In a petition drive late last year and presented online and paid for by Friends of John Kerry, Inc., these are the final words of the document responders were asked to sign: “The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of 2006. If George W. Bush refuses to produce a concrete plan for Iraq, then, at the start of 2006, we will demand that Congress acts to take the decision out of his hands. And, if the Republican Congress fails to call the Bush administration to account, we will use the 2006 elections to take the decision out of their hands. We won't stop until we succeed.” One assumes that Senator Kerry gave his okay.
Okay…this is, was, may be, will be (who knows?) Kerry’s position. It was/is delivered during a time of what the president and the Congress call “war,” so the senator assigns himself the prerogative of running the operation. If his statements undermine the president’s ability to wage the war with the indispensable element of surprise being operative…well, just too bad about that. Or…does the senator see a differentiation between an “arbitrary timetable” and a “specific timetable,” concluding that all his bets are thus hedged? But, then, don’t specifics evolve from arbitraries that themselves evolve from facts on the ground? So…what does Kerry know that the DOD doesn’t know about what’s happening on the ground?
Should one be surprised at this stuff? While the USA was yet in mortal combat in Vietnam in 1970, Kerry, then still a member of the U.S. military (Naval Reserve), had discussions, though certainly in no official capacity, in France with the “other side.” He admitted as much before a congressional committee (Fulbright Committee) in April 1971. In July of that year, he held a press conference in D.C. at which he said essentially that American POWs would be returned on a date certain if President Nixon would just set a date for withdrawing troops from Vietnam, thus, of course, surrendering and trusting the enemy to keep its word concerning the POWs. Sound familiar? In something called the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he was connected cheek by jowl with Al Hubbard, perhaps the most prolific liar to come out of the period, having claimed to be a decorated captain (pilot injured while flying into Da Nang) when he was actually a sergeant, for instance, and actually had no record of combat in Vietnam. Kerry’s prancing up and down on the shore in combat gear so that movies could be made of him “battling the enemy” is instructive, with respect to his fitness to be commander-in-chief.
In an interview with Bob Schieffer (CBS-TV) on 04 December, Kerry made some strange statements with regard to terrorism. He implied that U.S. troops are going into the homes of Iraqis at night and terrorizing families. He gave no examples to support that claim – certainly presented no documents – so one wonders how he came by that information. He made an even stranger statement when he continued by saying that the Iraqis (presumably Iraqi soldiers) should be doing that, i.e., doing their own terrorizing of women and children, which is what the Iraqi insurgents are/were already doing, though mostly in broad daylight by just blowing them into smithereens wherever they are unlucky enough to be – buying groceries, sipping tea, attending school…just the usual things. Kerry’s remarks, as off-the-wall as can be imagined, are indicative of the current plight of his party, to wit, that it either hasn’t a clue as to what’s happening in probably most of the world, the Middle East in particular, or is ramping up its campaign efforts for next year – as per the petition drive – by using fiction disguised as fact or, as in Kerry’s case, nonsense disguised as wisdom.
The lack of credibility that democrats suffer is perhaps most graphically seen in the party’s selection of Howard Dean of THE SCREAM notoriety, who pronounced in San Antonio on 06 December that the idea that the Iraq War can be won is just plain wrong. The fact is that the Iraq War WAS won soon after it began. It began on 20 March 2003 and was pronounced over on 01 May 2003 by the president. Much ridicule has been directed at the president by the “mainstream press” account his landing on an aircraft carrier boasting a banner MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, but the truth is that the war had been won and Baghdad had fallen. Saddam was out of power. It would not be long afterward that he would be hustled from his rat-hole after not having the fortitude of his murderous sons to at least fight back. The war on terror, however, is still being fought.
Dean, who seems to have zilch knowledge of either military matters or the actual world situation, suggested in San Antonio that 20,000 troops be sent to Afghanistan, where they would be “welcome,” and that 80,000 Army Reserve and National Guard troops be withdrawn from Iraq. Either he hasn’t a clue as to what this would mean in either country or he simply is trying to fashion an agenda that will help elect democrats in the elections this year. Both possibilities do him no service. Dean also said in San Antonio that this country should deploy forces in a friendly Middle East country, but he didn’t specify a country or even any possibilities. What he apparently didn’t and may not still know was/is that the headquarters of the army’s Central Command, which runs the Iraq operation, is in Qatar, about as Middle East a country as there is, situated as it is on the border of Saudi Arabia and across the Persian Gulf from Iran. Central Command moved in there in 2002.
And so it goes with those who cut and run. This doesn’t mean that this country must remain in Iraq in force very much longer. It does mean that the constricting, hand-tipping “timetable” approach doesn’t wash, so the Kerry/Dean show should enlist Senator Russ “the censure kid” Feingold and take their act somewhere else.