Hugh Hewitt's latest symposium involves answering the following question: "What do Kerry's answers to today's press inquiries tell us about Kerry's worldview and character?"
The press inquiries and Kerry's responses, along with my analysis, follow below. Because Kerry's response is so fabricated and inconsistent, it needs to be parsed almost line by line to make analysis comprehensible.
Press: "If you are elected, given Paul Bremer's remarks, and deteriorating conditions as you have judged them, would you be prepared to commit more troops?"
Kerry: "I will do what the generals believe we need to do without having any chilling effect, as the president put in place by firing General Shinseki, and I'll have to wait until January 20th.
Kerry begins with a malicious fabrication demeaning the President and the military command structure. As Hugh himself points out - General Shinseki's pending retirement was already established: CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT JAMIE MCINTYRE: “The fact that the Army chief of staff was not fired or forced to retire early is just that, Judy. It is a fact.” (CNN's “Inside Politics,” 9/24/04)
Kerry: I don't know what I am going to find on January 20th, the way the president is going. If the president just does more of the same every day, and it continues to deteriorate, I may be handed Lebanon, figuratively speaking. Now, I just don't know. I can't tell you.
Here Kerry preys upon the sympathy and fears of Americans by mischaracterizing events in Iraq, while also diminishing the capabilities of our military. Iraq is not deteriorating. Escalating casualty figures were anticipated and are relative only to increased resistance in the run up to the future election. Put in the context of the past year, things on the ground are actually much improved.
Additionally, our military is now aggressively ferreting out remnants of resistance with overwhelming force, supported by Iraqi troops. This is being reported, though not to the level it should be, by the media. Obviously, Kerry would know this. As a would be commander in chief, Kerry opts for political opportunism here, as opposed to taking the opportunity to compliment our troops positive, dutiful actions on the ground. As someone who claims a military command background as key to his resume, he displays an utter disregard for motivating and supporting our troops in this statement. Evidently, they are irrelevant to him as he pursues his political ambitions. Also, Kerry’s wholly inappropriate comparison to Lebanon could justifiably be interpreted as a trial balloon of sorts for a cut and run strategy. If he believes this comparison, he has no positive vision for the conflict in Iraq, no confidence in our army, and no appreciation for the desire of the Iraqi people to be free. Those two fundamental positions are key as they point to Iraq quickly becoming a losing cause under a Kerry administration.
Kerry: What I'll tell you is, I have a plan. I have laid out my plan to America, and I know that my plan has a better chance of working. And in the next days I am going to say more about exactly how we are going to do what has been available to this Administration that it has chosen not to do.
Kerry has laid out no real plan. Anything that he has said as to a potentially different approach has already been shown to be moot. Other countries Kerry would court are on record as uninterested in helping. And the notion that we will simply do things “more quickly” is unworthy of comment.
Kerry: But I will make certain that our troops are protected.
This is a more telling statement than it might at first appear. No nation forms an army with the intent of its needing to be “protected.” The comment is genuinely schizoid in effect. Armies are purposefully formed to protect, defend and wage war. If you feel an army needs “protecting,” you must, by definition, view it as either weak, ineffective, or both. No commander in chief could hope to lead such an army in a successful campaign. A defeatist attitude within an army’s most senior command structure can only result in loss, surrender, or retreat.
Kerry: I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, and I will make sure that we are successful, …
This is simply an empty statement. It says nothing at all beyond a strange sort of wishful thinking completely incompatible with Kerry’s previously expressed pessimistic attitude. What terrorists? Without a “who, when, where or how”, he can say anything here and it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
Kerry: “…and I know exactly what I am going to do and how to do it."
This contradicts basically everything he has already said above as regards what Kerry would “do”: For example, contrast the above statement with these previous statements: “I will do what the generals believe we need to do,” … “I don't know what I am going to find on January 20th,” … “Now, I just don't know. I can't tell you.” At a logical level, this complete disconnect in rhetoric reveals an utter lack of consistency to Kerry’s stated position and can only mean that he has no real answer at all. He is simply going from question to question saying what might appear best or most saleable in each instance, without any underlying framework to support his statements. On a more superficial level, it can easily be concluded that he is lying with his last statement as it fully contradicts everything he had just stated above.
Press: Duelfer also said that Saddam fully intended to resume his weapons of mass destruction program because he felt that the sanctions were just going to fritter away.
Kerry: But we wouldn't let them just fritter away. That's the point. Folks! If You've got a guy who's dangerous, you've got a guy you suspect is going to do something, you don't lift the sanctions, that's the fruits of good diplomacy. This Administration...I beg your pardon?
Here Kerry betrays either an incredibly naïve view of the world, or a simple disregard for the truth. It is reasonably known that the sanctions were already not working and the very allies Kerry would seek to engage had already decided to profit from dealing with Saddam and undermine the sanctions. His rhetoric is a dead end toward seeking a solution. It displays a tendency toward a “diplomacy at all costs and as last resort” even after it has been shown to be a failed strategy. Combined with earlier almost anti-militaristic statements, one might predict that with Kerry any potential conflict and the GWOT would be fought only with words until such time as an attack or egregious provocation forced him to act militarily to assuage public opinion.
