KERRY UNFIT SERIES: #2-understanding the job description

5.17.04 | Mia T

[Mia T]

 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

 

UNFIT:
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

#2-understanding the job description

by Mia T, 5.17.04

"When bill clinton left office, not one young American in uniform was dying in a war anywhere in this world."

--John Kerry

uspend disbelief for a minute. Pretend Kerry's dumb attempt at demagoguery is a serious pronouncement of policy.

What is Kerry's message? Is the premise true? Is the argument valid? And most important, what does it tell us about Kerry's fitness to serve?

Kerry's message is implied and is threefold:

1. There exists an inverse relationship between the success of a commander-in-chief and the number of soldier deaths occurring under his watch.
   
   

2. By this measure, bill clinton was a successful commander-in-chief and George Bush is a failure.
   
   

3. John Kerry would operate under the bill clinton model and would, therefore, be a success.

ANALYZING KERRY'S ANALYSIS

Simply put, Kerry's analysis suffers from a "shallowness," "an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment" and critical thinking. (YOO-HOO! Nancy Pelosi)

Kerry's premise is false, and notwithstanding this, his thesis is easily disproved empirically.

FALSE PREMISE

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution

According to the U.S. Constitution, preserving, protecting and defending America is what the presidency is all about.

From this it follows that the measure of the success of a commander-in-chief it is not inversely related to number of soldier deaths that result from a commander-in-chief protecting America. Rather, it is the number of deaths -- both soldier and non-soldier -- that are caused by a commander-in-chief failing to protect America.

It is important to note that not all such deaths necessarily occur under that failed president's watch.

For example, not all deaths caused by clinton's repeated failure to act to protect America from the terrorists occurred under clinton's watch, witness the 2,899 deaths on September 11, 2001, and the ever-expanding number in the seemingly endless aftermath.

Achieving a low soldier mortality rate with a policy of artful battlefield and responsibility avoidance is hardly the measure of commander-in-chief success.

Kerry's premise is, therefore, false, and exposes both Kerry's fundamental misunderstanding of the job of commander-in-chief and the lethal danger to a post-9/11 America that a Commander-in-Chief Kerry would pose.

THESIS EASILY DISPROVED EMPIRICALLY

Notwithstanding this, Kerry's thesis, itself, is belied by history. The obvious counterexamples: the presidencies of two of our most successful commanders-in-chief, Abe Lincoln, 562,130 deaths and FDR, 408,306.

Even if we apply the too-cute-by-half clintonesque Kerry semantic technicality, and limit the death count to those deaths coincident with the commander-in-chief's exit, the FDR counterexample still stands.

ASIDE: These transparent word games of Kerry and clinton derive from the same (if geographically disparate) provincial arrogance rooted in stupidity.

Kerry's pronouncement, therefore, is more than simple... or even stupid... demagoguery. Kerry's pronouncement exposes Kerry's lack of historical perspective, Kerry's poor judgment, Kerry's critical-thinking deficiency, Kerry's fundamental misunderstanding of the job of commander-in-chief. It is a stark warning of the lethal danger to a post-9/11 America that a Commander-in-Chief Kerry would pose.

"At the time, '96, he [bin Laden] had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

bill clinton

"The instant that second plane hit, I said to the person with whom I was speaking, 'Bin Laden did this.' I knew immediately. I know what this network can do."

bill clinton

"The War on Terror is less... is occasionally military but it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."

John Kerry

"The Bush Administration is so entralled by the idea of preemption and American military might. This is the consequence of the policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triump of arms...

We truly should go to war as the last resort."

John Kerry

Both Kerry and clinton fail to understand that:

• a terrorist war requires only one consenting player

• defining bin Laden's acts of war as "crimes'' is a dangerous, anachronistic, postmodern conceit (It doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "war" is) and amounts to surrender

• preemption serves a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any war on terror.

The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.

I urge anyone planning to vote for John Kerry to rethink, to reconsider. Your children's lives, if not civilization, itself, may just depend on the decision you make in that voting booth in November.

 

copyright Mia T 2004

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Kate of Spice Island]

bump

[TexasTransplant]

Printed for sharing

[Mia T]

thank you for your service.

[Mia T]

thx bump

[Fiddlstix]

Great Post
BTTT

[Mia T]

thx, Fiddlstix. :)

[Mia T]

The first in the series:

UNFIT:
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

#1-making the tough choices in a post-9/11 world

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
thanx to jla for research
johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

[Mia T]

Achieving a low soldier mortality rate with a policy of artful battlefield-and-responsibility-avoidance is hardly the measure of commander-in-chief success.

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
#2-understanding the job description
Mia T, 5.17.04

THE CLINTONS--AMERICA'S BIGGEST BLUNDER
Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992*

CNN's favorite general, Wesley Clark, has also been heard to opine that our troops are getting bogged down in Iraq. His competence to judge American generals is questionable since his command was limited to working for NATO. We prefer to hear from American generals. Clark's contribution to international relations consisted of mistakenly bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. In his zeal to prevent troop casualties, he ordered pilots to fly at such high altitudes that the pilots complained that they were being forced to incur unnecessary civilian casualties.

