THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VI, Issue # 216, October 11, 2004
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2004:
WHY JOHN KERRY'S CAMPAIGN WILL FAIL
By Alan Caruba
JOHN F. KERRY'S POSITIONS ON U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY & MILITARY READINESS & ON THE WAR AMERICA IS WAGING
AGAINST ISLAMIST INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM & AGAINST THE BAATHIST & ISLAMIST INSURGENTS IN IRAQ -- WHY THE
ARROGANT & DECEITFUL POLITICAL OPPORTUNIST & LIBERAL LEFTIST, ANTIWAR ACTIVIST U.S. SENATOR FROM
MASSACHUSETTS WILL LOSE THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
FULL STORY:
Once you get past the question of personality and character, it is fairly easy to see why Senator John F. Kerry will lose the
forthcoming election. It’s what you don’t see that is the best predictor.
What you don’t see are armies of antiwar protesters in the streets of American cities.
Americans, whether they call themselves Liberal or Conservative, appear to be united when it comes down to the question of waging
war against the Islamist Jihad. They may disagree on where or how, but they agree they do not want to see another 9-11 here at home.
And there has been none since President George W. Bush launched the war in Afghanistan and expanded it to include Iraq.
Kerry is running out of luck. On October 4, 2004, CNSnews.com reported an exclusive story revealing that Iraqi intelligence
documents, confiscated by U.S. forces, “show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein’s regime to work with some of the world’s most
notorious terror organizations, including al-Qa'ida, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam’s government possessed
mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the Summer of 2000, during the period in which United
Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.”
If you are so naïve as to believe that Saddam Hussein did not deliberately encourage the belief that Iraq had WMDs, then I have a
bridge to sell you. On the other hand, if you think that’s the real reason the U.S.A. invaded Iraq, you are still naïve.
Putting aside the issue of WMDs, the Washington Times has reported that, according to Department of Defense estimates,
Iraq had anywhere between 650,000 to a million tons of weapons cached around that nation. Most were sold to Saddam Hussein by
China, Russia, and France. These three nations sit on the United Nations’ Security Council. They were selling Iraq weapons all
through the long years of endless UN resolutions demanding he disarm!
On the evening of September 30, 2004, Senator Kerry, during the first presidential debate, identified nuclear proliferation as the
greatest threat to world peace, and there was no mention of chemical or biological weapons, either of which could kill just as many
people, possibly more. Kerry specifically said that, if he were President, he would stop the building of nuclear bunker-buster bombs;
the kind that would be needed to penetrate the facilities in North Korea, where the fissile material (plutonium-239 and highly
enriched uranium) needed to produce nuclear weapons is being processed, or the facilities in Iran, where nuclear bombs are actually
being built.
I didn’t hear a single “expert” comment on that amidst the endless blather that followed the first presidential debate, but it is
singularly important when compared against the Senator’s voting record during his twenty years in Congress. Nor has anyone
been impolite enough to point out that Kerry’s offer to send nuclear fissionable materials to Iran in return for a promise to only make
electricity, not bombs, was rebuffed by the mullahcrats who run that nation. Even they thought it was “irrational”!
After the second Bush-Kerry debate, Senator Kerry would have voters believe that he would, despite his view that this is “The wrong war in the
wrong place at the wrong time,” vigorously pursue victory over al-Qa'ida and the Iraqi insurgency. This is so ludicrous on the face
of it that one wonders why he doesn’t just go home to Massachusetts and sit out the rest of the campaign.
For the record, here’s a brief look at Senator Kerry’s positions on national defense:
(1) Kerry opposed President Reagan’s entire strategic modernization effort,
including the Peacekeeper missile, the B-1 and B-2 bombers, the Trident
submarine, and the D-5 missile.
(2) In the 1980s, Kerry was one of the few Democrats arguing for a “nuclear
freeze” for America’s nuclear weapons program. Such a "nuclear freeze" would
have rendered nuclear weapons obsolete at a time we were on the brink of
winning the Cold War.
(3) Kerry opposed the production of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, the Patriot
missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis
air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system.
(4) Kerry voted to cut back production of the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley
Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16.
(5) In 1991, Kerry voted to cut more than $3 billion from defense and shift the funds
to social programs.
(6) In 1992, Kerry voted to cut $6 billion from defense.
(7) In 1993, Kerry voted against increased defense spending for a military pay raise
and he introduced a plan to cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews.
He also wanted to reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force, and require the
retirement of 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year, reducing the
number of light infantry units in the Army down to one.
(8) In 1995 and 1996, Kerry either introduced legislation or voted for a reduction in
defense spending.
(9) In 1997, Kerry advocated cuts in America’s intelligence budgets.
Can you imagine an America without the defense systems that Senator Kerry voted against? Neither can I.
Other than stalwart allies like Great Britain and Australia, why haven’t other nations joined the U.S. effort in Iraq, contributing large
numbers of troops to safeguard that newly emerging, democratic nation? For one thing, most of Europe stopped spending money on
any serious military defense decades ago. They didn’t need to. They had the United States of America to defend them. So, Poland
sends what it can, and as does Italy, and, for a while, as did Spain. In all, some thirty nations have participated in the current conflict.
The two nations the U.S.A. liberated and/or defeated in World War II, France and Germany, have opposed the war. These are,
presumably, the “allies” Senator Kerry is convinced he can bring to a grand summit conference for the purpose of ending the war in
Iraq fast enough to bring our troops home in four months -- or in four years. It isn’t going to happen. These “allies” want to see the
U.S.A. fail.
Voters instinctively know this. That’s why Senator Kerry will lose on November 2, 2004, unless the battalions of lawyers the
Democratic Party is amassing can produce a coup d’etat and, unlike their efforts in 2000, manage to steal the 2004 presidential
election.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
American Politics & Political Competition
American Government & the U.S. Presidency
The Threat of Radical Islam
The Middle East & the Arabs
The Middle East & the Problem of Iraq
The Problem of Rogue States:
Iraq as a Case History
War & Peace in the Real World
Military Defense & National Security
Military Weaponry & International Security
U.S. Intelligence & America's National Security
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Terrorism & American Homeland Security
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Alan Caruba is a veteran business and science writer, a Public Relations Counselor, Communications Director of the American Policy Center,
and Founder of the National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about media-driven scare campaigns. Caruba writes a weekly
column, "Warning Signs," posted on the Internet website of the National Anxiety Center
(www.anxietycenter.com). A compilation of his past columns, entitled Warning Signs, is published by Merril Press. In addition
to Warning Signs, Caruba is the author of A Pocket Guide to Militant Islam and The United Nations vs. the United States,
both of which are available from the National Anxiety Center, 28 West Third Street, Apartment 1321, South Orange, New Jersey, 07079.
Copyright 2004 Alan Caruba
Published with Permission of Alan Caruba
ACaruba@AOL.Com
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VI, 2004
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy