On August 9, I write:

Senator Kerry lays out Iraq Plan. It is plain and simple: Cut and Run.

Today, in the Weekly Standard, William Kristol writes:

Get us out. That is in fact the real Kerry position, one might even say the real Kerry promise, with respect to Iraq.

Thanks Mr. Kristol.

Senator Kerry, you have said that Amreica cannot afford to lose in Iraq. Why?

I think the answer to this would reveal more about Kerry than anything we have heard the last year.

A quick trip to kerryoniraq.com:

Why is it essential? Is it essential becaause:

"He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable." (Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)

OR

"I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN’s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

So, Saddam was threat, and in a post-9/11 world, we have to be agressive against terror supporting regimes. Okay, I agree.

Is it essential because:

"I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)

So, it's not really the WMD's, but the chance that he may give those weapons to terrorists. Okay, I agree.

So, now Kerry decides to run for president:

"George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

Here begins Kerry's waffling, but at least it was the right decision to disarm Saddam. The president made the right decision. Yes, he did. A few months later though:

"And the fact is, in the resolution that we passed, we did not empower the President to do regime change." (NBC’s "Meet The Press," 8/31/03)

Really? Four months before the war resolution, which Kerry voted for, he says:

"But the president, as I also wrote in that article, always reserves the right to act unilaterally protect [sic] the interests of our country." (MSNBC’s "Hardball," 9/17/02)

So, at the beginning of the year, what is Kerry's position:

MSNBC’S CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Are you one of the anti-war candidates?" (MSNBC’s "Hardball," 1/6/04)

KERRY: "I am - Yeah." (MSNBC’s "Hardball," 1/6/04)

Kerry has already answered the question as to why it is essential that we win in Iraq. In 1998 he said:

KERRY: "I think there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussein presents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about doing. ... [T]hen we have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

ABC’S COKIE ROBERTS: "And does that mean ground troops in Iraq?" (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

KERRY: "I am personally prepared, if that’s what it meant." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

KERRY: "[H]e can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

Of course, it is entirele possible that, given Kerry's concerns, we have already accomplished everything we needed to. Saddam will no longer be able to reconstitute his WMD programs. And, no matter what happens in Iraq, whether it descends in to civial war or is taken over by the mullahs, they will no longer have WMD making capacity. And any attempts to do so can be quickly dealt with.

Saddam is disarmed and will no longer be able to give WMD's to terrorists. The one thing consistent in all of Kerry's comments on Iraq, is that he has never addressed the issue of democratization or liberalization of Arab societies.

It is vitally important that Kerry answer one, what victory in Iraq means, and two, why it is so essential. He needs to explain why we need to win a war that is "the wrong war, at the wrong palce, at the wrong time."

He needs to explain why victory is essential. Certainly, it can't be American credibility and prestige around the world. Kerry has argued how we've destroyed our relationships with our allies, but, continuing to fight a the wrong war will not do anything to improve our standing.

Kerry has said he knows how to get other nations to share the burden, so that 90% of the cost and 90% of the casualties are not borne by America. He said recently that the $200 billion for Iraq could have gone to education or health care. So, how is he going to get other nations to subsidize our education and health care systems by funding a war that is wrong?


Is it victory essential because it is part of the war on terrorism? His campaign spokeswoman said recently:

"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
--Stephanie Cutter, chief spokesman, John Kerry for President
Los Angeles Times, September 9, 2004

Kerry said recently, in marking the 1000th fatality in Iraq:

"More than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, in the war on terror,"

So which is it? Is Iraq part of the global war on terror, as you said back in 2001, or is it the wrong war as Dean said last year you have repeated just recently this year? Was Iraq a center for terrorist activities as you claimed in 2001 and 2002, or is it the wrong war?

And lastly this: What if we lose? What if we take the "advice" of many on the left, and even some onthe right, and just withdraw? What would the impact be? The president has made it clear what he thinks the result would be. Do you concur?

