The
Kerry speech on Iraq today is so chock full of crap, it may take a week to dissect it. But let it never be said we're not up to the task. I am going to focus on the comments that gave me the most pause, though, as I wonder what the King of Botox will try next.
I also want to speak directly to the more than 150,000 troops currently risking their lives as far away as Iraq and Afghanistan. Your country is proud of you. You are the most dedicated, capable military we’ve ever had. We are united as a nation in our support for you. We pledge to stand with your families as you stand on the front lines for ours. You are the best of America. And you perform magnificently every day. We thank you for your service and your sacrifice.
Yet, apparently, your sacrifice has been in the wrong war, wrong place and at the wrong time. I, John Kerry, will support you by denigrating the cause for which you currently fight, and opting to vote against $87 billion in appropriations for you because I need to score political points with my wacko left-wing buddies so I can beat Howard Dean. But hey, I'm still proud of you.
Twenty-three months ago, President Bush came here to ask the American people for our support. And he promised then to make the right choices when it came to sending young Americans to Iraq.
Here in Cincinnati, he said that if Congress approved the resolution giving him the authority to use force, it did not mean that military action would be “unavoidable”. But he chose not to give the weapons inspectors the time they needed to get the job done and give meaning to the words, going to war as a last resort.
Here in Cincinnati, he promised “to lead a coalition.” But he failed to build a broad, strong coalition of allies and he rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.
Here in Cincinnati, from this hall, on that night, he spoke to the nation, and promised: “If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.”
But then, George W. Bush made the wrong choices. He himself now admits he miscalculated in Iraq. In truth, his miscalculation was ignoring the advice that was given to him, including the best advice of America’s own military. When he didn’t like what he was hearing, he even fired the Army Chief of Staff. His miscalculation was going to war without taking every precaution and without giving the inspectors time. His miscalculation was going to war without planning carefully and without the allies we should have had. As a result, America has paid nearly 90% of the bill in Iraq. Contrast that with the Gulf War, where our allies paid 95% of the costs.
On the last comment, Kerry voted
against the first Gulf War. Yet now, he's claiming it as a reference for how things were done correctly -- which means he was dead wrong then.
Second, apparently Kerry believes that the inspectors, if given if enough time, would have accomplished... what, exactly? What had the inspectors accomplished every other time they'd gone to Iraq? They'd been kicked out, because Saddam knew that the inspections were a tool that the U.N. used to avoid real action.
Third, apparently Bush didn't take every possible precaution. Kerry's turning into George McClellan on us. Do I think we screwed the pooch in Iraq? No, but I'll acknowledge that we could have done better. But no military plan in history has ever been executed flawlessly, and the post-war insurrection could indeed have been worse, if we had a feckless commander-in-chief who doesn't have the guts or credibility to stay in Iraq to get the job done.
Fourth, one more time, let's deliver a kick in the teeth to the nations that supported the invasion, because France, Germany and Russia opted not to do so, because they'd rather appease the enemy and keep raking in profits from corrupt programs at the U.N.
Fifth, apparently the monetary bill and sharing it matters more than the aim of the war. If our purported allies refuse to bear a portion of the cost of a war, does that mean we stay home? Based on this, we could not have invaded Afghanistan unless we got someone else to go along to underwrite the cost. Forget Iraq for a second -- even when the war is the right thing to do to protect America, Kerry wants to make sure we have someone else available to pay the bill. This pathetic excuse for a presidential candiate claims John F. Kennedy is his idol. Yet apparently, he's not willing to "bear any burden" or "pay any price" unless the French are along for the ride.
George W. Bush’s wrong choices have led America in the wrong direction in Iraq and left America without the resources we need here at home. The cost of the President’s go-it-alone policy in Iraq is now $200 billion and counting. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford after-school programs for our children. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford health care for our veterans. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford to keep the 100,000 new police we put on the streets during the 1990s.
I'm going to ignore the attempt to appeal to the worst in people by claiming that the $200 billion is essentially wasted. Please note that NONE of that $200 billion would have been earmarked for FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR in John Kerry's little world. It's after-school programs, health care for veterans, and maybe cops on the street who were already there. Don't liberals always complain that by fighting in Iraq, we took the focus of al-Qeuda? Yet Kerry wouldn't have spent another dime on that pursuit.
When it comes to Iraq, it’s not that I would have done one thing differently from the President, I would’ve done almost everything differently. I would have given the inspectors the time they needed before rushing to war. I would have built a genuine coalition of our allies around the world. I would’ve made sure that every soldier put in harm’s way had the equipment and body armor they needed. I would’ve listened to the senior military leaders of this country and the bipartisan advice of Congress. And, if there’s one thing I learned from my own service, I would never have gone to war without a plan to win the peace.
Thanks, Senator, for a detailed critique of the President's war plan. Here's what I would have done differently -- everything. What happens when the inspectors get kicked out -- again? What happens when the U.N. refuses to move? What happens when we need $87 billion to fund that body armor... oh wait, you'd vote against it. Forget the insult, yet again, to the allies who stand bravely by us in Iraq, in pursuit of "a genuine coalition" -- Lord knows France and Germany were dying to go to war in Iraq, and would have agreed with just the right diplomacy. Maybe if you'd offer Jacque Chirac an appointment with your hairdresser, he would have agreed.
I would not have made the wrong choices that are forcing us to pay nearly the entire cost of this war – $200 billion that we’re not investing in education, health care, and job creation here at home.
$200 billion for going-it-alone in Iraq. That’s the wrong choice; that’s the wrong direction; and that’s the wrong leadership for America.
While we’re spending that $200 billion in Iraq, 8 million Americans are looking for work – 2 million more than when George W. Bush took office – and we’re told that we can’t afford to invest in job training and job creation here at home.
Okay. Enough. I can't take reading this horse manure anymore.
Apparently, job creation is on Kerry's mind. Keep in mind, unemployment is lower than when Clinton sought re-election, jobs are being created at a faster pace, and Kerry and his band of mistrels refuse to acknowledge the massive impact 9/11 had on the economy.
But here's what's central -- we have a potential Commander-in-Chief who thinks $200 billion was far too much to spend on the Iraq War. This appears to be his central argument against the war -- even if it was the right thing to do to protect America, unless we had someone to share the cost, it would have been the wrong move, because the cost of $200 billion was too great. Kerry would not have responded to a threat unless we had support,
because of the cost. How short-sighted can he be?
Based on this, would Kerry have invaded Afghanistan if he had credible evidence of what bin Laden & Co. planned on 9/11? Perhaps that's unfair, since 9/11 changed everyone's perspective. But would he, even in the face of credible evidence of a potential attack in the future, move on Iraq? Iran? Anyone? Would he even factor in that the $200 billion spent on Iraq would be preventative of a future attack by suspected WMD -- because the loss of life and property in such an attack might make the costs of 9/11 look like peanuts?
John Kerry's complaining about being called "unfit" to be Commander-in-Chief. I know this -- he's not fit to give a major foreign policy address,
let alone serve as Commander-in-Chief.
