Posted on 10/20/2004 5:08:10 AM PDT by beaureguard
Last week, I saw something that profoundly changed my view of John Kerry's ability to be our commander in chief. Until now, I have been more concerned about the effect of an ultra-liberal Kerry presidency on social issues. Kerry hasn't had a great national security batting average, but I figured that in this new age of terror he would surely know the inning, know the score and be able to step up to the plate and protect our homeland if elected.
Then I saw PBS' Frontline special, "The Choice 2004," about the histories of both presidential candidates. The piece recounted Kerry's "wait and see" position after Saddam Hussein's 1990 Kuwait invasion. As I watched a younger Kerry grilling then-Secretary of State James Baker in a Senate hearing, it felt like the recent presidential debates all over again.
BAKER: We have to face the fact that four months into this conflict, none of our efforts have yet produced any sign of change in Saddam Hussein. . . .
KERRY: . . . I'm disturbed because you seem to have given up on sanctions . . . [Yes,] Saddam Hussein [must] get out of Kuwait. The issue here is war at the moment that it's ripe. And . . . while you talk about the costs of waiting, the cost of one week of war may be far, far greater than the cost of several more months of exhausting the possibilities, so that Americans will come together united and say, "We did everything, and now we have no other choice."
Kerry eventually voted against the January 1991 Gulf War resolution. "There is a rush to war here," he declared. "It sounds like we are risking war for pride, rather than vital interests."
Watching these and other déjà vu comments, I realized Kerry will probably always feel we are "rushing to war" — that we are not united enough in agreement, that we did not exhaust all diplomatic possibilities.
At the Democratic National Convention he promised he would only go to war "because we have to," but what does that mean for someone who may never be comfortable that we've met that test? How will he decide that enough is enough?
Kerry claims a main justification for opposing the Iraq war is President Bush's lack of backing from other nations. But he did not have that excuse in 1991, when Bush the elder was supported by a massive coalition of 39 countries, including Iraq's Arab neighbors. He still voted "no."
He looked down the barrel of Saddam's international aggression — including his use of weapons of mass destruction on his own people — and said we should give international pressure a few more months.
Well, as it turned out, we gave it 146 more months and a dozen U.N. resolutions, and it wasn't enough.
No president wants to go to war. But if he is going to protect us, every commander in chief must be willing to make and stick with that decision when necessary.
The key is what each president means by "when necessary." And in an age of terror I am extremely uncomfortable with Kerry's definition, which surrenders our homeland security to some amorphous comfort level that might be had down the road when "the moment is ripe."
Until we've allowed "a few more months" for sanctions (or inspections, or whatever) to work. Until, God forbid, a dirty bomb explodes on the steps of the Capitol.
We are at war, whether we like it or not, because a terrorist war has been declared on us. And we cannot have a commander in chief who holds a weapon to protect us, but will never be ready to pull the trigger.
Guest columnist. That explains it. I'm surprised the AJC printed this one. Good editorial!
Great Article!
Ping for clarity!!!!!!!!!
This is not the normal for the AJC. Usually they are extreme far left. I wonder if they received the word from Her Highness Hillary to let some shots be taken at Kerry.
Also watch what Bill Clinton does for Kerry in the next few weeks. I will be surprised if he truly does anything that is not for himself and his legacy. Bill will say a few platitudes and make some verbal assaults on Bush, but Bill won't do anything to hurt Hillary's chances in 2008.
AJC?
Wow.
Libs can only state that they are 'against Bush.' None can give any substantial reason of being 'for Kerry.'
Boston Globe has an article comparing Bush and Truman. It has come interesting parallels of the two administrations and their critics. Of course, it ends with--Truman was behind in the polls but pulled out a win, so Bush better be cautious of his current lead in the polls.
Your right great article. Bet it's the last time Guest Writer will be a guest at AJ for being pro W.
And don't forget Kerry's idiotic postwar defense of his Gulf War vote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1246860/posts
Shaunti Feldhahn started out as an analyst on Wall Street, and ended up a surprise best-selling author. Her latest book, “For Women Only: What You Need to Know About the Inner Lives of Men,” has become a popular conversation-starter for men and women around the country! A follow-up book, “For Women Only 2,” will be released in August 2005. In addition to writing, Shaunti is a business/marketing consultant, a weekly opinion columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and an active participant in several non-profit and policy initiatives. More importantly, Shaunti is a wife, a mother, and an active member of the Atlanta Vineyard Church.
Shaunti holds a Masters in Public Policy from Harvard University, and a bachelor’s in government and economics from The College of William & Mary in Virginia. She served on the staff of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee during the national banking reform, and later worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, tracking the Asian-market crisis (particularly Japan) for leaders at the highest levels of the Federal Reserve System and the federal government.
http://www.shaunti.com/bio.htm
Kerry is shouting loudly now - "...AND I WILL DEFEND THIS COUNTRY AS PRESIDENT, JUST AS I DEFENDED IT AS A YOUNG MAN..." Oh, please, heaven help us.
So, with Bush it is a matter of 4 more years.
With Kerry - Just 4 months?
What is he telling us - is he going to tattle-tale on America because he sees injustice, murder, robbery, etc. ? Is he preparing to throw away his Presidency just as he threw away his medals/ribbons? Is he planning clandestine meetings with enemies? Is he going to shoot himself in the foot to get out of the White House?
He needs 4 months alright - 4 months in a sanitarium! This man doesn't even know how to best defend himself - in battle, or on the campaign trail without looking like a fool, let alone defend this country.
She has been a guest columnist for a while now. Has had some good columns in the past, although more GA related. She nailed this one on the head, though, about Kerry.
What is encouraging about this article is that Ms. Feldhahn's opinion of Kerry was cemented by watching that Frontline show that most of us thought was a biased hagiography of Kerry. Perhaps we missed the really important part of that show. It seems that perhaps the Bush campaign has made a mistake by waiting so long to start highlighting Kerry's vote against the first Gulf War. It may be the single most damaging vote he has taken in his career. And the grilling of James Baker shown in that Frontline piece was truly nauseating. It is of a piece with Kerry's NYT interview. He is at heart a pacifist who simply does not believe in the use of American military force for anything, period.
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.