[John F.] Kennedy was in fact for a strong national defense. He was no friend of communists anywhere. In fact, he campaigned to the right of Vice President Richard Nixon on security issues in the 1960 election, running around worried about a missile and bomber gap with the Soviet Union that did not yet exist. Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, cares about as much for national security as a giraffe. From his first days in Congress, the Massachusetts liberal has been to the very far left of the political spectrum in his national security views.
During the height of the Cold War, Mr. Kerry opposed the entire strategic modernization effort proposed by President Reagan — the Peacekeeper, B-1 and B-2 bombers, the Trident submarine and D-5 missile — even though his Democratic colleagues Sam Nunn, Al Gore, Norman Dicks, Sonny Montgomery and Les Aspin, for example, sided with Mr. Reagan. He supported the nuclear freeze, which would have placed U.S. nuclear forces in permanent obsolescence just as the Soviet strategic nuclear forces were becoming most formidable.
Mr. Kerry opposed the deployment of the INF missiles in Europe that Mr. Reagan successfully achieved. The ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershings based in England, Germany, Holland and Italy turned out to be one of the turning points of the Cold War, and hastened the end of the Soviet empire. Mr. Kerry was not only wrong on this critical issue, but opposed the non-strategic modernization of the defense budget as well. The purchase of additional C-5 airplanes by Mr. Reagan turned out to be critical to rescuing U.S. allies in trouble later in the decade — and Mr. Kerry was opposed to that as well.
Mr. Kerry says he stood up to Mr. Nixon on Vietnam. Well, since Mr. Nixon inherited a war the two previous administrations had no idea how to win or were unwilling to even try, and since Mr. Nixon's war plan was to how to withdraw American troops, and since Mr. Nixon did in fact withdraw U.S. forces from Vietnam quite rapidly, what was it that Mr. Kerry believes he stood up to Mr. Nixon about? Did Mr. Kerry oppose Mr. Nixon on withdrawing forces from Vietnam, or was the senator telling us that what he wanted us to do was surrender?
Mr. Kerry said he opposed Mr. Reagan in Central America. Indeed, Mr. Kerry supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and their war against their own people and against their neighbors. Not once did Mr. Kerry denounce Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega and his communist thug friends, or their sponsors in Cuba and the Soviet Union. Indeed, even after becoming a member of the Senate, Mr. Kerry couldn't shake his firm belief that communism posed no threat to the United States, as he stated in the early 1970s when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
When Mr. Reagan rescued the wonderful people of El Salvador from the ugly clutches of the FMLN — and their land mines in the coffee plantations, their car bombs, their massacres of elected officials — Mr. Kerry was on the wrong side again, working to stop U.S. assistance to the government of El Salvador. When President Carter proposed sending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to the communist government of Nicaragua, Mr. Kerry was not one to raise a protest as his fellow Democrats got in line to sign up and send the dough to Managua. When the Carter administration was busy pushing the Shah of Iran out of power and calling the Ayatollah Khomeini "a saint," did Mr. Kerry stand up and say this is wrong?
Later in the 1980s, Mr. Kerry sneered at Mr. Reagan's proposed reductions in nuclear weapons, saying such proposals were for show. When the INF and START treaties eliminated and reduced whole classes of nuclear weapons, Mr. Kerry sneered that Mr. Reagan was still wedded to missile defenses. In the early 1990s, Mr. Kerry jumped and applauded the elimination of missile defense development and the wholesale elimination of hundreds of billions in the defense budgets' five-year plans, and the procurement holiday on which the Clinton administration embarked.
In short, Mr. Kerry likes to pretend he would make the toughnationalsecurity choicesaspresident. Highly unlikely. He never made the tough choices when he was a senator.
posted on January 28, 2004 07:20:30 PM new
"Mr. Nixon did in fact withdraw U.S. forces from Vietnam quite rapidly"
You call FIVE YEARS "rapid" ???
Okay, just had to point that out, EAG. Now on to the main thrust of your post, which lambastes John Kerry.
Environmentalists are squarely behind him. Women's groups strongly support him.
