August 7, 2004
LET KERRY BE KERRY:
Kerry In The Eyes Of The Storm (INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, 8/09/04)
National Security: Among the positions we'd like to hear John Kerry reconcile is his stance on the latest war with Iraq and the one he took on Desert Storm in 1991.If we understand the senator correctly, a key difference he sees between himself and President Bush is he'd be better at building an alliance that would help fight and finance our effort in the Middle East.
"I know what we have to do," he told the Democratic convention. "We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to the American taxpayers and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home."
But "that won't happen," he insisted, "until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership — so we won't have to go it alone in the world."
Sounds good, like so many of the senator's vapidities. But where did he stand 13 years ago, when the first President Bush assembled what might be called the mother of all alliances to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait?
A total of 34 countries joined that coalition, including France and Germany. Of the 660,000 troops committed, nearly one in four came from a country other than the U.S. Of the $61 billion spent, other nations (including Germany and Japan) picked up $53 billion.
The U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing member states to "use all necessary means" to liberate Kuwait passed 12 to 2 (Cuba and Yemen), with one abstention (China).
Hardly a case of "going it alone" and not consulting with other countries, allies or no. Yet when it came to that fateful Senate vote of Jan. 13, 1991, on whether to empower the first President Bush to use U.S. armed forces to expel Iraq from Kuwait, Kerry voted "no."
It's perfectly honorable to oppose war and easily defensible to have opposed the two Iraq Wars, but the Senator should be honest about the fact that he's just trying to find excuses for opposition. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 7, 2004 2:54 PM
"Iraq wasn't the only loser. So was the credibility of many of the 45 Democrats and two Republicans who predicted it would go badly. They included Sam Nunn of Georgia, whom the Democrats always trotted out as their big thinker on military matters, and whose presidential ambitions tanked along with his prediction that a ground assault would be much bloodier than it turned out."
Sam Nunn wrote an article, answering those who wanted him to run for president, stating that his vote, Re. above, precluded him from running. I guess JFK doesn't agree.
I've always liked Nunn and wish GWB would consider him for some major post in his next administration. He's too great an asset to be wasted based on a decision arrived at based on the intelligence available at the time regarding American casualties. Same decision, but Sam went on to serve admirably and supportively through the war and of the two, worthy of consideration as head of the CIA or FBI. He probably wouldn't accept it but either way it would be a plus for GWB's magnanimty.
Posted by: genecis at August 8, 2004 11:40 PM