Target Centermass

Category: Politics

  • Discerning the Kerry Doctrine

    I’ve gone through John Kerry’s acceptance speech, sifting out anything related to defense and the war against terror. In analyzing his own words, I’m hoping to gather an idea of how Kerry hopes to lead our military and our country as president and commander-in-chief.

    I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war.
    ….
    I will have a secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders.
    ….
    My fellow Americans, this is the most important election of our lifetime. The stakes are high. We are a nation at war, a global war on terror against an enemy unlike any we have ever known before.
    ….
    And in this journey, I am accompanied by an extraordinary band of brothers led by that American hero, a patriot named Max Cleland. Our band of brothers doesn’t march together because of who we are as veterans, but because of what we learned as soldiers. We fought for this nation because we loved it and we came back with the deep belief that every day is extra. We may be a little older now, we may be a little grayer, but we still know how to fight for our country.

    Nothing yet except window dressing, but I included the above portion because it is related. Also, note the backhanded slams on the Bush administration, especially the opening salvo implying that Bush lied about Iraq, which could only serve to undermine our efforts there. Also, regarding the SecDef listening to military leaders, I would suspect that Rumsfeld has listened; he just hasn’t always agreed. The Army wanted the Crusader artillery program kept intact, but Rummy decided it was not needed in the foreseeable future and would provide no advantage in any conflicts currently on the horizon.

    Now we get to the heart of Kerry’s defense statements.

    Remember the hours after Sept. 11, when we came together as one to answer the attack against our homeland. We drew strength when our firefighters ran up the stairs and risked their lives, so that others might live. When rescuers rushed into smoke and fire at the Pentagon (news – web sites). When the men and women of Flight 93 sacrificed themselves to save our nation’s Capitol. When flags were hanging from front porches all across America, and strangers became friends. It was the worst day we have ever seen, but it brought out the best in all of us.

    I am proud that after Sept. 11 all our people rallied to President Bush’s call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. How we wish it had stayed that way.

    Bush laid out his plans for combating terrorism before Congress. The Dems and Reps were generally in agreement then. His strategy and focus has not changed, and he has held true to one course. If we are divided now, it is because others have sought to venture in another direction.

    Now I know there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities and I do because some issues just aren’t all that simple. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn’t make it so.

    Saying there are not weapons of mass destruction, unfortunately, does not make it so, either. How many more must be found?

    Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn’t make it so. And proclaiming mission accomplished certainly doesn’t make it so.

    How about not proclaiming the mission accomplished but instead saying it continues? Enough of the politics, can we get to ideas? As you said, we are a nation at war.

    As President, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics.

    Generally agree here. Much needs to be done to repair our intelligence services. However, Kerry helped weaken them and now, with the implication without evidence that the facts were politically manipulated, he politicized the intelligence community needlessly.

    And as President, I will bring back this nation’s time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.

    How “time-honored” is this tradition? It seems we were itching for 1812, raced into the Spanish-American, could’ve dodged our duty in Korea and Viet Nam, left Grenada alone, and skipped the Balkans.

    I know what kids go through when they are carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place and they can’t tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they’re out on patrol at night and they don’t know what’s coming around the next bend. I know what it’s like to write letters home telling your family that everything’s all right when you’re not sure that’s true.

    As President, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: “I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm’s way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent.”

    So lesson one, this is the only justification for going to war.

    A strategy of waiting for danger to become imminent, of letting trouble fester? Wasn’t that what we did in the 1990s, allowing things such a the USS Cole and 9/11 to develop? Isn’t this in conflict with the conclusions of the 9/11 commission?

    And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.

    And it has to be a fool-proof plan, because the party out of power reserves the right to savage the administration over any setbacks or struggles, right?

    I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That’s the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

    Here is the reality: that won’t happen until we have a president who restores America’s respect and leadership – so we don’t have to go it alone in the world.

    And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

    I agree that alliances are useful, and we currently have built a coalition that is in the field in both the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of the war on terror. So it comes down to quibbling about who the members of the coalition are. Maybe a strategy should be in reconsidering the value of some of our old “allies” and examining their motivations.

    I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.

    But what about not waiting for an attack? The war has started, it is decidedly to our advantage to choose the battlefield as we see fit.

    I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.

    We will add 40,000 active duty troops, not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists.

    To all who serve in our armed forces today, I say, help is on the way.