In fact, he's been in the Senate so long that his voting record speaks louder than any special interest group's voice might:
** In the 1980s, he opposed the death penalty for terrorists who killed Americans abroad, but he now supports the death penalty for terrorist acts.
** In the 1990s, he joined with Republican colleagues to sponsor proposals to end tenure for public schoolteachers and allow direct grants to religion-based charities; measures that many Democratic groups opposed. Smile, LindaK!
** He cast his Senate vote authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq. (He supported this war.) Although he's now out there stumping against it.
I recently posted in another thread here that John Kerry and George Bush have a tacit agreement to toss the 2004 election to George; I truly believe that, have never liked Kerry (based upon firsthand accounts I've been told about his Viet Nam service) , and don't expect for one minute that his "run" for the presidency is anything more than a sham.
Hack him to bits in this forum if you can; I lament that there are only a couple dozen voters who'll read your words...
posted on January 28, 2004 08:01:15 PM new
Helen, let me ask you -- and if you're not willing to publicly state so here, email me at [email protected] with your answer, if you will -- who the heck deserves our vote?
I can't stand Dean; Lieberman is a truncated "industrial-military complex" supporter; Edwards is too handsome (hahaha!) ; Clark is a military man, first and foremost -- ever since viewing such films as Seven Days In May I've had reservations about ever letting Generals run our country.
The field of (democratic) candidates dwindles markedly after considering those five. And, truly, I can't in good conscience cast my vote for Al Sharpton...
Really, email me. Do so from a hotmail (or other) anonymous account so you can feel safe doing so. I'd like to hear the views you have about this 'troubling' election on our horizon...
posted on January 28, 2004 09:13:25 PM new
Well, Gravid, I've always been a strong proponent of including a checkbox on the ballot that indicates "No"... "Nuts to all of them!"
Anyone I might've liked to elect President died long ago. I may not even bother to vote this year...
Edited to add: And that defeatist attitude of mine is EXACTLY what those in power rely upon. Okay, I'll go ahead and vote, but I've no idea for whom....
posted on January 28, 2004 10:21:36 PM new
Pat, I don't mind saying here what I think about the candidates. The problem is that I don't want to bash anybody because I think that any one of the leading candidates will be a winner.
Finally, the Democratic party has become energized and as much as you may dislike Dean, I believe that he was instrumental in doing that. Unfortunately, he has been thoroughly smeared by the media.
What a mess the Democratic candidate will inherit.
Gee...It's after 1AM here. Later...
[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 28, 2004 10:24 PM ]
[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 29, 2004 05:13 AM ]
posted on January 29, 2004 12:08:08 AM new
Helen, I don't dispute that Dean was the catalyst in the Democrats' camp. I just don't think he's The One. (Ironic to be picky, I know, given who's The One now.) And probably I will vote for whichever Democrat is ultimately offered -- be he a Skull & Bones bullsh!tter or a Pentagon insider. NONE of them , on either side, are LEADERS in my economy; they're corporate stooges and they couldn't give a flying fluck about you and me. I'm so tired -- so resentful -- of this being The Way It IS in American politics...
posted on January 29, 2004 02:28:22 AM new
Pat, I nominate YOU!!
lol! But all kidding aside I think you said it in a nutshell. Most democrates are dissatisfied with the lot offered. I wonder who JFK Jr would have backed? He always gave a campaign that charismatic lift.
Even before I read your post today, it crossed my mind if "Kerry" was not emerging as the democratic party foiler. (spoiler?)
I'd still like to see Clark get his confidence up among democrates. I dont know too much where he is on domestic issues, but I am really scared of the Mid-east and global crises escalating so out of control. I think it is rihgt now effecting every faucet of our lives domestically. The idea of Cheney being hooked up with the oil companies should bother more than it does. So I would think Clark has good judgement to offer on that end anyway.
Edwards, I dont know enough about to have an honest opinion of him.
