Religions > Atheism > Hanoi John Kerry Is No commander in chief! Because liberals are idiots!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yangs Liberal Wang" |
| Date: |
10 Aug 2004 06:40:04 AM |
| Object: |
Hanoi John Kerry Is No commander in chief! Because liberals are idiots! |
Hanoi John Kerry Is No commander in chief! Because liberals are
idiots!
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040715-082644-6821r.htm
Sen. John Kerry has chosen his candidate for vice president.
Immediately there arose questions whether his choice, Sen. John
Edwards, has the requisite national security experience to be
president. Some praised the Massachusetts Frenchman for having the
courage to pick a fellow senator with so little experience and
gravitas. But Mr. Edwards' defense credentials are beside the point.
We are not keeping our eye on the ball. Its not that the No. 2 guy
doesn't understand defense policy. It's that the No. 1 guy doesn't as
well. Now, I know this flies in the face of the commonest assumptions
of our nuanced and coiffed pundits, but let's look at the record.
In my years working in the Senate, I was always struck how senators
flounder during hearings when they have to depart from the canned
speeches prepared by staff. This often occurs during
question-and-answer sessions with witnesses. Often, the "real"
politician is revealed. As I have highlighted previously, during one
1989 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Mr. Kerry asserted to
then-Secretary of State designee James Baker that, as far as
right-thinking people went, the issue of global warming was at least
as important as the reduction of nuclear weapons In 1996 hearings on
missile defenses, Mr. Kerry questions the entire premise behind
missile defenses by asserting that no one could possibly be concerned
because "there are no Russian missiles aimed at the United States."
Now it may be that Sen. Kerry, shortly before this important hearing,
gleaned such special insights from myriad dinners at some foreign
restaurants where he met with a number of "high" Russian "officials,"
who told him the startling news that the Russians
were no longer aiming their strategic rocket forces at any targets in
the United States.
Even the committee witness from the Clinton administration was baffled
by the claim, responding that such an assertion was not only dubious
but also dangerous. Can you imagine our commander in chief conducting
foreign affairs under the false assumption that the one country in the
world capable of incinerating all of us is really not aiming any of
its some thousands of warheads at us?
Mr. Kerry rapidly retreated from this claim only to stumble once
again. He next asserted that there really was no reason to think that
even if you wanted to build a missile defense for the United States,
you would want to protect either Hawaii or Alaska. As he put it, "Why
would anyone want to?" To be sure, the senator's fortune was made in
ketchup, but he has made much of his supposed knowledge of energy
issues, such as global warming. A nice North Korean missile warhead
landing in the proximity of the Trans Alaskan Pipeline would cause
economic damage far in excess of that caused by September 11.
In fact, the Alaskan legislature was so concerned with this issue that
they received a briefing from the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based
Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis. The briefing noted that the
North Koreans had a growing ballistic-missile capability and that an
attack against the pipeline would cause some $23 billion in immediate
damages and $46 billion over two years just in terms of lost oil
supplies. Economic ripple effects would add hundreds of additional
billions in damages. The Alaska legislature subsequently passed a
resolution calling upon the U.S. government to build a missile defense
protecting not only the continental 48 states but also Hawaii and
Alaska. After all, the Constitution does call for providing "for the
common defense." And last time I looked, these two fine states were
part of the United States.
This issue is not only of passing interest. The Clinton administration
asserted there was no North Korean ballistic-missile threat to the
United States, but forgot to tell Congress that the intelligence
community deliberately left out Hawaii and Alaska in their analysis.
Since Alaska and Hawaii are closer to North Korean rockets than the
West Coast of the continental United States, the Clintonistas could
claim however dubiously that whatever threat there was actually
farther away than was the truth. It was later revealed that the
National Intelligence Estimate had been cooking the books to come up
with such a conclusion.
The North Korean ballistic-missile threat now is far more serious than
it was in 1995-1996. The Republic of Korea government now claims
Pyongyang recently has been testing both medium- and long-range rocket
engines, although we had been assured by arms controllers in the
Clinton administration that Kim Jong Il and his Communist hoods in
North Korea had promised to place a moratorium on missile tests. This
was not unlike the claim of the former Soviet Union when they promised
not to aim any of their missiles at us.
President Bush is building a missile defense as a sound insurance
policy to defend America. Arms control might work, but it might not.
Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, vows to cut the funding for missile
defense. He apparently believes the North Koreans and the Russians
there are no missiles aimed at us, and even if there are, they won't
attack us. Which view best reflects a sound defense policy suited for
our commander in chief?
Peter Huessy is president of GeoStrategic Analysis.
Transcript Sunday, August 31, 2003 Meet the Press
Oct. 9, 2002 MSNBC
MR. RUSSERT: I went back and re-read your speech on the floor of the
Senate October 9, and I want to share that with you and our viewers...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: ...because you repeated many of exactly the same claims
and concerns that President Bush did.
SEN. KERRY: Correct.
MR. RUSSERT: Let's watch.
(Videotape, October 9, 2002):
SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is
capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents,
including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs,
missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them
to the United States itself.
In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles
capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.
According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree
that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that
Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.
In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty
to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or
against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of
miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even
greater, a nuclear weapon?
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
