A John Kerry ban on bunker busters would be a military victory for terrorism
Gerard Jackson
When during the debate John Kerry said he opposed the development of bunker-busters he not only committed an electoral gaffe he provided America with an open window into his real attitude toward the American people.
The more one thinks about it the more one realizes the enormous ramifications of what John Kerry said. Far from just being a key topic the bunker-buster statement could become the straw that broke the back of the John Kerry campaign.
During the debate John Kerry stated: "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes."
The man who doesn't trust America, meaning the American people, with bunker-busters trusts the terrorist regime in Tehran with nuclear fuel that it would use for nukes. This is truly insane and is indicative of his blame-America-first thinking. Does he really believe that disarming America while arming Tehran with nukes is the road to peace?
John Kerry supporters could argue that he would only "test them, [to] see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes." Brilliant! And what would he do once he discovered that they had broken their word? Ask them to politely dismantle their nukes and return the fuel?
Perhaps he would launch a pre-emptive strike. But with what? The only weapons capable of destroying the Mad Mullahs' arsenal and nuke-building capacity while minimizing casualties are bunker-busters — the very weapons program he categorically said he would shut down.
I doubt if I was the only one who noticed how John Kerry seemed to express genuine outrage at the existence of this weapons program. I also noticed that he showed no similar outrage at Tehran's nuke program.
Given the situation in Iran and its sponsorship of international terrorism it is nothing short of criminal irresponsibility for Kerry to dismantle a vital weapons program that the mullahs fear. But Kerry is incapable of getting it because his leftist ideology has left him in a permanent state of denial. For him it's ideological perceptions that matter, not reality.
No doubt other commentators will expose his moral equivalence and point out that it amounts to saying that when he gets down to it America is really no better than Saddam, Kim Jong Il, Assad of Syria or Tehran's murderous mullahs.
But this would be to completely miss what is eating away at John Kerry. To the perverse likes of Kerry America is worse then these dictatorships. Why else does he think Kim Jong Il and the Mullahs can be trusted, despite their shocking record of savagery and deceit, but not the American people?
Kerry's political history has been one of relentless hostility to American interests, meaning national security. He dealt with the mass murderers in Hanoi, he opposed President Reagan's anti-Soviet policies, he sucked up to Marxist-Leninist Sandinista thugs and he opposed throwing Saddam out of Kuwait and so on.
His is an atrocious and indisputable record of opposing his country's interests to the benefit of its enemies. What is, I think, particularly intriguing about his record is that all the regimes he was only too willing to side with shared interesting characteristics.
They were brutal dictatorships ruled by self-appointed elites that hated America. Anyone even slightly connected with the left will see what I'm driving at. Like these regimes' rulers, Kerry is also an elitist and like all elitists he believes the people are not to be trusted.
This brings us to his absurd "global test". John Kerry claimed that "The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War…" There was no such doctrine during the Cold War.
The prevailing doctrine at the time was MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) which was intended to eliminate the very idea of a first strike. Moreover, Kerry's Senate record clearly shows that he did not support his country in the Cold War.
Having showed his ignorance of MAD John Kerry argued that a president would have to pass the "global test" before he could take unilateral action. But this means that every US president would have to subordinate America's national defence policies to foreign bodies, none of which are even elected.
How many Americans genuinely relish the idea of placing their national security in the hands of the likes of Chirac or China's rulers? The key point here is that Kerry's global test is an outright fraud. He is promising Americans the right to pre-emptive action to protect themselves while developing a policy that would deny them that right. In other words Kerry is sending Americans "mixed messages" in order to deceive them.
You know, when we get down to it the anti-defence thinking of leftists like John Kerry is a repulsive reflection of their hidden contempt for their fellow Americans. In John Kerry's leftist world Americans are not the good guys.
Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 4 October 2004