Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Kerry vs. Kerry!
I cannot believe that any presidential candidate would actually say this, even if it was an MTV interview (thanks to Hugh Hewitt):
(0) comments
Question: "In the clearest terms what would be the principal difference between the foreign policy of your administration and that of the Bush administration?"On Kyoto, the Senate voted 100-0 (was Kerry there?) that it would not ratify the treaty without substantial changes that would be unacceptable to its proponents (because the treaty as written had as its primary purpose of crippling the US economy). On AIDS, Bush has given tons of money -- more than any other administration -- for treating and defeating AIDS in Africa. The last sentence of his answer suggests Kerry believes that because the United States has finally struck back at its enemies in a meaningful way, that more terrorists will be recruited into al-Qaeda and other similar organizations. Now I know why Zapatero of Spain favors Kerry -- they're birds of a feather.
Kerry: "Ah, hah, the principal difference will be almost everything. This administration has been arrogant. I think they've been reckless.They have been overly ideological, they've pushed our allies away. I will bring our allies back to us. He turned his back on global warming, walked away from a treaty that a hundred and sixty nations worked ten years on. We haven't done what we need to do for AIDs, globally. The president talks about it but we still haven't passed the kind of comprehensive program that would help the United States lead on the one the great crises of our time. I mean there are countless numbers of things that we could be doing to enhance the world's view of us, and to minimize the kind of anger and, and, aaah, an almost recruitment that's taken place in terrorist organizations as a result of the way the administration has behaved."
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
More Kerry Stuff
A friend forwarded this item to me. Here are my thoughts about it:
The point Col. Glenn Lackey (USA Ret.) makes is valid but I think he has his facts a little twisted. As I recall, Kerry never testified that he actually saw any of those atrocities committed. What he said was that in VVAW's "Winter Soldier" "investigation" some of the veterans who attended testified that they had witnessed those things. In short, Kerry's Senate testimony was, at least in its salient parts, hearsay. But the rules of evidence that apply in court don't apply to testimony before Congress. Pretty cagey of Kerry to get that stuff in the record without exposing himself to war crimes allegations (for failure to report them while in a position of responsibility as an officer).
Another interesting thing about Kerry's testimony: for all the egregious crimes he described, I remember no investigation by Congress or anyone else into whether they actually happened, and no attempt was made to prosecute anyone who actually committed any atrocities, with the exception of Lt. Calley's case. I don't recall any of the "Winter Soldier" witnesses whom Kerry cited being identified, or called to testify before Congress or anyone else. Ergo, I think the purpose of Kerry's testiimony and the hearings in which he gave it was solely to discredit the prosecution of the Vietnam War, and nobody involved had any real interest in finding the truth of what happened on the ground.
And as pointed out below, Kerry always talks of Vietnam as being a "Republican war" when in fact troops were initially sent in by none other than the sainted John F. Kennedy, and the war was escalated to its most intense phase by none other than Lyndon B. Johnson.
No matter how hard he runs away from his record, Kerry will never convince me he has the right stuff to handle what has to be job #1 for any President: to defend the United States as Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
(0) comments
The point Col. Glenn Lackey (USA Ret.) makes is valid but I think he has his facts a little twisted. As I recall, Kerry never testified that he actually saw any of those atrocities committed. What he said was that in VVAW's "Winter Soldier" "investigation" some of the veterans who attended testified that they had witnessed those things. In short, Kerry's Senate testimony was, at least in its salient parts, hearsay. But the rules of evidence that apply in court don't apply to testimony before Congress. Pretty cagey of Kerry to get that stuff in the record without exposing himself to war crimes allegations (for failure to report them while in a position of responsibility as an officer).
Another interesting thing about Kerry's testimony: for all the egregious crimes he described, I remember no investigation by Congress or anyone else into whether they actually happened, and no attempt was made to prosecute anyone who actually committed any atrocities, with the exception of Lt. Calley's case. I don't recall any of the "Winter Soldier" witnesses whom Kerry cited being identified, or called to testify before Congress or anyone else. Ergo, I think the purpose of Kerry's testiimony and the hearings in which he gave it was solely to discredit the prosecution of the Vietnam War, and nobody involved had any real interest in finding the truth of what happened on the ground.
And as pointed out below, Kerry always talks of Vietnam as being a "Republican war" when in fact troops were initially sent in by none other than the sainted John F. Kennedy, and the war was escalated to its most intense phase by none other than Lyndon B. Johnson.
No matter how hard he runs away from his record, Kerry will never convince me he has the right stuff to handle what has to be job #1 for any President: to defend the United States as Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
