excerpted from a speech he gave yesterday. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004831 -- These past three years, as our country experienced war and national emergency, I have watched our commander in chief make the decisions and set the strategy. I have seen a man who is calm and deliberate--comfortable with responsibility--consistent in his objectives and resolute in his actions. These times have tested the character of our nation, and they have tested the character of our nation's leader. When he makes a commitment, there is no doubt he will follow through. As a result, America's friends know they can trust--and America's enemies know they can fear--the decisive leadership of President George W. Bush. The president's conduct in leading America through a time of unprecedented danger--his ability to make decisions and stand by them--is a measure that must be applied to the candidate who now opposes him in the election of 2004. In one of Sen. Kerry's recent observations about foreign policy, he informed his listeners that his ideas have gained strong support, at least among unnamed foreigners he's been spending time with. Sen. Kerry said that he has met with foreign leaders, and I quote, " who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that. A few days ago in Pennsylvania, a voter asked Sen. Kerry directly who these foreign leaders are. Sen. Kerry said, "That's none of your business. But it is our business when a candidate for president claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders. At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy. American voters are the ones charged with determining the outcome of this election--not unnamed foreign leaders. Sen. Kerry's voting record on national security raises some important questions all by itself. Let's begin with the matter of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein should have been dealt with. Sen. Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time, he expressed the view that our international coalition consisted of "shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden." Last year, as we prepared to liberate Iraq, he recalled the Persian Gulf coalition a little differently. He said it was a "strong coalition," and a model to be followed. Six years after the Gulf War, in 1997, Saddam Hussein was still defying the terms of the cease-fire. And as President Bill Clinton considered military action against Iraq, he found a true believer in John Kerry. The senator from Massachusetts said, "Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action." He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not held to account for violation of U.N. resolutions, some future conflict would have " greater consequence." In 1998, Sen. Kerry indicated his support for regime change, with ground troops if necessary. And, of course, when Congress voted in October of 2002, Sen. Kerry voted to authorize military action if Saddam refused to comply with U.N. demands. A neutral observer, looking at these elements of Sen. Kerry's record, would assume that Sen. Kerry supported military action against Saddam Hussein. The senator himself now tells us otherwise. In January he was asked on TV if he was, "one of the antiwar candidates." He replied, "I am." He now says he was voting only to "threaten the use of force," not actually to use force. Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing rationales, at least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Sen. Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, today, in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait. Sen. Kerry speaks often about the need for international cooperation, and has vowed to usher in a "golden age of American diplomacy." He is fond of mentioning that some countries did not support America's actions in Iraq. Yet of the many nations that have joined our coalition--allies and friends of the United States--Sen. Kerry speaks with open contempt. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland and more than 20 other nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Sen. Kerry calls these countries, quote, "window dressing." They are, in his words, "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed." Many questions come to mind, but the first is this: How would Sen. Kerry describe Great Britain--coerced, or bribed? Or Italy--which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf--was Italy's contribution just window dressing? If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Sen. Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition. He speaks as if only those who openly oppose America's objectives have a chance of earning his respect. Sen. Kerry's characterization of our good allies is ungrateful to nations that have withstood danger, hardship, and insult for standing with America in the cause of freedom. Sen. Kerry has also had a few things to say about support for our troops now on the ground in Iraq. Among other criticisms, he has asserted that those troops are not receiving the materiel support they need. Just this morning, he again gave the example of body armor, which he said our administration failed to supply. May I remind the senator that last November, at the president's request, Congress passed an $87 billion supplemental appropriation. This legislation was essential to our ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan--providing funding for body armor and other vital equipment; hazard pay; health benefits; ammunition; fuel, and spare parts for our military. The legislation passed overwhelmingly, with a vote in the Senate of 87-12. Sen. Kerry voted "no." I note that yesterday, attempting to clarify the matter, Sen. Kerry said, quote, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." It's a true fact. On national security, the senator has shown at least one measure of consistency. Over the years, he has repeatedly voted against weapons systems for the military. He voted against the Apache helicopter, against the Tomahawk cruise missile, against even the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. He has also been a reliable vote against military pay increases--opposing them no fewer than 12 times. Many of these very weapons systems have been used by our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are proving to be valuable assets in the war on terror. In his defense, of course, Sen. Kerry has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. Recently he said, and I quote, "I don't want to use that terminology." In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation. As we have seen, however, that approach was tried before, and proved entirely inadequate to protecting the American people from the terrorists who are quite certain they are at war with us--and are comfortable using that terminology. I leave it for Sen. Kerry to explain, or explain away, his votes and his statements about the war on terror, our cause in Iraq, the allies who serve with us and the needs of our military. Whatever the explanation, whatever nuances he might fault us for neglecting, it is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become commander in chief in this time of testing for our country. In his years in Washington, Sen. Kerry has been one vote of a hundred in the United States Senate--and fortunately on matters of national security, he was very often in the minority. But the presidency is an entirely different proposition. The president always casts the deciding vote. And the senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security. The American people will have a clear choice in the election of 2004, at least as clear as any since the election of 1984. In more than three years as president, George W. Bush has built a national security record of his own. America has come to know the president after one of the worst days in our history. He saw America through tragedy. He has kept the nation's enemies in desperate flight, and under his leadership, our country has once again led the armies of liberation, freeing 50 million souls from tyranny, and making our nation and the world more secure. All Americans, regardless of political party, can be proud of what our nation has achieved in this historic time, when so many depended on us, and all the world was watching. And I have been very proud to work with a president who--like other presidents we have known--has shown, in his own conduct, the optimism, and strength, and decency of the great nation he serves.
Cheney has absolutely no credibility about anything with anyone who's not a Republican shill. Meanwhile Billmon has noticed a startling similarity between Cheney and a certain german dentist- From www.Billmon.org Nazi dentist brilliantly played by Sir Laurence Olivier in The Marathon Man: See what I mean? Cheney's face has that same dull, soulless aura about it -- the "banality of evil" look. It's way too easy to imagine Dick leaning over Dustin Hoffman with that electric drill in his hand, patiently asking the same question over and over: "Is it safe?"
And remember, taxpayers, when you are writing that check to pay for the War in Iraq, remember that there are two Ls in Halliburton!
Well not all the foreign leaders are backing Kerry... In a statement sent to the Arabic language daily al-Hayat, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings that killed 201 people, also urged its European units to stop all operations. "Because of this decision, the leadership has decided to stop all operations within the Spanish territories... until we know the intentions of the new government that has promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq," the statement said. "And we repeat this to all the brigades present in European lands: Stop all operations." Skepticism has greeted previous claims of responsibility by the group for attacks in Turkey and Iraq. U.S. officials say its links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network are unclear. An unrelated videotape of a man describing himself as al Qaeda's European military spokesman also claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombing, saying it was in retaliation for outgoing Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's domestically-unpopular support for the U.S.-led Iraq war. In a shock election result three days after the Madrid bombs, Spain voted in the Socialist party, which has since said it will probably withdraw its troops from Iraq. "The Spanish people... chose peace by choosing the party that was against the alliance with America," the statement said. WE WANT BUSH TO WIN The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom." In comments addressed to Bush, the group said: "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization." "Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected." link
wow, excellent comebacks you guys! too bad you, like your candidate, continue to ignore the real issues: do you really think kerry can usher in a new age of american diplomacy when he insults and demeans the contributions of nations whose soldiers are dying in Iraq? Do you really think he's a "veteran's veteran" when he fails to support funds needed for the supply of troops in the field?