    I agree with more troops. As a former Guardsman, I disagree that using the reserve components is a “backdoor draft” (a term, by the way, actually meant to refer to the application of stop-loss on personnel whose military commitment has expired). For the Guard or Reserve called up, it is certainly a hardship and a danger, but it is also a duty and a possibility to be known about from day one of joining the service.

    As President, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower.

    Words. What would Kerry do differently, unless by every tool he is wanting to utilize nukes? We are already operating through military missions, covert ops, economic pressures and inducements.

    In these dangerous days there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words. After decades of experience in national security, I know the reach of our power and I know the power of our ideals.

    We need to make America once again a beacon in the world. We need to be looked up to and not just feared.

    We need to lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation to keep the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the most dangerous hands in the world.

    We need a strong military and we need to lead strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win. The future doesn’t belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.

    And the front lines of this battle are not just far away they’re right here on our shores, at our airports, and potentially in any town or city. Today, our national security begins with homeland security. The 9/11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9/11 families. As president, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission. We shouldn’t be letting 95 percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn’t be leaving our nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we shouldn’t be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America.

    Obviously we need to work on our security, especially if we are going to cease to take the battle to the terrorists.

    You don’t value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service

    Political weapon that is apparently unsupported (thanks to Michelle Malkin).

    And our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future – so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

    I agree that we can look to alternative sources of energy; we can also look to alternative sources of oil, especially when we know there are untapped reserves here in the U.S.

    Okay, that’s it, every bit of Kerry’s acceptance speech related to defense, Iraq and his plans for the future of the war against terror. So, what have we learned about the Kerry Doctrine?

    • The president must go to war honestly, based only on confirmed facts, and only after all means of avoidance have been exhausted.
    • The military should be expanded, both in men and advanced equipment, and the intelligence services should be revamped.
    • Old alliances should be restored. How this is to be done when it seems apparent that France and Germany are trying to position themselves as the guiding strengths of the EU and trying to position the EU as a rival to the U.S. is unsaid. Also unstated is the problem of the growing Muslim populations and their militancy in Old Europe, which would hinder the Europeans’ willingness to be full partners with America in the struggle against Islamic fascism. Heck, also unsaid: any reference to the radical Islamist movement.
    • Definitely fight if attacked, and have the infrastructure ready to put out the fires and police the wreckage.
    • Get our troops out by getting others in the struggle. See above for the complications of guaranteeing the assistance of other nations.
    • Try to wean the whole world off the petroleum bottle.

    Well, there you have the Kerry Doctrine. Fight when needed, add troops and first responders, improve intelligence, and try to get others to take our place in the war.

    Funny, I’m not getting warm fuzzies about our security future.

  • Initial Thoughts on Kerry’s Acceptance Speech

    I didn’t catch any particular moments that will have any lasting positive resonance, and several that could come back and haunt him. It had several implications of things that are untrue, which could leave openings later on in the campaign. I don’t think he reached very effectively for the independent voter. He tried to look strong on defense while still playing to his base; he failed on the former, succeeded at the latter.

    More later after I go through the speech, but here’s the initial reviews of others:

    From the Associated Press

    Kerry Still Needs to Connect With Voters

    From Reuters

    Kerry Slams Bush on Iraq, Offers Little New

  • Kerry’s Stance(s) on Iraq

    Tipping the CVC to Every Thing I Know Is Wrong for finding the RNC’s new video on the timeline of Kerry’s positions on the Iraq campaign.

    This new video from the RNC is a must view. It completely destroys any possibility that anyone, even the least politically engaged, who sees it can believe John Kerry did not flip-flop over the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and the question of weapons of mass destruction. It shows without a doubt, using a chronological display of videos of John Kerry himself, that he is utterly disingenuous and untrustworthy on these vital issues.

    Windows Media | Real Player

    The video is too long (about 12 minutes) to get much play on sound-byte TV, but as many people as possible should see it. If you are a blogger please link to it, if you are not send it to a friend. We can’t allow a man who is this casual about these issues to become President.

    “They call him Flipper, Flipper….

  • A Few Brief Points About Teresa’s Speech

    Per the text of the potential First Lady’s convention speech,

    My name is Teresa Heinz Kerry.

    Is it? Is it, really? Apparently, it’s still Teresa Heinz, but she’ll pretend and claim otherwise for political expediency.

