Why Not Kerry?
Why John Kerry should not be President of the United States

1. Kerry's Incompetence to be Commander in Chief

Kerry has renewed criticism of Bush's "mission accomplished" speech. In his criticism Kerry betrays his incompetence to be Commander in Chief. At that point, the major battles of the military phase of the liberation of Iraq were complete. Kerry doesn't understand that a war has many battles and many missions. It's important to recognize the incredible accomplishments of soldiers as they begin a difficult new phase of the war, an operation which requires a shift in role from a "conventional" soldier to a combination soldier/policeman.  The war had essentially been won, and the peace needed and still needs securing.  Bush's speech served as recognition for one phase of the battle, and pointed forward to the new role, helping to shift focus to new objectives, while supporting the morale of the troops with well deserved praise. This is extremely important, as holding invaded country and building a new government is a more dangerous and difficult task. The fact that we are accomplishing this task not just in one country, but in two countries is a difficult task, involving even more personal risk and frustration and endurance from our soldiers. Furthermore, the Navy's primary role in Iraq is mainly complete, so it was fitting to make the "Mission Accomplished" pronouncement on board an aircraft carrier.

In attacking the credentials of the new leadership in Iraq, Kerry also exhibited a lack of military  leadership, by endangering the troops, and making their mission of protecting the new forming government in Iraq more difficult. The people of Iraq need to have confidence in our protection from the dangerous remnant of the Bathists, and the newer threat of terrorist "resistance". By putting our support in doubt, and undermining the creditability of the forming government, which will prolong the need for our presence in Iraq, and cost the lives of American soldiers. It also provided aid and encouragement to our enemies there.

2. Kerry's Lack of  Statesmanship

When Kerry called the Iraqi PM a "puppet" he attacked our most important ally in the coalition for building a stable and free society in Iraq. In so doing, he completely disqualified himself from any role as an international political leader. He's claimed that he would have addressed political and military issues by building a broader alliance. Yet this and other statements have weakened our political alliance, and deemonstrate diplomatic incompetence. Kerry damaged the developing self government in Iraq during it's initial inception by actively undermining it's political legitimacy. He discouraged participation in the alliance, and strengthen the opposition to such support the countries of our allies. More participation by allies, particularly those such as Pakistan, Turkey, and other countries with significant Moslem populations would strengthen the new government. It would also counter the propaganda of the illegitimate leadership of the extremists leading the Islamic Jihad against the formation of a democratic republic. Kerry's statements, not just the "puppet" reference, but his lack of support for continued high levels of support and defense of the emerging Iraq, expose his lack of political and diplomatic judgment in pursuing the freedom of oppressed people, particularly when it coincides with our own political agenda. Our opportunity to transform Iraq from a dangerous and volatile influence in the mideast into a stable and democratic potential ally should not be squandered. Unfortunately, as a major political figure with an opportunity to win the Presidency of the USA, Kerry already has a major voice in world political affairs, and his pronouncements and positions have already had a detrimental effect in that forum, and made a mockery of his vows to strengthen diplomatic ties with our allies.

3. The Senate Record

What, he was a senator? Who knew! Perhaps the reason he doesn't raise the topic of his senate record is that he knows that the people would reject him if they knew how liberal he's been, supporting policies which hurt the economy, and opposing policies which support the economy. His positions oppose proven reforms in the welfare state, opposition to effective and necessary weapons for defense,  opposition to major educational reforms, such as meaningful alternatives and competition for government schools with a voucher system based on the real cost of educating a student in the government school, opposition to reform of social security which would benefit all participants with security, particularly members of economic and ethnic minorities.

Greg Scott