a 9/10 party in a 9/11 world. They just don't get it.

Unfortunately neither do a large amount of Americans. Perhaps enough to cost W re-election...
11 posted on 02/16/2004 10:36:59 PM PST by over3Owithabrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Similar points to mine ....

Senator John Kerry has used his Vietnam war service skillfully to win his party's nomination. Yet Senator Kerry's stump-speech war hero boasts hide an ugly reality: Kerry has often used his 4 months of service in Vietnam as a prop in his 35 years in politics not to build up our military and our national security, but to tear it down.

Soon after leaving the military, John Kerry became a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War protest group. This group was one of the more radical of anti-war protest organizations. The group, including Kerry, advocated the "People's Peace Treaty" that proposed peace on the terms of the VietCong and the Communist Hanoi regime and supported Hanoi's position to use American POWs as a bargaining chip in negotiations. Group members in protests wore tattered fatigues marked with pro-communist graffiti and marched under the flag of the Communist VietCong.

In April 1971, Kerry testified to Congress that American soldiers in Vietnam had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam." Kerry testified, "We all did it." He said these claims were "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." As B.G. Burkett points out in his book "Stolen Valor", these allegations were based almost entirely on trumped-up stories from phony veterans who alleged atrocities they could not possibly have committed or witnessed.

Kerry had defamed the military to further the anti-war cause.

Kerry used his war service as a prop to garner attention to his activism and as a shield to deflect criticism of how his actions harmed the military. Kerry even used his own medals for political theater when he threw what appeared to be his medals over a fence in front of the Capitol building. (His medals ended up on display in his Senate office later when they became something to be proud of again.)

Over the years, the politician John Kerry has followed the path laid out by his anti-war activism.

Senator Kerry helped the Communist Vietnamese regime in the 1990s, advocating normalization with Vietnam and voting to end the trade embargo against Vietnam. He prevented the Vietnam Human Rights Act from coming to a vote in the Senate, deflecting concerns about human rights abuses in Vietnam. His favors to Vietnam were rewarded. In 1992, Vietnam granted Colliers International, a company headed by Kerry's cousin C. Stewart Forbes, a contract worth $1 billion as the exclusive real estate agent representing Vietnam.

Senator Kerry consistently sought to downsize military and intelligence budgets and stop key military procurements. In 1995, Senator Kerry voted to freeze defense spending for seven years. In the 1980s, Kerry opposed the strategic modernization effort proposed by President Reagan, instead supporting the nuclear freeze. Yet Reagan's aggressive approach forced the Soviet Union to reform internally in ways that ultimately led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and Cold War victory.

When asked in the South Carolina debate if President Bush overstated the terrorist threat, Kerry said, "I think there has been an exaggeration." This comment echoed his 1971 Congressional testimony: "I think we are reacting under cold-war precepts which are no longer applicable. ... I think it [the Communist threat] is bogus, totally artificial. There is no threat. " Yet when the Communists invaded and took over South Vietnam in 1975, over a million Vietnamese 'boat people' were forced to flee.

In 1991, Kerry voted against the first Gulf War resolution to force Saddam out of Kuwait. After Kerry voted for the Iraq War resolution in October 2002, he voted against funding for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq in September 2003. One could say that Kerry voted against finishing in 2003 what he voted to start in 2002, but Kerry insists his vote for military action in Iraq was only to support diplomatic efforts. Has he not noticed that hollow threat diplomacy always fails?

For both Kerry and Bush, it's not the service of their youth but their actions as public leaders that indicate their Presidential mettle.
Given Senator Kerry's questionable national security views and record, it is fair to ask: Who really has gone AWOL on our national security?
12 posted on 02/16/2004 10:40:03 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
bump for later
13 posted on 02/16/2004 10:46:25 PM PST by centexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
"Bush is deeply embarrassed at what they might find"