Cheney does a great job of showing the glaring discrepencies in Kerry's promises and voting record and all some of you can come up with is silly slogans. The fact is that Cheney hit the nail on the head. Kerry is a flip-flopping politician that changes his mind whenever convenient. I'd rather have someone who at least has some conviction in his actions. BUSH '04
basso what do you say about a fellow republican's comments? ------------------------------ WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he did not believe Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), a friend and Senate colleague, was weak on defense or would compromise national security if elected president. "This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice," McCain said on "The Early Show" on CBS. "You know, it's the most bitter and partisan campaign that I've ever observed. I think it's because both parties are going to their bases rather than going to the middle. I regret it."
The fact is that Cheney hit the nail on the head. Kerry is a flip-flopping politician that changes his mind whenever convenient. and GWB does not flip flop!!! Rove should be smart enough to know to not make this an issue.
I'd rather have someone who at least has some conviction in his actions. I put competency ahead of conviction.
KHan, I don't necessarily disagree here. If George wants to play the 'i'm a strong and decisive leader' card, and portray Kerry as too consultative, or too compromising then i think that would be fair game. (I might disagree, but could understand the position) Suggesting he lacks diplomatic skills, however, is calling the kettle black (to borrow from another thread ).
totally agree. but bush can't sit idly by why kerry makes wild accusations. i'm sure if kerry stuck to the issues, so would bush. remember where this all started, with the DNC's trashing of W's vietnam record.
You act like th British and Spanish public are backing this war. I do recall that the governemtn that supported putting troops in Iraq was just voted out. Spain has dealt with their admin, soon it will be our turn. BTW, nice try with the ":demeaning our soldiers" bit. If it wasn't for Bush, et al's lies, they wouldn't be there in the first place. The fact that the Bush admin aren't funding our soldiers to the point that they have to ask family members to buy and send them body armor makes a joke out of your assertion that Kerry's commitment to miltary funding of troops in the field is less than Bushes.
Yes- Follow the man with convictions right over the cliff. Some of Cheney's convictions-(http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/) Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities: "He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Source: Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation This statement was false because the intelligence community did not believe that Iraq actually possessed nuclear weapons. Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities: "Now, the more recent developments have to do with our now being able to conclude, based on intelligence that's becoming available . . . that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability." Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.
Bull poop. Kerry voted for a bill that would fund all of the $87 b with a repeal of tax cuts to the wealthy. He advocated support for (IIRC) some $60 b that would directly support the troops and against the rest that would go to no-bid contratctors and others getting rich off the war until some controls were in place and the Bush Admin came clean about the post-war plans. He voted against the ultimate bill to make a principled stand on the issue of war profiteering and abysmal post-war planning. Kerry, Edwards, and everyone realized that if the $87 b bill didn't pass like Bush wanted, a new one would immediately be introduced that could pass. Furthermore, Bush actually threatened to veto the same bill if some portion of it were marked as loans repayable to the US taxpayer instead of straight spending. If Bush had time to threaten a veto and possibly carry tit through, then how can Kerry be accused of not supporting the troops? The troop money would have been passed regardless of what happened... the argument was over how much money in the bill went to sources not directly supporting the troops and what kind of policy we were pursuing. Freaking hypocrites.