    To me, one of the best faces America has ever projected is the face of a Peace Corps volunteer. That face symbolizes this country: young, curious, brimming with idealism and hope, and a real, honest compassion. Those young people convey an idea of America that is all about heart and creativity, generosity and confidence, a practical, can-do sense and a big, big smile.

    For many generations of people around the globe, that is what America has represented. A symbol of hope, a beacon brightly lit by the optimism of its people — people coming from all over the world.

    I would counter that, for many generations in Europe, northern Africa, southeast Asia and a great many islands in the Pacific, a better face of America would be a soldier, bravely struggling to bring freedom while generously handing out a chocolate bar.

    John believes in a bright future. He believes we can, and we will, invent the technologies, new materials, and conservation methods of the future. He believes that alternative fuels will guarantee that not only will no American boy or girl go to war because of our dependence on foreign oil, but also that our economy will forever become independent of this need.

    Translation: no blood for oil.

    Also, it seems rather naive to say that reducing America’s need for foreign oil will automatically reduce oil’s importance on the geopolitical stage to the extent that our military can be guaranteed it will never be embroiled in the conflicts of oil-producing states.

    John is a fighter. He earned his medals the old-fashioned way, by putting his life on the line for his country.

    Did you know Kerry was in Viet Nam?

    But he also knows the importance of getting it right. For him, the names of too many friends inscribed in the cold stone of the Vietnam Memorial testify to the awful toll exacted by leaders who mistake stubbornness for strength.

    Did you know Kerry was in Viet Nam?

    No one will defend this nation more vigorously than he will — and he will always be first in the line of fire.

    For four months.

  • Kerry Wants to Extend the 9/11 Commission

    Back in the early 90’s, I lived in Washington, D.C. for a little over a year, including interning for a fall on Capitol Hill. One thing I learned while there was that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government agency. This was brought back to mind when I read this:

    Kerry said the (9/11) commission should issue progress reports every six months, beginning in December. Among the questions they should address, Kerry said, are whether we are doing enough to strengthen homeland security, reorganize intelligence agencies, build global alliances and make America as safe as it can be.

    In Boston, Kerry foreign policy adviser Jamie Ruben told reporters that keeping the commission intact would be an effective way to “bird-dog the bureaucracy” on implementing the panel’s recommendations.

    So, Kerry wants to bureaucratize the 9/11 Commission and have its bureaucrats oversee the rest of the government’s bureaucrats. Does Kerry anticipate changes in the panel or any checks on the commission, or is he wanting a Supreme Court of Security whose edicts must be enforced?

    Ah, but who will guard the guards?

  • Banned In Boston!

    Apparently, the USA Today just doesn’t get Ann Coulter.

    USA Today: IS THAT LAST SENTENCE SARCASTIC? IF SO, YOU SURE LOST ME.

  • Apparently, the Blogging World Waits

    All weekend, my blogroll has been relatively quiet, leaving little to advocate or cause comment.

    Unfortunately, monitoring Google, Yahoo!, CNN, etc., I find little of worth to blog about on these. Does the world wait on the DNC convention? Goodness, I hope not. I wonder what the next few days of the blogging world will be like if we must rely on a heavily-orchestrated event like the DNC National Convention for news.

    But, wait … this means possibly two things.

    First, the rest of the world is seemingly relatively quiet, waiting, not wanting to interfere. This could be something or nothing, as it would have to be compared relative to the upcoming RNC gathering. Who makes noise? Who voices their vested stake?

    Second, the Dems are toning down their ABB (Anybody But Bush) message because the 9/11 Commission has shown that terrorism is an ongoing threat. This week, Kerry has to show that he can get better international support for our efforts than Bush has managed — more support from the French, et al, than they provided to Saddam. Kerry has to show that he can improve the intelligence community, despite his voting history of cutting funding to it. Kerry has to show that he can assist the military in their efforts, despite his stances to deprive them of funding, especially the Iraq-related funding. Kerry has to support the troops, after trashing the military, and himself, for war crimes.

    It’s sad that a major contender for president has allowed his message to shift so much without conceding he was wrong.

    Kerry about jobs: well, it’s pretty quiet now.

    Kerry about pre-emption: Never against it, but quiet now.

    Kerry about WMD: They’re there. They are not there. Quiet now. ‘Cause they’re there (found) and elsewhere (unfound, but mark Gunner at his word).

