Chronicling the ongoing battle between conservative and liberal ideals

For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them - Proverbs 1:32

E-mail Me |About Me |Home Page |Comment Rules |Ref Desk

Daily Notes :I Moved to MT.

In fact this page will automatically send you to my new page in 4 minutes. Or go there now...Radio Brian Scott


Kerry's Defense - Part 3

    “Kerry conceded that some of his positions 20 years earlier were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then. . . . I mean, you learn as you go in life."”

Since the start of this election campaign we’ve heard a lot about Kerry’s early defense record. John Kerry and his supporters are right to suggest that one should not judge a person based on their early history. After all, Bush has stopped drinking alcohol, because he no longer wants to be a slave to it. Men grow up and change to become wiser versions of their younger selves. People do learn from their mistakes. But Kerry has to do deal with an entire history that reaches as close to us as 1996 and even as recent as 2003. He must convince the nation that he is something other than recent history proclaims him to be.

It wasn’t till 1992 that John Kerry’s goals of reducing our military actually made sense in terms of the global climate and our nation’s security. We had won the cold war, the Soviet Union had collapsed, and the Gulf war was all but done, which is why there was bi-partisan agreement to reduce the military to levels that would not damage our security. Even the 1st President Bush spoke of reducing it in his 1992 State of the Union. Military cuts before the cold war would have seriously compromised our security in such a way I dare not think about. Yet as I demonstrated in Part one of Kerry’s defense, he was more than willing to cut defense prior to the end of the cold war.

It wasn’t until 1996 that Senator Kerry appeared to be taking our national security seriously. But I believe his change in voting direction was because he began to consider a bid for the White house. He knew that America would not stand for a man unwilling to protect our country. In February 1999 Kerry announced he would not be pursuing the Democratic nod citing lack of capital and the ability to raise it in a short amount of time.

But even if you choose to believe he has had a change of heart, it is his most recent vote that puts his priorities back into question.

In what can only be described as cognitive dissonance, on March 7 of 2004, in a radio address, Kerry said that Bush had sent troops…

    “into harm’s way without enough firepower and support”

    “Even more shocking, tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that – with danger around every corner – there wasn’t enough body armor.”

This is really odd, because back in October of 2003, John had the opportunity to vote “Yes” towards the $87 billion which would have funded just such a need. He voted “No” with only 12 other Senators. One has to wonder whether he should be attacking Bush or himself.

Kerry’s response to his vote is now legendary. It will most likely go down in the annals of history as the height of equivocation. Kerry stated:

    I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

If John Kerry would like America to believe he is serious about our nation’s defense and protecting it with a robust military and the best intelligence agencies in the world, I suggest we give him that opportunity as a US senator and not the leader of the free world.

posted by: Brian Scott

Get the code for this blogroll.  visit The Blue S tate Conservatives