Ann Coulter
The enemy within
World Net Daily
March 26, 2003

 

hear
*Thanx to Cloud William for text and audio

 

LEHRER: President Bush, your closing statement, sir.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Three weeks from now--two weeks from tomorrow, America goes to the polls and you're going to have to decide who you want to lead this country ...

On foreign affairs, some think it's irrelevant. I believe it's not. We're living in an interconnected world...And if a crisis comes up, ask who has the judgment and the experience and, yes, the character to make the right decision?

And, lastly, the other night on character Governor Clinton said it's not the character of the president but the character of the presidency. I couldn't disagree more. Horace Greeley said the only thing that endures is character. And I think it was Justice Black who talked about great nations, like great men, must keep their word.

And so the question is, who will safeguard this nation, who will safeguard our people and our children? I need your support, I ask for your support. And may God bless the United States of America.

(Applause)

 

play tape

[Mia T]

 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

 

UNFIT:
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

#2-understanding the job description

by Mia T, 5.17.04

"When bill clinton left office, not one young American in uniform was dying in a war anywhere in this world."

--John Kerry

uspend disbelief for a minute. Pretend Kerry's dumb attempt at demagoguery is a serious pronouncement of policy.

What is Kerry's message? Is the premise true? Is the argument valid? And most important, what does this tell us about Kerry's fitness to serve?

THE MESSAGE

Kerry's message is implied, (a faintly outlined triptych of fallacy and falsehood, we shall soon see). It reduces to the following:

1. There exists an inverse relationship between the success of a commander-in-chief and the number of soldier deaths occurring under his watch.
   
2. By this measure, bill clinton was a successful commander-in-chief and George Bush is a failure.
   
3. Because John Kerry would operate under the bill clinton model, John Kerry would be a success by definition.

ANALYZING KERRY'S ANALYSIS

Simply put, Kerry's analysis suffers from--to borrow from Nancy Pelosi--a "shallowness," "an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment" and, yes, critical thinking.

Kerry's premise is false, and notwithstanding this, his thesis is easily disproved empirically.

FALSE PREMISE

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution

According to the U.S. Constitution, preserving, protecting and defending America is what the presidency is all about.

From this it follows that the measure of the success of a commander-in-chief is not inversely related to number of soldier deaths that result from a commander-in-chief protecting America but rather, the number of deaths -- both soldier and non-soldier -- that are caused by a commander-in-chief failing to protect America.

It is important to note that not all such deaths necessarily occur under that failed president's watch.

For example, not all deaths caused by clinton's repeated failure to act to protect America from the terrorists occurred under clinton's watch, witness the 2,899 deaths on September 11, 2001, and the ever-expanding number in the seemingly endless aftermath.

Achieving a low soldier mortality rate with a policy of artful battlefield-and-responsibility-avoidance is hardly the measure of commander-in-chief success.

Kerry's premise is, therefore, false, and exposes both Kerry's fundamental misunderstanding of the job of commander-in-chief and the lethal danger to a post-9/11 America that a Commander-in-Chief Kerry would pose.

THESIS EASILY DISPROVED EMPIRICALLY

Notwithstanding this, Kerry's thesis, itself, is belied by history. The obvious counterexamples: the presidencies of two of our most successful commanders-in-chief, Abe Lincoln, 562,130 deaths and FDR, 408,306.

Even if we apply the too-cute-by-half clintonesque Kerry semantic technicality, and limit the death count to those deaths coincident with the commander-in-chief's exit, the FDR counterexample still stands.

ASIDE: These transparent word games of Kerry and clinton derive from the same (if geographically disparate) provincial arrogance rooted in stupidity.

 

 

KERRY'S LETHAL DANGER TO A POST-9/11 AMERICA

Kerry's pronouncement, therefore, is more than simple... or even stupid... demagoguery. Kerry's pronouncement exposes Kerry's lack of historical perspective, Kerry's poor judgment, Kerry's critical-thinking deficiency, Kerry's fundamental misunderstanding of the job of commander-in-chief. It is a stark warning of the lethal danger to a post-9/11 America that a Commander-in-Chief Kerry would pose.

"At the time, '96, he [bin Laden] had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

bill clinton

"The instant that second plane hit, I said to the person with whom I was speaking, 'Bin Laden did this.' I knew immediately. I know what this network can do."

bill clinton

"The War on Terror is less... is occasionally military but it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."

John Kerry

"The Bush Administration is so entralled by the idea of preemption and American military might. This is the consequence of the policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triump of arms...

We truly should go to war as the last resort."