I'll have to address more later. Cheney is still pulling this stuff even after we've found out that Kerry talked about 'more' leaders and not 'foreign' leaders. Cheney can't even get his mind around the truth, so he has to fight against the misquote. That combined with Rimrockers shoot down of the false claim that Kerry didn't vote for money to support our soldiers pretty much knocks Cheney's Kerry comments out of the water. Cheney is a fool who won't get away with these tactics this time. Sen. Kerry's voting record on national security raises some important questions all by itself. Let's begin with the matter of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein should have been dealt with. Sen. Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time, he expressed the view that our international coalition consisted of "shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden." Last year, as we prepared to liberate Iraq, he recalled the Persian Gulf coalition a little differently. He said it was a "strong coalition," and a model to be followed. Six years after the Gulf War, in 1997, Saddam Hussein was still defying the terms of the cease-fire. And as President Bill Clinton considered military action against Iraq, he found a true believer in John Kerry. The senator from Massachusetts said, "Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action." He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not held to account for violation of U.N. resolutions, some future conflict would have " greater consequence." In 1998, Sen. Kerry indicated his support for regime change, with ground troops if necessary. And, of course, when Congress voted in October of 2002, Sen. Kerry voted to authorize military action if Saddam refused to comply with U.N. demands. A neutral observer, looking at these elements of Sen. Kerry's record, would assume that Sen. Kerry supported military action against Saddam Hussein. The senator himself now tells us otherwise. In January he was asked on TV if he was, "one of the antiwar candidates." He replied, "I am." He now says he was voting only to "threaten the use of force," not actually to use force. Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing rationales, at least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Sen. Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, today, in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait. Sen. Kerry speaks often about the need for international cooperation, and has vowed to usher in a "golden age of American diplomacy." He is fond of mentioning that some countries did not support America's actions in Iraq. Yet of the many nations that have joined our coalition--allies and friends of the United States--Sen. Kerry speaks with open contempt. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland and more than 20 other nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Sen. Kerry calls these countries, quote, "window dressing." They are, in his words, "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed." Many questions come to mind, but the first is this: How would Sen. Kerry describe Great Britain--coerced, or bribed? Or Italy--which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf--was Italy's contribution just window dressing? If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Sen. Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition. He speaks as if only those who openly oppose America's objectives have a chance of earning his respect. Sen. Kerry's characterization of our good allies is ungrateful to nations that have withstood danger, hardship, and insult for standing with America in the cause of freedom. Sen. Kerry has also had a few things to say about support for our troops now on the ground in Iraq. Among other criticisms, he has asserted that those troops are not receiving the materiel support they need. Just this morning, he again gave the example of body armor, which he said our administration failed to supply. May I remind the senator that last November, at the president's request, Congress passed an $87 billion supplemental appropriation. This legislation was essential to our ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan--providing funding for body armor and other vital equipment; hazard pay; health benefits; ammunition; fuel, and spare parts for our military. The legislation passed overwhelmingly, with a vote in the Senate of 87-12. Sen. Kerry voted "no." I note that yesterday, attempting to clarify the matter, Sen. Kerry said, quote, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." It's a true fact. On national security, the senator has shown at least one measure of consistency. Over the years, he has repeatedly voted against weapons systems for the military. He voted against the Apache helicopter, against the Tomahawk cruise missile, against even the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. He has also been a reliable vote against military pay increases--opposing them no fewer than 12 times. Many of these very weapons systems have been used by our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are proving to be valuable assets in the war on terror. In his defense, of course, Sen. Kerry has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. Recently he said, and I quote, "I don't want to use that terminology." In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation. As we have seen, however, that approach was tried before, and proved entirely inadequate to protecting the American people from the terrorists who are quite certain they are at war with us--and are comfortable using that terminology. I leave it for Sen. Kerry to explain, or explain away, his votes and his statements about the war on terror, our cause in Iraq, the allies who serve with us and the needs of our military. Whatever the explanation, whatever nuances he might fault us for neglecting, it is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become commander in chief in this time of testing for our country. In his years in Washington, Sen. Kerry has been one vote of a hundred in the United States Senate--and fortunately on matters of national security, he was very often in the minority. But the presidency is an entirely different proposition. The president always casts the deciding vote. And the senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security. The American people will have a clear choice in the election of 2004, at least as clear as any since the election of 1984. In more than three years as president, George W. Bush has built a national security record of his own. America has come to know the president after one of the worst days in our history. He saw America through tragedy. He has kept the nation's enemies in desperate flight, and under his leadership, our country has once again led the armies of liberation, freeing 50 million souls from tyranny, and making our nation and the world more secure. All Americans, regardless of political party, can be proud of what our nation has achieved in this historic time, when so many depended on us, and all the world was watching. And I have been very proud to work with a president who--like other presidents we have known--has shown, in his own conduct, the optimism, and strength, and decency of the great nation he serves. [/B][/QUOTE]
