Morton Kondracke: Bush's 9/11 vs. Kerry's Vietnam

Naples Daily News ^ | 2.17.04 | Mort Kondrake

[A Citizen Reporter]

"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.

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks for the ping, my friend

[CyberAnt]

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.

[Miss Marple]

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?

[Right_in_Virginia]

BTTT

[aruanan]

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.

[John W]

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.

[ohioWfan]

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.

[ohioWfan]

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.

[Criminal Number 18F]

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

[jackbill]

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.

[CyberAnt]

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.

[ohioWfan]

May the bashing continue!

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