shotbanner.jpeg

October 18, 2004

Unfit To Lead

I'll be perfectly honest, as I always am; I didn't support George W. Bush until his nomination was locked up (I was a Forbes guy), and didn't honestly become enthusiastic about him as president until the day he stood on the rubble of the WTC, and the speech to Congress that followed. He was no orator, but he came into his own that week, and I become an unabashed supporter.

So I can be convinced. It's true.

But I can honestly say I have never, ever felt for even a moment that John Kerry was qualified to lead the United States. His record in the eighties was that of the opportunistic, commie-coddling appeaser; we have evidence that, under pressure, he's not only not a leader - he is, in fact, a craven, dithering simp, as P.J. O'Rourke noted while observing Kerry during a crisis during the electoral overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos:

Village Voice reporter Joe Conason and I had been tipped off about the walkout, and when we got to the church, we found Bea Zobel, one of Cory Aquino's top aies, in a tizzy. "The women are terrified," she said. "They're scared to go home. They don't know what to do. We don't know what to do." Joe and I suggested that Mrs. Zobel go to the Manila Hotel and bring back some members of the Congressional observer team. She came back with Kerry, who did nothing.

Kerry later said that he didn't talk to the COMELEC employees then because he wasn't allowed. This is ridiculous. He was ushered into an area that had been cordoned off from the press and the crowd and where the computer operators were sitting. To talk to the women, all he would have had to do was raise his voice. Why he was reluctant, I can't tell you. I can tell you what any red-blooded representative of the U.S. government should have done. He should have shouted, "If you're frightened for your safety, I'll take you to the American embassy, and damn the man who tries to stop me." But all Kerry did was walk around like a male model in a concerned and thoughtful pose.

This is your "war hero?" People think this hamster will lead the US against the people who rammed airplanes full of people into the World Trade Center?

Mark Steyn has him dialed in.

Steyn hs more on why Kerry is unfit to lead this nation.

Key quote:

The ''I'll hunt down and kill America's enemies'' line was written for him and planted on his lips. The ''It's just a nuisance like prostitution'' line is his, and how he really thinks of the issue. What an odd analogy. Your average jihadist won't take kindly to having his martyrdom operation compared with the decadent infidels' sex industry, but the rest of us shouldn't be that happy about it either. Kerry is correct in the sense that even if you dispatched every constable in the land to crack down on prostitution there'd still be some pox-ridden whore somewhere touting for business. But, on the other hand, applying the Kerry prostitute approach to terrorists would seem to leave rather a lot of them in place. In Boston, where he served as a ''law enforcement person,'' the Yellow Pages are full of lavish display ads for not-all-that-euphemistic ''escort services.'' In other words, while you can make an argument for a ''managerial'' approach to terrorism, the analogy with prostitution sounds more like an undeclared surrender. This is aside from the basic defect of the argument: If some gal in your building is working as a prostitute, that's a nuisance -- condoms in the elevator, johns in the lobby; if Islamists seize the schoolhouse and kill your kids, even if it only happens once every couple of years, ''nuisance'' doesn't quite cover it.
A typical "moderate" objection to Bush goes something like "In four years, he hasn't done a great job".

Forget about John Kerry's legislative record (such as it is). In twenty years, John Kerry has been an abomination as a leader in time of crisis.

Posted by Mitch at October 18, 2004 07:37 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Yes! Great post, Mitch. I can understand why the left supports Kerry. They know his dithering on Iraq is really code for getting out at the earliest seemly oppurtunity. What bugs me is people on the right who believe that Kerry will fight a better, more proactive war on terror. To do that Kerry would have to act entirely against his record-
-Vietnam. He left after four months of a combat tour.
-Kerry then returned to the US and began to call for a complete US withdrawal from Vietnam, and damn the consequences to the people there who had allied themselves with us.
-Cold War. He was in favor of a unilateral nuclear freeze in Europe. In a 1984 campaign flyer he came against SDI, against the B1 bomber, against the F15 fighter, against the Aegis fleet defense system, and against the Patriot missile system.
-In Central America in the 80's Kerry called for a drawback of support for the Contras.
-Kerry called the invasion of Grenada "a bully's show of force against a weak Third World nation". Our mission there was in fact to remove a pro-Soviet Cuban proxy government.
-He voted against the 1st Gulf War. Having a "Grand Coalition" didn't matter all to him then. He reflexily opposed the use of any US force that might conceivably be in our national interest.
-Kerry voted for the Iraq War resolution in 2002. He now says that was a mistake. Or not. I've watched the guy talk his way through three debates and I still can't tell if he regrets that vote.
A leapord can change his spots, at least in politics, but Kerry has never, as far as I know, expressed regret for anything he has done. He has never said 'I was wrong about Vietnam', 'I was wrong about Soviet intentions in the 80's' or even 'I was wrong not to support our mission in the Gulf in 1991 and 1992'.
If you want the US to turn over control of our foreign policy to the managerial classes in the UN and Europe, vote Kerry. Don't kid yourself that you're votong for anything else.

Posted by: Terry at October 18, 2004 01:21 PM

Anyone who sided with the nuclear freeze movement in the mid-eighties has such a fundamentally flawed view of the world, and the role of the United States in that world, that they are unqualified for the Presidency. Of course, that rules out a good chunk of the Democratic Party. I had enough reservations about Bush to hold my First Amendment-loving nose and vote for McCain in a primary in 2000, and I still have strong reservations about Bush. Until the Democrats excommunicate their McGovern wing of naive foreign policy reactionaries, however, I can't support a Democrat, even if one were to indicate that he or she doesn't think the primary role of national government is to transfer property to those constituents who will reliably vote as they are bribed. Guess I can't for a Democrats anytime soon, even though Republicans usually have the same view of national government.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 18, 2004 01:57 PM

To paraphrase, what in Kerry's history makes people think he is capable of fighting terrorism?

Posted by: Pogo at October 18, 2004 05:29 PM

PUBLISHED ON February 18, 1970:
John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress
by Samuel Z. Goldhaber
Harvard Crimson
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=352185

excerpts:

At Yale, Kerry was chairman of the Political Union and later, as Commencement speaker, urged the United States to withdraw from Vietnam and to scale down foreign military operations. And this was way back in 1966. When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy./....../One time Kerry was ordered to destroy a Viet Cong village but disobeyed orders and suggested that the Navy Command simply send in a Psychological Warfare team to be friend the villagers with food, hospital supplies, and better educational facilities. Immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, Kerry said, would take about seven months due to complex logistics problems. During that interval he would allow only "self-defense return of fire." "Logistic suport is now what Nixon is talking about leaving there and I don't want to see that. I don't think we should leave support troops there and I don't think we should give Vietnam any more than the foreign aid given any other one country." He does not feel there would be a massive slaughter of American, sympathizers once the United States pulled out./....../He supports a volunteer Army, "if and only if we can create the controls for it. You're going to have to prepare for the possibility of a national emergency, however." Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." On other issues, Kerry wants "to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care." He also favors a negative income tax and keeping unemployment at a very low level, "even if it means selective economic controls."/....../Kerry's interest in politics began in 1960, when John Kennedy was running for President.

Posted by: RBMN at October 18, 2004 06:30 PM
hi