Press: You just said [Bush] fictionalized him [Saddam] as an enemy. Now you just said he's dangerous?
Kerry: No. What I said. I said it all the time. Consistently I have said Saddam Hussein presented a threat. I voted for the authorization, because he presented a threat. There are all kinds of threats in the world, ladies and gentlemen. Al Qaeda is in 60 countries. Are we invading all 60 countries? 35 to 40 countries had the same --more-- capability of creating weapons, nuclear weapons, at the time the president invaded Iraq than Iraq did. Are we invading all 35 to 40 of them? Did we invade Russia? Did we invade China? The point is that there are all kinds of options available to a president to deal with threats and I consistently laid out to the president how to deal with Saddam Hussein, who was a threat. If I'd been president, I'd have wanted the same threat of force. But as I have said a hundred times if not a thousand in this campaign, there was a right way to use that authority and a wrong way. The president did it the wrong way. He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace, against my warnings and other people's warnings. And now we have the mess we have today. It is completely consistent that you can see him as a threat and deal with him realistically just as we saw the Soviet Union and China and others as threats and have dealt with them in other ways.
Kerry is on record, more than two years ago, as having claimed to be “in front” of the President and his congressional colleagues as to confronting Saddam with force. Clearly he is lying here. Additionally, his comparison of Iraq to China, Russia and others is ridiculous. One cannot compare politically stable nations who have displayed no active aggression toward neighbors or enemies with Saddam’s state. He also conveniently forgets that we were already in a shooting war with Saddam within the no-fly zones. The statement also betrays a frightening moral equivalency between any nation with a standing army and significant weaponry and a rogue state bent on regional destabilization. Given that expressed moral equivalency, coupled with his anti-militaristic statements from above, one could conclude that Kerry does not see evil in terms of specific individuals and governments with bad intent, but rather in terms of weapons and armies as the root cause of conflict in the world. That would jibe with his attitude and record of weakening our military and intelligence services over the years.
Conclusions: From these simple statements we can conclude a few things. Kerry is clearly willing to lie even in the face of known facts. He is someone who, by and large, is not genuinely comfortable with the power of a strong army or weapons capability. He sees those things more as a root of evil, as opposed to a necessary option to combat it. That could lead to his weakening our defense capabilities over time. He would likely view that as a noble act leading toward greater world peace, as opposed to a bad strategy that would leave us weakened and vulnerable.
His tendency toward moral equivalence and over-trusting outside governments would support his decision making in that regard. Furthermore, he expresses a naiveté in his interpretation of other government’s motivations and ambitions. That would likely leave him open to being deceived or even taken advantage of during the very negotiations and acts of diplomacy he sees as the ultimate answer to even the most dangerous of problems currently being faced by the United States and the world.
I suspect a Kerry Presidency would leave us weakened in the world both militarily and from an intelligence gathering perspective. The latter because he would not want to potentially damage a primarily diplomatic approach through the embarrassment that can be caused by an overly aggressive intelligence gathering strategy. He will likely underestimate our enemies. And a potential “achieve disarmament through example” policy could cause us to put our guard down at a time when the world is actually more threatening than ever.
In terms of character, or the lack thereof, it is demonstrated above that he can easily lie to achieve a desired end. He seems genuinely unappreciative, if not unaware of the current sacrifice of our troops. This would place him rather low on any scale measuring true human compassion, his mind primarily occupied by what he thinks and wants. He is likely very selfish, or self-centered. Lastly, his presumption that he can "simply do things better" without any substantive plan or support to back up that claim points to someone who is quite likely an egomaniac. He is "better" simply because he is who he is, and you should accept it. He shows no sense of responsibility to account for himself, his positions or attitudes. Consequently, he would probably find it very difficult to motivate or manage people effectively; and, if elected, his ongoing relationship and communication with the American people will likely be poor, at best.
Quinton McHale and a multi-national task force that includes special forces pro, expert cook and martial arts expert Fuji Kobiaji, as well as Navy SEALS Ensign Charles Parker and Harrison "Tinker" Bell. The group would report directly to naval war hero and strict disciplinarian Capt. Wallace "Old Lead Bottom" Binghamton.
in the Oval Office, as well as all Government and Homeland Security offices dealing with top level intelligence issues. "We know they're out there," said the campaign official, "They're watching and they're listening. And the Cone of Silence is a proven method of secure communication. It's a technology the Bush administration has neglected, preferring to give tax breaks to the wealthy instead of investing in homeland defense." The Cone of Silence was developed by Clinton administration appointee former spy chief Maxwell Smart, but was abandoned due to budget cuts under Bush.
safeguard the hydration of every citizen," the campaign official said. "The Bush administration doesn't believe in science and a Kerry administration will believe in science."
implementing a unique and creative intelligence initiative for the job of getting solid human intelligence from the mountainous, tribal-dominated area near the Afghan-Pakistani border where Bin Laden is suspected of hiding. After searching high and low, the campaign has located several offspring of equestrian legend Bamboo Harvester, better know by his stage name, Mr. Ed. Plans call for cross breeding Mr. Ed's offspring with breeds appropriate for infiltrating the notorious region. At approximately one year of age, the horses will undergo training in a hybrid program jointly run by Army Special Forces, Navy Seal and American Equestrian Association personnel.