Dean is too radical and scares most middle-of-the-roaders.(It's like I want to like him and trust him. But I get the feeling like should he get in, he would do exactly what he wants & throw a temper tantrum and say tough luck, "I am the King, eeeyaah!" (I am sorry he is not even smart enough to hide his intensions like our good Mr. Bush has been taught to. -- God, throw us some b.s - doesnt he know thats what the American public is used to?? :-0) )
The others dont have a chance, and probably not worth considerating.
posted on January 29, 2004 04:14:02 AM new
Clark scares the crap outta me with that -No terror attack would happen on my watch- crap. Nobody can make any promises like that. In fact most things they state as a positive I will do this or that is crap because they can propose and suggest all they like but if Congress does not go along it won't happen.
Edwards rings all my b*u*l*l*s*h*i*t meters off scale because he acts like a TV preacher on camera.
Dean has already displayed way to many problems seperating truth form fantasy with his brother who all of a sudden deserves military honors for vacationing where it was not safe to be.
I don't think a Jew can be elected in this country yet. I know they said that about a Catholic but I think the prejudice runs deeper.
Same will Sharpton - he's been smoking funny weed if he really thinks he can do it.
I'm afraid Bush will be back and we will have a new wave of curtailed civil liberties, vote fraud, and foreign wars. The economy will cycle as always no matter who is in there. But no real effort will be made to address the real and permenant changes that are happening to the economy. Jobs are going to recover less and less each time the economy cycles. They just don't need that many bodies anymore.
posted on January 29, 2004 05:13:33 AM new
While I still worry that the Dem power structure is willing to give this election to Pres. Bush in order to get Hillary in in 2008, I would vote for almost anybody who stood a chance of beating him. Looks like it might be Kerry.
___________________________________
Mi abuelita me dijo "en boca cerrada no entran moscas".
"Edwards rings all my b*u*l*l*s*h*i*t meters off scale because he acts like a TV preacher on camera."
Edwards just needs some speech correction.
That preacher perception is caused by his southern accent associated with most preachers...wish he would get rid of that.
If you read his position on issues, you won't find any preacher attitude.
He is being mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate now...possibly with Kerry.
posted on January 29, 2004 08:06:34 AM new
Helen, thanks for the post on the candidates. Not that I couldnt find it myself, but I guess I am too apathic to even care to try. (But your link makes it easier so maybee I's will. )
ps: Edwards accent doesnt bother me. The fact that he's got lawyers in his back pocket kinda does tho.
posted on January 29, 2004 08:12:37 AM new
TwelvePole, what exactly do you like about BUSH and CHENEY besides the fact that they are republicans????
You're like one of those die-hard sports nuts that love the team, regardless of who's playing for it. I guess Bush's measure with the illegal aliens sits alright with you, too, huh?
posted on January 29, 2004 10:47:44 AM new
Even Ed Koch, past NY Mayor is going to vote for Bush's re-election. While stating he is a very liberal democrat who disagrees on all the issues with this president, he stated on Fox News yesterday that there is no democratic candidate who takes protecting our national security as seriously as President Bush does.
What a guy.....another well know democrat publically stating he's voting for Bush. LOl
posted on January 29, 2004 11:27:03 AM new
from USA Today
Kerry was buoyed by history: Beginning in 1976, no Democrat who won Iowa and New Hampshire has failed to capture the nomination. But he also must show he can win outside Iowa, where Democrats favor liberal candidates, and his native New England. In New Hampshire, surveys of voters leaving polling places showed that Kerry got his strongest support from those who described themselves as moderates.
But Republicans plan to charge that Kerry is too far to the left. Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie has attacked him as "out of sync" with most voters, and a strategy emerged to go after Kerry on what Democrats see as his strength: national security.
In a speech to the Republican winter meeting today, Gillespie plans to attack Kerry's past votes to cut intelligence budgets. The votes "do not support his assertion that his approach to national security will make us safer as a nation," Gillespie said in an interview.
-----------
That's one of the biggest problems I see with most of the democratic candidates.....they keep changing their positions on the important issues. They can say whatever they think people want to hear but their previous votes prove differently.
posted on January 29, 2004 12:19:17 PM new
No I do not support President Bush's immigration policies...
I do admire that he did what he said he would do, did not kow-tow to that POS org called the UN and is not burdend with kissing other countries butts to get what we feel is the right thing to do.
I do believe that we are safer here in the US than we would be with a Democratic President, who in all probabiliy would try to placate our attackers.
posted on January 29, 2004 01:10:17 PM new
I just keep thinking about the question someone asked: "Who would BinLaden rather see elected...President Bush or an anti-war democrat?"
posted on January 29, 2004 02:44:35 PM new
Haven't read Ann Coulter's column since I left on vacation. But today's ties in with this topic thread.....about Kerry being pathetic. It appears he is in other ways too.
Ann Coulter calling Kerry...........
JUST A GIGOLO LOL
http://www.anncoulter.com/
But if Bush can't talk to Kerry about the horrors of war, then Kerry sure as hell can't talk to anyone about the plight of the middle class. Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by marrying their wives and daughters.
For over 30 years, Kerry's primary occupation has been stalking lonely heiresses. Not to get back to his combat experience, but Kerry sees a room full of wealthy widows as "a target-rich environment." This is a guy whose experience dealing with tax problems is based on spending his entire adult life being supported by rich women. What does a kept man know about taxes?
In 1970, Kerry married into the family of Julia Thorne -- a family estimated to be worth about $300 million. She got depressed, so he promptly left her and was soon seen catting around with Hollywood starlets, mostly while the cad was still married. (Apparently, JFK really was his mentor.) Thorne is well-bred enough to say nothing ill of her Lothario ex-husband. He is, after all, the father of her children --a fact that never seemed to constrain him.
When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled -- and Heinz is worth more than $700 million. Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests, but he can't even stand up to his wife.
Heinz made Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement, presumably aware of how careless he is with other people's property, such as other people's Vietnam War medals, which Kerry threw on the ground during a 1971 anti-war demonstration.
At pains to make Kerry sound like a normal American, his campaign has described how Kerry risked everything, mortgaging his home in Boston to help pay for his presidential campaign. Technically, Kerry took out a $6 million mortgage for "his share" of "the family's home" -- which was bought with the Heinz family fortune. (Why should he spend his own money? He didn't throw away his own medals.) I'm sure the average working stiff in Massachusetts can relate to a guy who borrows $6 million against his house to pay for TV ads.
Kerry's campaign has stoutly insisted that he will pay off the mortgage himself, with no help from his rich wife. Let's see: According to tax returns released by his campaign, in 2002, Kerry's income was $144,091. But as The Washington Post recently reported, even a $5 million mortgage paid back over 30 years at favorable interest rates would cost $30,389 a month -- or $364,668 a year.
The Democrats' joy at nominating Kerry is perplexing. To be sure, liberals take a peculiar, wrathful pleasure in supporting pacifist military types. And Kerry's life story is not without a certain feral aggression. But if we're going to determine fitness for office based on life experience, Kerry clearly has no experience dealing with problems of typical Americans since he is a cad and a gigolo living in the lap of other men's money.
posted on January 29, 2004 06:11:14 PM new
I'd vote for his wife, Teresa, before I'd vote for Kerry himself. In fact, I'd rather have any of The Wives as president, including Laura...
posted on January 29, 2004 06:15:51 PM new
The only reason Kerry is scoring high in polls is because he's trying to pass himself off as a moderate. Once news gets out about how liberal he really is, he'll be toast.
posted on January 30, 2004 06:50:20 AM new "I recently posted in another thread here that John Kerry and George Bush have a tacit agreement to toss the 2004 election to George; I truly believe that, have never liked Kerry (based upon firsthand accounts I've been told about his Viet Nam service) , and don't expect for one minute that his "run" for the presidency is anything more than a sham." Pat
Although I don't suspect Kerry, I wonder in this respect about Lieberman.
This is interesting....
"Regardless of how we may feel about Cheney, he has certainly done his homework and is accomplishing his objectives at breakneck speed. Unfortunately, for the average American, Mr. Cheney’s plan does not provide for the peaceful transition of power to a democratically elected member of a different party, like a democrat. In other words, we can be reasonably certain that Cheney has not put together this elaborate security apparatus at home, invaded two countries, and projected American power across the globe, only to hand over the “unfinished business” to a different administration."
)