But .. IT'S NOT ABOUT BUSH .. it's what they will find out about the PRESIDENCY. That's what Bush is protecting. I'm sure Clinton will get plenty of blame for doing nothing about any of the attacks upon our military all over the world.
14 posted on 02/16/2004 10:47:24 PM PST by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rebel_yell2
Bows and arrows???
15 posted on 02/16/2004 10:49:36 PM PST by clee1 (Where's the beef???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Agree.
16 posted on 02/16/2004 10:50:56 PM PST by ambrose ("John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands" - Lt. Col. Oliver North)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: clee1; rebel_yell2
That's what I was thinking, too. Rocks. Maybe a few muskets. At any rate, it wouldn't be a very fearsome arsenal.
17 posted on 02/16/2004 10:56:24 PM PST by kayak (Medals do not make a man. Morals do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
Their can't be all that much that GW wants to hide that DERIVES directly from his (only) 7 1/2 months in office prior to 911. My goodness his FBI Director was only sworn in a week prior to 911. After Al Qaeda & Saudia Arabia's Islamists, it is William Jefferson Clinton that is the most responsible for that infamous date in Sept 2001.
18 posted on 02/16/2004 11:01:50 PM PST by PISANO (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ambrose; All
The following was posted on another thread. It's an excellent letter. Please copy it and send it out in emails, post it on other threads, do whatever you can to spread it far and wide.

A friend sent the below letter to our retired SGT/MAJ. Please read it and pass it on.... It should be read by every voter.....Thanks, Bev

Open Letter to John Kerry:

My wife had rotator cuff surgery earlier this year, and the recovery is terribly painful. Then, she developed a staph-epi infection, and they had to cut the same scar open and operate on her again. Just thinking about the pain and anxiety of facing that painful surgery a second time in the same wound, makes me cringe. That experience, however pales in comparison to what I am going through right now, in my heart.

The old hurts are surfacing and the feelings of betrayal by fellow citizens, and their leader stirring them up, are breaking my heart again. I am being cut in the same scar. How did we who served in Vietnam suddenly become cold-blooded killers, torturers, and rapists, of the ilk of the Nazi SS or the Taliban? Most of us were American soldiers who grew up idolizing John Wayne, Roy Rogers, and all the other heroes. That was why I volunteered. But for political expediency, you have rewritten history, again. After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, you testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents you supposedly witnessed or heard about from other vets: "They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

I was a green beret officer who volunteered for duty in Vietnam and fought in the thick of it in 1968 and 1969 on a Special Forces A-team on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, just for starters. We were the elite. We saw the most action. Everybody in the world knows that. But we did not just kill people, we built a church, a school, treated illnesses, passed out soap, food, and clothing, and had fun and loving interaction with the indigenous people of Vietnam, just like our boys did in Normandy, Baghdad, Saigon, and everywhere American soldiers ever served. We all gave away our candy bars and rations to kids. Our hearts to oppressed people all over the globe.

My children and grandchildren could read your words, and think those horrendous things about me, Mr. Kerry. You are a bold-faced, unprincipled liar, and a disgrace, and you have dishonored me and all my fellow Vietnam veterans. Sure, there were a couple bad-apples, but I saw none, and I saw it all, and if I did, as an army officer, it was my obligation to stop it, or at the very least report it. Why is there not a single record anywhere of you ever reporting any incidents like this or having the perpetrators arrested? The answer is simple. You are a liar. Your medals and mine are not a free pass for lifetime, Senator Kerry, to bypass character, integrity, and morality. I earn my green beret over and over daily in all aspects of my life.

Eight National Guard green berets, and other National Guard soldiers, have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you totally dishonored their widows and families by lumping National Guard service in with being a draft-dodger, conscientious objector, and deserter, just so you can try to sabotage the patriotism of our President who proudly served as an Air National Guard jet pilot. I have a son earning his green beret at Fort Bragg right now, and his wife serves honorably in the Air National Guard, just like President Bush did, and I am as proud of her as I am my son. I volunteered for Vietnam and have no problem whatsoever with President Bush being our Commander-In-Chief. In fact, I am proud of him as our leader.

John Kerry, you personally derailed the Vietnam Human rights Bill, HR2883, in 2001, after it had passed the House by a 411 to 1 vote, and thousands of pro-American Montagnard tribespeople in Vietnam died since then who could have been saved, by you. Earlier, as Chair of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs, you personally quashed the efforts of any and all veterans to report sightings of living POW's, when you held those reins in Congress. You have fought tooth and nail to push for the US to normalize relations with Vietnam for years. Why, Mr. Kerry? Simple, your first cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO, of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi, worth BILLIONS of dollars for Collier's International to become the exclusive real estate representative for the country of Vietnam.

