Posted on 10/02/2004 5:41:30 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Thursday's presidential debate was about foreign policy, yet one candidate's extensive record on foreign policy going back more than two decades was never actually discussed. The focus of the debate was primarily on President George W. Bush's three-year war on terror, which Bush occasionally tried to steer toward an inspection of Sen. John Kerry's shifting attitude toward the conflict in Iraq.
Bush's failure to highlight Kerry's Senate record is one of several missed opportunities for the president. Another one worth noting: Bush never effectively detailed Saddam Hussein's support for various terrorist causes and notorious individual terrorists in response to Kerry's insistence that eliminating Saddam had no relation to the war on terror.
Clearly, however, the biggest lapse by both the president and moderator Jim Lehrer was letting Kerry escape without any airing of his record prior to the war on terror. Kerry's adult life has been bracketed by two monumental challenges to the West: the first involving the Soviet bloc and its proxies and the second from Islamic jihadists. In the first struggle Kerry consistently opposed any resolute response to Soviet designs.
Kerry's opposition to U.S. involvement in Indochina is well known to anyone who has followed this presidential campaign. Less appreciated is that he opposed virtually every element of U.S. policy in the 1980s that helped provoke the collapse of the Soviet empire. When Ronald Reagan decided to deploy medium-range missiles in Europe unless the Soviets dismantled their own missiles aimed at European capitals, Kerry threw in his lot with the nuclear-freeze movement. In short, he was content to let the Soviets enjoy permanent nuclear superiority on that continent. Meanwhile, he opposed Reagan's decision to pursue missile defense even though that prospect turned out to be a key reason Soviet leaders concluded they could no longer compete in an arms race.
Indeed, Kerry voted against virtually every important weapons system proposed during those critical years, from the B-1 bomber and B-2 stealth bomber to a variety of fighter jets and even the Trident missile system. (As Bush pointed out Thursday, Kerry's opposition to new weapons, such as a bunker-busting nuclear bomb, continues to this day.)
And when Reagan tried to block or undermine Soviet allies in regions such as Latin America, Kerry rode forth to object. For example, he denounced the administration for "funding terrorism" when it backed the Contras in their rebellion against the despotic, pro-Soviet Sandinistas - yet it was precisely that policy that ultimately pushed the Sandinistas into elections, which they predictably lost.
Kerry's heart simply wasn't in the Cold War. He thought those who sought to win it were Neanderthals, when in fact they were hard realists willing to pay the price. After the Cold War, Kerry would spend the 1990s trying to cut the budgets of the intelligence agencies. Unfortunately, most voters will never hear of this record because this year's lone debate devoted to foreign policy failed to lay out the relevant facts.
Lehrer had an agenda and the truth about the senator from MA was not going to get in the way.
He allowed that to happen.
Unfortunately, most voters will never hear of this record because this year's lone debate devoted to foreign policy failed to lay out the relevant facts.
That last bit is up to us. We need to make sure people hear about Kerry's record.
Yes. Bush had a once in a life-time opportunity to nail Kerry on SEVERAL points, he didn't do it.
The idea that Kerry came out of this debate a winner is inexcusable. Bush blew it big time.
Why didn't George Bush?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.