In the movie "Full Metal Jacket", Private Joker is wearing a peace pin and has "Born to Kill" written on his combat helmet. When his colonel asks him about it, he responds that is something about the "duality of man, the jungian thing, sir". The ironies to Kerry are overwhelming.

Here is a not-too-sublte example of diplomacy. To use Kerry's term, it is "nuanced". But it is a clear and powerful message, sadly, one Kerry doesn't even begin to grasp.

Yesterday, I wrote:

John Kerry's insistence that we alienated our "traditional allies" shows just how unbelievably inept, ignorant, and ill equipped to handle the job he is. Several days ago, I wrote that Europe no longer matters. But I was referring to the traditional Europe, not the new, post-Communist Europe. I also wrote that the tipping point had been reached in Russia with the Beslan attacks. Now, as we enter the third year of this global conflict, the sides are beginning to take shape.

Now the calculus has changed. The Indian Air Force commander visited Israel proposing joint training operations and the Russians and Israelis have agreed to work together against terrorism. Especially significant is the Russian willingness to work with Israel, who has been dealing with terrorism for decades. I wrote that:

In past European wars, the allies were chosen before the war began. In almost all cases, it was precisely those alliances, in the thirty years war, in the seven years war, even in WW1, that brought the allied nations into war. Now, like WW2, war has come first and now the alliances have been formed. It took three years to do so.

Much like the alliance against the Axis wasn't finalized until December 1943 at Tehran, so too today, the alliance is being finalized. In today's Washington Times, Russian Ambassador to the US, Yuri Ushakov writes:

A thorough investigation has been launched, as is appropriate for a disaster of such a scale. But it is already clear that terrorists will never stop killing us if they are not stopped and eliminated with all the power and might of our nation and that of the civilized world.
...
Russia after these September days of grief and sorrow will never be the same. It is inevitable, as is true for America after September 11. Now Russia is at the forefront of the fight against international terrorism. We are the main target of these forces of evil. But we have the resolve and strength to destroy them. We will never be beaten by them.

In fact, when our military leaders declare that Russia is ready to reach the terrorists and their bases wherever they are, we mean it. And it is only reassuring that our American partners fully understand this point. One cannot sit and wait until the enemy strikes on one's own territory. And Americans should be as vigorous as ever in addressing this global threat of terrorism...

I am grateful to America inside the Beltway. I am grateful to President Bush, to all members of his administration, to men and women on Capitol Hill for their expressions of sympathy and resolve to stand shoulder to shoulder with Russia in our common fight against terrorism.

Make no mistake about it, when the ambassador to your nation writes an op-ed piece in a major newspaper, this is official Russian policy. This is "nuance". What Ambassador Ushakov is saying is exactly what President Bush has been saying. We are at war and the future of the civilized world is at stake. Forces of evil are targeting us, and we need the resolve and strength to defeat them. More importantly, what is Russian strategy? To reach the terrorists and their bases, not waiting until the enemy strikes. That sounds almost identical to the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. And the Americans are partners that fully understand that point. That would be not so subtle nuance. Lastly, America stands shoulder to shoulder with Russia in their "common fight against terrorism".

I am sure there are foreign leaders who want Kerry to win. My guess is that none are to be found in the Kremlin. This is a not-too-subtle message to the US and the world. Russia has joined the fight. Russia has joined the alliance. And now the terrorists have one more nation in the coalition of the willing. I can only imagine that the Russians don't share our liberal, Western sensibilities about such things as Abu Ghraib and the Gitmo. Thankfully.

Was this simply an op-ed to be read by beltway insiders? I imagine the target audience was significantly larger. America.

John Kerry's insistence that we alienated our "traditional allies" shows just how unbelievably inept, ignorant, and ill-equipped to handle the job he is. Several days ago, I wrote that Europe no longer matters. But I was referring to the traditional Europe, not the new, post-Communist Europe. I also wrote that the tipping point had been reached in Russia with the Beslan attacks. Now, as we enter the third year of this global conflict, the sides are beginning to take shape.