John Kerry

Both Kerry and clinton fail to understand that:

• a terrorist war requires only one consenting player
• defining bin Laden's acts of war as "crimes'' is a dangerous, anachronistic, postmodern conceit (It doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "war" is) and amounts to surrender
• preemptive action, and even more so, preventative action, serve a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any war on terror.

The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda. John Kerry and the Left will, by definition, reprise the clinton policy.

I, therefore, urge anyone planning to vote for John Kerry to rethink, to reconsider. Your children's lives, if not civilization, itself, just may depend on it.

 

copyright Mia T 2004

[Mia T]

#13 - CORRECTIONS/ADDITIONS

[jla]

bump

[jla]

bump

[Mia T]

CORRECTION/ADDITIONS:

 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

 

UNFIT:
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

#2-understanding the job description

by Mia T, 5.17.04

"When bill clinton left office, not one young American in uniform was dying in a war anywhere in this world."

John Kerry

uspend disbelief for a minute. Pretend Kerry's dumb attempt at demagoguery is a serious pronouncement of policy.

What is Kerry's message? Is the premise true? Is the argument valid? And most important, what does this tell us about Kerry's fitness to serve?

THE MESSAGE

Kerry's message is implied, (a faintly outlined triptych of fallacy and falsehood, we shall soon see). It reduces to the following:

1. There exists an inverse relationship between the success of a commander-in-chief and the number of soldier deaths occurring under his watch.
   
2. By this measure, bill clinton was a successful commander-in-chief and George Bush is a failure.
   
3. Because John Kerry would operate under the bill clinton model, John Kerry would be a success by definition.

ANALYZING KERRY'S ANALYSIS

Simply put, Kerry's analysis suffers from--to borrow from Nancy Pelosi--a "shallowness," "an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment" and, yes, critical thinking.

Kerry's premise is false, and notwithstanding this, his thesis is easily disproved empirically.

FALSE PREMISE

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution

According to the U.S. Constitution, preserving, protecting and defending America is what the presidency is all about.

From this it follows that the measure of the success of a commander-in-chief is not inversely related to number of soldier deaths that result from a commander-in-chief protecting America but rather, the number of deaths -- both soldier and non-soldier -- that are caused by a commander-in-chief failing to protect America.

It is important to note that not all such deaths necessarily occur under that failed president's watch.

For example, not all deaths caused by clinton's repeated failure to act to protect America from the terrorists occurred under clinton's watch, witness the 2,899 deaths on September 11, 2001, and the ever-expanding number in the seemingly endless aftermath.

Achieving a low soldier mortality rate with a policy of artful battlefield-and-responsibility-avoidance is hardly the measure of commander-in-chief success.

Kerry's premise is, therefore, false, and exposes both Kerry's fundamental misunderstanding of the job of commander-in-chief and the lethal danger to a post-9/11 America that a Commander-in-Chief Kerry would pose.

THESIS EASILY DISPROVED EMPIRICALLY

Notwithstanding this, Kerry's thesis, itself, is belied by history. The obvious counterexamples: the presidencies of two of our most successful commanders-in-chief, Abe Lincoln, 562,130 deaths and FDR, 408,306.

Even if we apply the too-cute-by-half clintonesque Kerry semantic technicality, and limit the death count to those deaths coincident with the commander-in-chief's exit, the FDR counterexample still stands.

ASIDE: These transparent word games of Kerry and clinton derive from the same (if geographically disparate) provincial arrogance rooted in stupidity.

 

 

KERRY'S LETHAL DANGER TO A POST-9/11 AMERICA

Kerry's pronouncement, therefore, is more than simple... or even stupid... demagoguery. Kerry's pronouncement exposes Kerry's lack of historical perspective, Kerry's poor judgment, Kerry's critical-thinking deficiency, Kerry's fundamental misunderstanding of the job of commander-in-chief. It is a stark warning of the lethal danger to a post-9/11 America that a Commander-in-Chief Kerry would pose.

"At the time, '96, he [bin Laden] had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

bill clinton

"The instant that second plane hit, I said to the person with whom I was speaking, 'Bin Laden did this.' I knew immediately. I know what this network can do."

bill clinton

"The War on Terror is less... is occasionally military but it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."

John Kerry

"The Bush Administration is so entralled by the idea of preemption and American military might. This is the consequence of the policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triump of arms...

We truly should go to war as the last resort."

John Kerry

Both Kerry and clinton fail to understand that:

• a terrorist war requires only one consenting player
• defining bin Laden's acts of war as "crimes'' is a dangerous, anachronistic, postmodern conceit (It doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "war" is) and amounts to surrender
• preemptive action, and even more so, preventative action, serve a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any war on terror.

The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda. John Kerry and the Left will, by definition, reprise the failed, lethally dangerous clinton policy.

I, therefore, urge anyone planning to vote for John Kerry to rethink, to reconsider. Your children's lives, if not civilization, itself, just may depend on it.

 

copyright Mia T 2004

[jla]

CORRECTIONS/ADDITIONS bump

[Mia T]

bump

[jla]

bump