"Hanoi John," now that it works for you, you beat your chest about your Vietnam service, but to me, you are a phony, opportunistic, hypocrite. You are one of those politicians that is like a fertilizer machine: all that comes out of you is horse manure, and you are spreading it everywhere.

Medals do not make a man. Morals do.


209 posted on 02/15/2004 11:16:16 PM EST by bevlar

19 posted on 02/16/2004 11:01:56 PM PST by kayak (Medals do not make a man. Morals do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher; Miss Marple; Peach; prairiebreeze; Iowa Granny; Dog; ...
There are a couple of zingers in this article but, in general, it's very good .... at least Mort seems to understand the situation when it gets down to basics. If we don't fight the terrorists as if there is no tomorrow, there might not be a tomorrow! I wish a few more liberals would grasp this concept.
20 posted on 02/16/2004 11:08:45 PM PST by kayak (Medals do not make a man. Morals do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
"The evidence suggests that Bush may feel some responsibility, even guilt, for not doing enough to counter Al Qaeda before Sept. 11, 2001. Certainly, terrorism had no great priority. There was no "war" against it."

While in general I agree with this article, this particular paragraph is replete with Mort's nasty side. Mort thinks that the President has guilt about Sept 11? Did Mort forget that by that point in time the President had barely had time to get his administration together and effectively working due to the RATS and the election aftermath of 2000? It's not like it was a "normal transition" of power earlier that year. And no Mort, there was no "war on terror" prior to September 11, 2001 because the terrorists had not taken over 3 civilian airliners and crashed them into high rise buildings on our sovereign soil prior to that time.

21 posted on 02/16/2004 11:10:29 PM PST by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kayak
Thanks for the ping, my friend
22 posted on 02/16/2004 11:11:01 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PISANO
Sorry .. I didn't mean to imply that I thought Bush was trying to hide anything .. I don't thing he is. My contention is that Bush is trying to protect the office of the presidency, not himself or Clinton.
23 posted on 02/17/2004 12:41:07 AM PST by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kayak
Referring to his Vietnam experience, Kerry told the Senate on Oct. 9, 2002, that "I know what it means to fight in a war where [public] consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, where conditions are hostile and the mission is ill-defined."

So, why is Kerry trying to undermine public confidence, alienate allies, deny the troops the money they need to operate, and re-define the mission?

24 posted on 02/17/2004 2:37:53 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
BTTT
25 posted on 02/17/2004 4:34:24 AM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
And so, Bush took the country to war, believing it was "a war of necessity." Was it the right course? Ultimately, the answer depends upon whether the United States can turn Iraq into a stable, semi-democratic country, or whether it cascades into civil war and chaos.

No, the answer depends on whether post-Saddam Iraq, even if cascaded into civil war and chaos, is a less of a threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world than the pre-post-Saddam Iraq.
26 posted on 02/17/2004 4:38:30 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Citizen Reporter
While what you say is true,I believe what Mort says is as well.W seems a very human,compassionate fellow.I'm certain he feels some guilt about 9/11.
27 posted on 02/17/2004 4:43:57 AM PST by John W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kayak
I agree with the 'zingers'........he says most of them on Special Report ('cherry picked intelligence'), but overall Mort DOES get it.

I can still hear him saying after algor's latest rant, "Thank GOD that man is not our President! Thank GOD!"

He gets it.

28 posted on 02/17/2004 6:27:56 AM PST by ohioWfan (BUSH 2004 - Leadership, Integrity, Morality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
Bush is trying to protect the office of the presidency, not himself or Clinton.

I agree, Cyber. He's done it in the past, and I believe that's what he's doing now.

He has GREAT respect for the office of the Presidency.

29 posted on 02/17/2004 6:30:24 AM PST by ohioWfan (BUSH 2004 - Leadership, Integrity, Morality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rebel_yell2
You ask, "what we'd be stuck with?"

The article says Kerry wanted to cancel: "the MX missile, the B-1 bomber, the Tomahawk cruise missile, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot missile and four fighter aircraft programs."