    Kerry about the UN: We should act in our own best interests. No, we should act in accordance with every country acting in their own best interest but phrase it as if they are worldly and we are selfish. That is how to lead decisively.

    Instead, I expect a low-key, patriotic Dem convention over the next few days. “We could do better.” Lots of patriotic music, little policy.

    Here’s hoping Teresa Heinz says something cool, but Gunner money is against it. Dean and his ilk would’ve been fun, at least.

  • Committee on the Present Danger Being Reformed

    A Cold War relic is being reincarnated for the War on Terror.

    Citing what they call the need for a more aggressive war of information against, and education about, Islamic extremism, two U.S. lawmakers appeared Tuesday at a news conference formally announcing the latest reincarnation of a group that had its beginnings during the Cold War.

    In 1950, in the earliest years of the “Cold War” with the former Soviet Union, the Committee on the Present Danger was formed to serve as a way of building support among Americans for a strong national defense and opposition to Moscow’s expansionist aims.

    Described in history texts as a conservative, although bi-partisan group, the committee counted among its members numerous people who went on to work in several presidential administrations. It also included, at one point in 1979, a politically ambitious Ronald Reagan who would go on to win the presidency.

    In the 1960s, the group became less visible with the growth of public opposition to the war in Vietnam, only to re-emerge in the mid-1970’s amid a debate about the direction of U.S. security policies regarding the Soviet Union, and the efficiency of the intelligence community.

    Now, the group has appeared again, this time with the objective of educating Americans and the world about what its members call the threat from radical Islamist, as opposed to Islamic, terrorism.

    Chaired by former CIA director James Woolsey and fronted by Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Kyl, the Committee on the Present Danger, quite simply, gets it:

    The 9/11 attack had a similarly stimulating effect on the terrorist network that perpetrated it, and on legions of Muslim youths across the globe from among whom that network draws its recruits. Nothing succeeds like success, it is said, and Al Qaeda’s “success” in hitting America on 9/11 was a far greater rallying event than all of Bin Laden’s screeds and Al Jazeera’s agitprop, combined. As it moved from suicide bombers in Tel Aviv to weaponized commercial aircraft in New York and Washington, there was no escaping the reality that the Islamist jihad took a quantum leap on 9/11. And with it leapt the danger confronting the free world from the “insane courage” (a term Bin Laden favors) of radicalized, Islamo-fascist killers.

    I’ll most certainly be keeping an eye on the efforts of this group, and it’s comforting to know that the tradition and memory of the Cold Warriors continues. The more I read from Useful Idiots by Mona Charen, the more parallels I find between the struggle against communism and the fight against Islamofascist terrorism. This is especially true when I watch those against the struggle and listen to the recycling of talking points from decades ago.

  • Kerry aide: Bush ‘flat-out lied’ on Iraq

    Ummm, okay.

    According to “badly wounded Vietnam war veteran” and ousted Senator Max Cleland, President Bush led the U.S. into the Iraq war on a “pack of lies.”

    Cleland said that Bush went to war “because he concluded that his daddy was a failed president and one of the ways he failed was that he did not take out Saddam Hussein (news – web sites)” in the 1991 Gulf war. “So he (Bush junior) is Mr. Macho Man.”

    He added that Kerry, from Massachusetts, agreed with the assessment of Bush’s credibility. “About a year ago John Kerry said,’The president lied, he lied to me personally,’” said Cleland, a badly wounded Vietnam war veteran.

    The response from the Bush team was simple:

    The Bush campaign issued a statement denouncing Cleland’s “rage-filled rant” and accusing Kerry of playing politics with national security, while White House spokesman Scott McClellan shrugged off the Democrats’ attacks.

    “I would remind you that the president’s opponent looked at that same intelligence and made the same decision to support the use the force to remove that regime from power,” McClellan said. “I know he’s all over the map since that time.”

    So much bitterness on the left side of the aisle these days. Check that, Cleland no longer sits left of the aisle.

    By the way, I have yet to find any specifics from Cleland as to what the president’s “lies” were.

  • How a Serial Liar Suckered Dems and the Media

    Doffing the CVC to little green footballs for finding this column about the lies of Joe Wilson and lgf’s possibly intriguing look at his supporters.

    The story of ex-ambassador Joe Wilson, who deliberately “sexed down” Iraq’s attempts to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger, continues to be utterly ignored by mainstream media even as source after source proves that he lied about a very serious threat to US security. Mark Steyn has the goods