Election's Key Issue

[Tigermike 3,044]

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Election's Key Issue

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Election '04: Time has come to focus on two questions: Who best to lead us in defeating a fanatical enemy that plots to destroy our way of life? And which party can be trusted to be stronger on defense and more competent in protecting our homeland?

We are in the middle of a worldwide war on terrorism.  No longer do our oceans protect us. On Sept. 11, 2001, planes attacked the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Another was headed for either the White House or the Capitol. More of our citizens were massacred that day than on Dec. 7, 1941.

An enormously important fact little mentioned in our national media is that under the present administration, no major terrorist attack has taken place on American soil in the three years since 9-11. This deserves to be fully recognized.

Another key set of facts even less explored is John Kerry's record in defending America and supporting our troops since he returned from his three months of action in Vietnam. For example:

• In 1971, while still on inactive duty in the Naval Reserve, Kerry joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War, serving on its executive committee and as its key spokesman. In that capacity, he turned against all the men he served with, accusing them of committing horrible day-to-day war crimes and atrocities with the full awareness of officers at all levels. His words were played back to our POWs as they were tortured.

• Jane Fonda was a key financial backer of the VVAW. Earlier in France, she was married to Roger Vadim, a communist, and later to Tom Hayden, another radical leftist. Fonda took trips to Hanoi in support of the communists. In broadcasts to our troops, she encouraged them to lay down their weapons.

• Al Hubbard, VVAW organizer and executive director, was also in late 1971 a member of the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice, a communist front organization.

• In 1970, while still in the inactive reserve, Kerry went to Paris and met secretly with top communist leaders from North Vietnam.

• During the 1980s, according to a recent interview with Caspar Weinberger, President Reagan's secretary of defense, Kerry voted against every single new weapons system — from the B-1 bomber to to the Strategic Defense Initiative — that enabled Reagan to win the Cold War and Bush to defeat the Taliban. Kerry also supported a nuclear freeze that would have given the Soviets an advantage.

• In 1991, during the Gulf War, the U.S. led a broad coalition of countries against Saddam Hussein's takeover of Kuwait. Kerry now claims this is the right way to go to war. But back then, he voted against military action.

• In 2003, after voting to authorize action against Saddam in a second Iraq war, Kerry voted against spending $87 billion to supply our troops with the necessary equipment, ammunition and armor.

• In 1993, when terrorists first bombed the World Trade Center, Kerry voted to cut $7.5 billion from our intelligence budget.

• Surveys done prior to 9-11 showed that Boston's Logan Airport was the least secure airport in the nation. People with weapons were able to board planes undetected. This was in Kerry's own back yard, and he did not correct the situation.

Kerry has been a master debater and critic of everything but his own record on security matters, a record that reveals exceedingly poor judgment and is riddled with wrong positions.

An Army Times survey shows three of four U.S. servicemen on duty in the Mideast do not want Kerry as their leader and will vote for President Bush. And an Annenberg survey of military families shows that two of three prefer Bush as commander in chief.

Every voter should read "Unfit for Command" by Swift Boat Commander John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi. The book describes in meticulous detail many points covered here, plus dozens more. For all the scorn heaped upon O'Neill and the 200 others who helped put the book together, nearly all their charges remain unrefuted.

As to the question of which party can best be trusted in matters of foreign policy and defense, Kerry has charged that North Korea and Iran have been able to develop nuclear capability because the Bush administration "took its eye off the ball."

Americans should remember that a Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, took office in 1977 with human rights as his key issue. It was Carter who slapped sanctions on Iran, thereby undermining the shah and making it possible for religious fanatics to overthrow his government in 1979.

This was the beginning of the modern terrorist movement in the Middle East, and it was caused 100% by a Democrat who meant well but who was pathetically naive when it came to world affairs.

It was also Carter who couldn't believe it when the Soviets lied to him before invading Afghanistan in 1979. Realizing how weak Carter was, the Soviets then took over in six other countries: Ethiopia, South Yemen, Somalia, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Nicaragua.

U.S. foreign policy was dealt another blow by Carter when he took it upon himself to go to North Korea in 1994 to negotiate terms with its tyrannical leader. President Clinton grabbed at this opportunity and accepted the deal Carter made.

Once again, Carter naively believed that all you need to solve a problem is have a piece of paper with someone's name on it. North Korea, of course, proceeded to violate the entire agreement.

So when Kerry complains about North Korea and Iran, he has no one to blame but the Democratic Party's blundering in international affairs.

Kerry makes a lot of big promises and claims to have a "plan" for everything. But his own record of accomplishment — especially in matters of national security — is almost nonexistent.

At a time when our security has been challenged as never before, when the lives of our children and grandchildren are at stake, and when the incumbent has already proved he can do the job, do we really want someone with such a record as commander in chief?

http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp