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
09/28/2004