- The MX missile had a long and troubled gestation; it was battled at every turn by the Soviets and by those in Congress who identified with and wanted to support them. If it had not been deployed, our only land based missiles would be obsolete and vulnerable 1960s era Minuteman III missiles. That would have made us totally dependent on submarines and manned bombers. However, Kerry and his friends were successful enough that we have had to keep 500 of the aging Minuteman rockets on duty -- even though they can easily be neutralized by an enemy first strike (even a conventional one) thanks to improved weapons accuracy.
http://www.strategic-air-command.com/missiles/Peacekeeper/Peacekeeper_Missile_History.htm
http://www.strategic-air-command.com/missiles/Minuteman/Minuteman_Missile_History.htm

The B-1 (and B-2, which Kerry also opposed) was a strategic bomber designed to penetrate enemy air defenses. It has proven adaptable to the GWOT. Cancellation of the B-1, desired by the Soviets, and Kerry, would have required us to retain more B-52s in service, as well as the troublesome and high-maintenance F-111F and FB-111. This would translate directly into more crew deaths (in the 111s) and more deaths by supported ground troops (because the 111 could carry only a modest bombload, and the 52 can't operate while enemy air defences are still live).

The Tomahawk cruise missile was a revolutionary weapon which promised the accuracy of air-delivered weapons without risking human life. Had the Tomahawk been cancelled, the thousands of strikes it has made in the Gulf wars and Balkans would have had to be delivered by aircraft, putting human crews at risk, and certainly losing a percentage of them.

The Apache helicopter (AH-64A and AH-64D Longbow) has an unusual record: it is the most shot-down aircraft of the present war, which indicates how routinely Apache pilots fly into harm's way. Despite that, the crewmembers of all those shot-down helicopters have survived, which indicates how well it was designed and built. In two cases complete Apache units have lost functionally all their aircraft to enemy defences without one human suffering a wound. Kerry would have the Army still flying the Bell AH-1 HueyCobra, built as a stopgap in the 1960s and with nothing like this record for crew preservation (indeed, it was rare for HueyCobra crewmen to survive a shootdown). This would mean going without helicopter gunships entirely, because in the high altitudes and hot weather of Afghanistan and Iraq, the single-engine Huey can't take off armed.

This is apart from the damage to personnel, operations and maintenance that "$45 billion to $53 billion [cut] from the defense budget" would have done.

As far as the four fighter aircraft programs, without hearing them named I can't really cite specifics, and I don't care to suffer through miles of Kerry "I hate the evil warmongering military" tape to dredge them up. But the result would be we'd still be flying the Vietnam era F-4, F-111, A-6 and A-7. While those machines were state of the art thirty or forty years ago, the fact that primitive Vietnam was able to shoot down hundreds of these planes, in many cases killing or capturing (which might have also been a death sentence) the crews, tells us that they are not what we need for 21st Century warfare.

It's fair to say that Kerry was careless with the lives of our soldiers and airmen. It's fair to say that he has broken faith with them, ever since his 1970 swing to the enemy side on Vietnam.

He is also on record as wanting to stop "substantially all activity of the CIA." Oh, that's a real stroke of genius. I know a lot of people think that the CIA is as wrong as two boys at the wedding altar, but remember, you only hear about the screwups. That's the nature of secret work.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F
30 posted on 02/17/2004 7:28:21 AM PST by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
He recommended cutting $45 billion to $53 billion from the defense budget and vowed to "cancel" the MX missile, the B-1 bomber, the Tomahawk cruise missile, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot missile and four fighter aircraft programs.

Can anyone cite references to this statement? I've also heard that he opposed the Abrams and the Bradley. If we could find references, that would prove that had Kerry prevailed, we would have fought Desert Stoprm, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq with bows and arrows.

31 posted on 02/17/2004 7:37:02 AM PST by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Plus, the President has legal counsel, and I'm sure he consults with his counsel about what he has to reveal and what he doesn't.

The dems confuse the issue by trying to paint this as a "cowboy" refusal to submit to the bidding of Congress or a committee. Pathetic!

I guess the dems have not figured out that bashing Bush doesn't go over very good, what with Kerry losing 8 pts in 72 hours.
32 posted on 02/17/2004 4:20:24 PM PST by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
May the bashing continue!

Kerry is revealing more and more of his foolishness every time he opens his mouth.....

33 posted on 02/17/2004 5:04:13 PM PST by ohioWfan (BUSH 2004 - Leadership, Integrity, Morality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson