Kerry Outlines Strategy Against Terrorism

PHILADELPHIA - John Kerry (news - web sites), intensifying his assault on President Bush (news - web sites)'s record fighting terrorism, is outlining a detailed strategy to contain terrorists and bolster national security.

In a speech for delivery at Temple University, Kerry sought to describe a path that would improve America's prestige in the world and reduce the country's vulnerability to terrorists.

"Our goal is that at the end of that, people will say, 'This guy will seek and defeat the terrorist,'" said spokesman Mike McCurry.

Kerry planned to outline his strategy against terrorism on Friday, a day after telling The Columbus Dispatch that the president's actions in Iraq (news - web sites) and elsewhere show Bush masquerading as a mainstream conservative while pursuing extremist policies.

"I don't view these people as conservatives," Kerry said. "I actually view them as extreme, and I think their policies have been extreme, and that extends all the way to Iraq, where this president, in my judgment, diverted the real war on terror — which was Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and al-Qaida — and almost obsessively moved to deal with Iraq in a way that weakened our nation, overextended our armed forces, cost us $200 billion and created a breach in our oldest alliances."

Kerry also mentioned a blurring line between the separation of church and state and the growth of federal budget deficits.

To douse the spread of terrorism, Kerry proposes policies aimed at denying individuals and groups the ability to organize and attack. Kerry would build a better military and intelligence apparatus to go after enemies, deny terrorists weapons and financing, move against worldwide terrorist havens and recruitment centers, and promote freedom and democracy in Muslim nations.

Kerry has repeatedly argued that the war in Iraq has distracted attention and resources from the pursuit of terrorists, including Osama bin Laden.

The Bush-Cheney campaign said that Kerry has held conflicting positions on that point. They point to instances where Kerry said the former Iraqi leader acted like a terrorist and said that the war on terrorism should be seen as an operation bigger than the conflict in Afghanistan (news - web sites).

Kerry visits the Pennsylvania battleground before a quick trip home to Boston and then several days spent preparing for the presidential debates. Kerry told The Columbus Dispatch that he has to present himself "clearly, forcefully to the American people with a clear set of priorities."

Kerry added: "I think a lot of people will tune in. There are undecideds. A lot of folks will try to measure our character and our vision, so I think it's an important moment."

Prosposing policies that will x requires stating the actual policy that supposedly will x. Kerry has not done so. Building a better y requires stating what is wrong with the current form of y and how it can be impreoved. Kerry has not done so. Far from "detailed proposals", the article is almost entirely atmospheric partisan carping without policy specifics. There is less than one paragraph on actual policy, and that does not state a single expedient that can actually be implimented. It is a list of things he thinks would be nice to accomplish, not any way of accomplishing a single one of them. That isn't a policy. It is hand waving.

We know Bush's policy to deal with terrorists. It can be stated in plain English. It has serious consequences and reasonable people can disagree about whether it is the right approach, but everyone knows what it is, and that it is directed at its goal.

Bush's policy is

(1) do not distinguish between terrorists and states that harbor them
(2) demand cessation of WMD projects in states that support terrorism
(3) use conventional military force, pre-emptively, to destroy terrorist states pursuing WMDs
(4) remove governments that support terrorism by all means available
(5) support any government that cracks down on terrorists within its borders, politically and with military cooperation and economic aid
(6) centralize domestic security and counterintelligence, federalize security functions
(7) form coalitions of the willing on each anti-terror policy, allowing no one to veto any US action
(8) modernize the DoD and recast deployments world wide to focus on deployability, flexibility, and the WoT
(9) increase the defense budget to 5% of GDP, fully funding next generation technologies
(10) promote the spread of democratic regimes in place of terror states, by direct military support and substantial economic aid

Every aspect of this program has been criticized by Kerry and his fellow Democrats. He wants to say "me too" to the goals but "no way" to the means. So he must name his means. He has not remotely done so.

He has suggested he will remove US troops from Iraq within his first term or perhaps within six months, denigrated allies supporting us there, denigrated the present government of Iraq, voted against funding pretty much any of it, implied he would give the UN a veto over US military actions, and to this day, less than 2 months before he wants to be named president, has failed to state with specificity even approaching that above, a single alterate policy he would pursue.

He has in fact claimed that he cannot name such policies before he is president. You can look it up, he has said so. He is a sitting US senator, and his official duties require him to advise on such matters and have for years. In that capacity he has taken multiple sides on successive major US security matters depending entirely on the party controling the White House, while also voting against essentially every improvement in US defense capabilities he has ever been presented.

He is asking us to support a blank "anything but the present policy" check, issued to a demonstratively unprincipled dove. Which is not a serious policy proposal. It isn't a policy proposal. It isn't serious either, it is transparently ducking the question, employed by a self important prima donna who can't be bothered to advise his own country to hide from his atrocious record on national security issues.

No he is not. He is fine at saying they are doing it all wrong, and should do "something" that makes manna rain. But he can't say what will do that. Kerry states desired goals, entirely unrealistic ones like being saved by the French (who have directly said they won't help, even if Kerry is elected). He does not state concrete actions within the power of the US president that he would take if elected.

If Bush wanted to impliment Kerry's policies on Iraq or the WoT generally, he could not do so. He couldn't find them, and Kerry would instantly shift his policies so they did not coincide with Bush's actions. Everyone knows this. It has even played out that way several times, on minor matters (commission recommendations, setting handover or election dates, visits to the UN, etc).

No clearer demonstration is possible that he does not care what is done, only that he isn't the one doing it. He is not running for president to get something different done. He is saying he would do something different in order to run from president. That is why he can't specify what that difference would actually be.

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.