Kerry Gulf War Vote is CRUCIAL

Orlando Sentinel ^ | Oct 15, 2004 | Peter A. Brown

[THJNewYorkCity]

The best reason to be skeptical that John Kerry has the gumption to defend America's vital interests and allies is not that he has been all over the map about this current war in Iraq. Although such erratic behavior is unpresidential, Kerry's unwillingness to support military action in 1991 against Saddam Hussein after Iraq had invaded and raped neighboring Kuwait is the best reason to question his judgment. The lesson of history -- Kerry's Senate vote against the first Iraq war that hindsight shows to be a reasonable and necessary conflict -- makes his claim that he would be willing to use force ring most hollow.

[THJNewYorkCity]

Little is being made of Kerry's Gulf War vote. The entire international community was behind George H. W. Bush and he STILL voted against the war. This is the vote that tells the most...because it 's a straight line from his peacenik views after Vietnam right to his refusal to throw Saddam out of Kuwait. The ads from the Swiftboat guys talk about how they're ticked off or hurt by what he did years ago, but what what they SHOULD say is that what he did when he got back, coupled with all the votes against weapons systems and intelligence budgets, and then linked to his scaredy cat vote on the first Gulf War tells us precisely who he is and what he would be like as president. As Democrat Ed Koch said, politely "I don't think he has the stomach for this..."

He' s a September 10 politician. He doesn't realize this is a war, and it's a war for Western Civilization as much as World War II was.

[ncfool]

any other place to read this posting......

[Boundless]

Kerry's March 13, 1991 speech in "defense" of that vote is
also a classic that needs to be studied by "undecideds".

Bush Brought Up Gulf War 1 -- Flashback of Kerry's Post-War Senate Defense of his Vote - 3/13/1991
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1246860/posts

[dufekin]

Consider the pessimism of the Democrats. Amid the Iraq war, I attended an event at which a senior Democrat and Clintonite (I don't recall the name) lambasted the President for his Iraq war policy. He predicted that American forces would languish without any supply convoys before Baghdad for two months before being forced into Saddam's gallows. 25,000 would die in combat, and the remainder would starve and run out of ammunition because of a lack of secure supply lines. Because of a lack of French forces, American forces could not succeed (presumably at an orderly surrender a la Dunkirk). The war would be unwinnable.

To make a long story short, not 25 minutes later, having returned to my apartment, I turned on Fox News and heard "Our soldiers have entered the City of Baghdad." Surrender? No. Dead? No. Fighting and very much alive. French? Certainly not. Ammunition? Plenty. Food? Sufficient. Two months of siege warfare? Only if a month was twelve minutes--which I assure you, it is not!

From that day forward, I no longer listen to Democrats and their armchair generals when it comes to military and national security pessimism.

[NetSurfer]

As much as I agree with your sentiments...the scariest thing is that most of the "undecideds" (if there truly ARE any) don't even remember the Gulf War. Hence, they probably don't care what Kerry did, circa 1991. To them, that's like ancient history.

They can't even remember what they ate for dinner on Wednesday.

[THJNewYorkCity]

You can go to www.orlandosentinel.com and register for free. The URL link is in the original posting..you can probably just click on it!

[THJNewYorkCity]

WOW. Thank you. I couldn't bear to read it all, but I did take a way an impression that is now crystal clear and that I think I KNEW long ago. Kerry most have had his testicles blown off in Vietnam. Ed Koch warns that Kerry has "no stomach" for this war for Western Civilization. But as you read his speech you see that he'll jump through MANY hoops to find a reason not to go to war. He has no guts. And all that is quite apparent now. Unfortunately the Swift Boat ads don't really draw this conclusion...they only make the point that he was virtually a traitor. But that's so extreme that it doesn't have the same effect as a commercial that would examine his first Gulf War vote and these comments on the Senate floor. These make it clear that Kerry left something very significant behind in Vietnam. Call it guts, or call it something even more graphic.

[THJNewYorkCity]

And is Kerry on record pointing out that the British and Russians got bogged down in Afghanistan? I honestly doubt if Kerry had "the gumption", to put it as wimpishly as he clearly is, to lead a war after September 11. In fact, I think he spent whatever "courage" he had in Vietnam, and everything since reflects that. He so profoundly wants it to be September 10 not just because he likes to talk about everything or doesn't understand the threat to Western Civilization; he can't come to grips with the fact that he left a lot more behind in Vietnam than his honor and four months of his time.

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

It's worth noting that the Gulf War was fully UN approved and supported; in other words, the Gulf War had already passed every conceivable "Global Test," and Kerry still voted against it.

[stockstrader]

I agree. The President should be spending MUCH MORE TIME on this Kerry vote. After all, this Kerry vote passes Kerry's GLOBAL TEST!

If Kerry had been President, Saddam Hussein would not only be in power in IRAQ, he would also own Kuwait!!

[stockstrader]

Exactly. Think oil prices are high now??? How high would oil prices be if Kerry had been President in '91?

Saddam Hussein would be also in control of Kuwait-- and he would be'windsurfing on the Persian Gulf' as we speak--and would have control of over 1/3 of the world's oil!!!

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

Think oil prices are high now??? How high would oil prices be if Kerry had been President in '91?

Good point.

[Dante3]

I agree.

Also, Bush and the Republicans should spend far more time on Kerry and Edwards' overall voting record. And their extreme liberalism and lack of touch of what it means to be a middle-class or working-class American

[stockstrader]

The President should have been hammering Kerry on his Gulf War vote in the debates. The President barely mentioned it in passing. That should have been the focus of Bush's debate plan.

That Kerry vote is a TRUE indication of how liberal, and out-of-touch he is!! After all, even countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt participated in the coalition. I guess even that wasn't enough to satisfy Kerry's TOTAL APPEASEMENT leanings!!

The President must keep the focus on THAT vote in the remaining time until Nov. 2!!

[GoBucks2002]

He' s a September 10 politician. He doesn't realize this is a war, and it's a war for Western Civilization as much as World War II was.

Since the Bush campaign dare not bring this up (it might upset the New York Times, you know) and since our side seems way outgunned in the 527 game, I seriously doubt that many Americans are aware of this. Nor will they ever be.

[stockstrader]

Let's also not forget that Kerry is the only public figure I know of that HAS BEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF THREE WARS!!!!

First, he was for the Vietnam War, before he opposed it with his treasonous activities and comments.

Second, he was against the first Gulf War--until it was obviously going well--then he supported it.

Finally, he was for the Iraq War, before he voted against it. Since then he again supported it, was against it, and back a forth a few more times.

What other national politician has been on BOTH SIDES OF THREE WARS??

[THJNewYorkCity]

Yes, he should have been hammering him on this and other points. I suspect tha there's a lot Bush didn't say because he's president and needs certain allies and the UN. I keep wondering what might happen in the next few days if he takes the gloves off about the French and the CORRUPT UN and really undercuts Kerry's argument for getting the French, Russians, and Germans involved....along with the UN. They were all on the take and Bush can't say that.

[Tripleplay]

He' s a September 10 politician. He doesn't realize this is a war, and it's a war for Western Civilization as much as World War II was.

Even worse, IMO. He does know it's a war!............and his way of fighting it is with sensitivy, understanding, giving money, and having a never ending meeting with the UN.

[Tripleplay]

He' s a September 10 politician. He doesn't realize this is a war, and it's a war for Western Civilization as much as World War II was.

Even worse, IMO. He does know it's a war!............and his way of fighting it is with sensitivy, understanding, giving money, and having a never ending meeting with the UN.