Kerry On Defense II

Last Friday, I asked Democrats and other Kerry supporter exactly why they thought John Kerry was "untouchable on national security".

I got roughly the answers I expected: Jeff Fecke of BLOTML said "I think most Democrats believe Kerry will be better than Bush on national security for reasons that have been beaten into the ground," - which surprised me, since other than "he was in Vietnam", I've heard not a single qualification of any sort from anyone, ever - but then Fecke allowed "but only a truly blinded partisan believes national security is an issue that Kerry owns. " A fair point, but it's the blinded partisans I'm looking for. Perhaps it's reasonable to assume I don't get many blind Kerry partisans on my blog. My question remains - besides the completely irrelevant fact that he was in the Navy for four months before a thirty-year career of gundecking the military, what are his national security qualifications?

Because I'm convinced it's one of those things that he only has because Terry MacAuliffe says he has them.

Maybe there's another approach, though. Rick Heller - he of the excellent "Smart Genes" blog - commented on my question: "I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt last year, and he flubbed it. That's why I'm inclined to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt in 2004."

Well, now we're getting somewhere, even if it's akin to saying "I tried eating better and working out, and it didn't make my life better, so this year I'm taking up cocaine and unprotected sex with hookers I meet at convenience stores on Franklin Avenue". Leaving aside the gaping perception gap that would cause one person (say, me) to call the deposition of a dictator with the blood of millions on his fangs, the removal of a potential source of terrorist weapons and funding, the reinforcement of the power of the very UN that the opposition claims Bush ignores, and introducing democracy into the least Democratic region of the world a "flub", but think the - words fail me - worthless fop John Kerry would be any better; I'd like to have one rational reason people would vote for him based on defense.

Just one! But remember - I said rational reason. "He got a Silver Star in Vietnam" is not a rational reason.

In another comment last week, "Fingers" - a fighter pilot I know from high school - makes a great point. Even if you assume Kerry is otherwise competent on defense, his entire notion for the war on terror - treating it like a law-enforcement exercise, taking the term "defense" literally - cedes the entire initiative to the enemy, allowing him to choose the place and time the war will be fought (the answers in this case being "In Your Cities" and "When We Want To"). This may be the only way to deal with crime - under our constitution, criminals are innocent until they are proven guilty, and they actually have to commit a crime before they can be arrested. War is different. The responsible - no, the competent commander does not let the enemy take the initiative.

Clinton did. Kerry would.

Bush, to his immense credit, did not. And that alone is reason, whatever his other shortcomings, to return him to office in my book.