A little history is in order. By now, most people are familiar with Hitler's rise to power throughout Europe. Rearmament, Rhineland, Anschluss, Sudetenland, etc., all high school history text book material. (Or so you'd hope!!) But what people fail to realize is that originally, he faced no opposition, and then later, only from Britain and France. Most of Europe stood idly by, or in some cases gave assistance to Germany, including Russia, which as is fairly common knowledge, signed the Non-Agression (Molotov-Ribbentrob) Pact. Keep in mind that the United States was still officially neutral.

What isn't widely known is that during the course of 1938-1939, many attempts were made by the British and French to enlist the Russians. But, due to a number of issues, they all failed. Russia wanted assurances that she could move against Finland. Poland wouldn't agree to allowing Russian troops cross her borders to attack Germany. Russia and Germany had large trade agreements and were each others two largest trade partners. So, like today, the ability to determine friends and enemies is clouded by one's national and sometimes personal interests.

It took an invasion in 1941 to bring Russia to the allies side, and Pear Harbor the same year to bring the US into the war. The allies weren't formally organized until the end of 1943 with the Tehran Conference, which was over 4 years after the start of WW2. If we want to use John Kerry's words of today, the US turned her back on her allies in 1941, the very same allies we went to war with just 20 years earlier.

So, 3 years after 9/11, what is the new alliance forming? The traditional Anglo-American alliance is as strong as ever. We brought new nations into NATO, and our European partners include the Italians, Poles, Czechs, and others. In addition, we have always had the support of the Israelis. We were successful in turning the Pakistanis from supporters of the Taliban into our allies. President Musharif has been an extremely helpful ally, as many top aQ members have been rounded up in Pakistan.


Japan and South Korea have contributed troops and money to the operation. Alone, that is a fairly formidable alliance. But the alliance is growing.

Who is now coming on board?

Recently, the commander of the Indian Air Force visited Israel last week and "has proposed joint maneuvers and training exercises with the Israeli Air Force." The visit was describes as "...part of the ongoing warm relations between the two militaries."

That would bring India into the alliance as well. This would augment the recent Russian-Israeli meetings following the Beslan terrorist attack. "(Russian Foreign Minister) Lavrov reiterated Russian President Vladimir Putin's gratitude for Israel's offers of help and expertise in Russia's fight against terror. 'As I stay in Israel these days I know that some specific steps have already been taken by our respective agencies," Lavrov said. 'Terrorism has no nationality, it is an international evil. We will do everything in our power to strengthen the global coalition against terror, in which Israel and Russia are very active.'"


That would bring Russia into the alliance as well.

The alliance, the one which the Kerry derides so much includes: the United States, Britain, Italy, Russia, India, Pakistan, Japan, and Israel as well as the multitude of smaller allies like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, South Korea, and many others.

Once again, Kerry's lack of understanding is transparent. He is woefully inept, incapable of leading the nation in war or forming the necessary alliances. In past European wars, the allies were chosen before the war began. In almost all cases, it was precisely those alliances, in the thirty years war, in the seven years war, even in WW1, that brought the allied nations into war. Now, like WW2, war has come first and now the alliances have been formed. It took three years to do so.

Kerry understands absolutely none of this, which is why Cheney was right in his recent comments.

Time Magazine interview with John Kerry makes it clear, this guy can't be for real.

TIME

This past month has been pretty brutal for you, between the Swift Boat ads, the Republican Convention and the Vice President saying if you get elected, it would invite another terrorist attack. Have you come to any new conclusions about whom you're running against and what you have to do to win?


KERRY

I think the President's unwillingness to walk away from those comments makes it clear that he and the Vice President will say anything and do anything to get elected and to hold on to power. It was a shameful and outrageous effort.

Let's see, what was the entire comment?

"Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

He is simply saying that we don't want to go back to the pre-9/11 days of treating terrorism as a criminal problem. What is shameful about that? Only replaying half a quote.

KERRY

"America is not as safe as we ought to be after 9/11."

Really? And exactly how did you come to that conclusion? Would it be the numerous terror attacks on US soil since 9/11?
TIME

What do you need to do to make this race about what you want it to be about?
KERRY

Draw the contrast; be crystal clear about it. That's what I've been doing every day.

Crystal clear? Let's see: you'd still have voted for the war, but now it's the wrong war at the wrong time. You said we have to finish the job in Iraq, but you're strategy is primarily how fast the troops can come home. That should clear things up.

TIME

Speaking of clarity, a number of your allies have said that you haven't drawn a clear contrast between yourself and President Bush on Iraq.


KERRY

The contrast could not be clearer. They spent a lot of money trying to confuse people, but I have been consistent.
I would not have taken the country into war the way he did. I would not have put young Americans in harm's way without a plan to win the peace. I would not have interrupted as abruptly the effort to build alliances with other countries. I would not have turned my back on the international community. And Americans are paying a $200 billion cost today because this President rushed to war.

So basically, you wouldn't have gone to war. Please Senator, just be clear. Clearly, the situation on the ground changed from original plans. The rapid victory was unexpected making "plans for the peace" obsolete. The countries Bush courted weren't going to help. Period. "Turned his back"? A president has to make decisions in the best interest of the country. Rush to War? We were at the UN for fourteen months. How long should we have waited?

TIME

Is the President being as aggressive as he should be in dealing with insurgent strongholds in Iraq?


KERRY

At this moment in time, I'm not sitting with the generals in front of me for the full briefing. I'm not going to comment on that right now. That is up to the President. It's his decision to make. But I will tell you this, that we've gone backward in Iraq, and we've gone backward on the war on terror.

Really? So you're not getting the full briefing, but you know we're going backwards in Iraq. It's also the president's decision to make, unless of course our allies aren't on board.

KERRY

I believe very deeply that it takes a new President, a new credibility, a fresh start, to change the whole equation in Iraq. I will get countries involved in ways that the President doesn't have them involved today, and I will get our troops home.

So, you will get other countries involved, who didn't then, and don't have now a reason to help. But somehow you're going to bring them in? We really need to know how? And what is the ultimate goal? "I will get our troops home". Great. Way to give the Iraqi people hope.

TIME

As President, who would be the first person you would phone?


KERRY

I'm not going to say one, two, three. I will tell you that I have 20 years of experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have personal relationships with leaders around the world.

Relationships with whom?

TIME


You can't be more specific?

KERRY

I know exactly what I'm going to do, but I'm not the President today.

Well, that sure clears things up.

TIME

Will you be more specific about timetables for getting troops out?


KERRY

I have said that I have a goal to be able to bring our troops out of there within my first term, and I hope to be able to bring out some troops within the first year.

And there is Kerry's Iraq plan, getting the troops home. Embolden the terrorists, dishearten the Iraqis, and destroy thr credibility of the US.

TIME

Do you think President Bush shirked his duties during the Vietnam era?


KERRY

I'm focused on the issues of now and today. The White House can answer questions they need to answer. I've answered all the questions I'll answer.

Um, does "I'm Reporting for Duty" sound familiar? And you've answered all the questions? How about, "Are you going to sign Form 180 and release all your military records?"

TIME

How would you go about winning the war of ideas in the Middle East?


KERRY

What I intend to do is to put in play the economic power, the values and principles, the public diplomacy, so we're isolating the radical Islamic extremists and not having the radical extremists isolate the United States. It means bringing religious leaders together, including moderate mullahs, clerics, imams—pulling the world together in a dialogue about who these extremists really are and how they are hijacking the legitimacy of Islam itself. That takes leadership, and that leadership has not been put on the table.
You have almost 60% of the populations of Egypt and Saudi Arabia under 30, and 50% under 18. We have to engage in a way that offers them some alternative to the radical madrasahs that are educating them to hate and to go out and strap explosives around themselves.
They [the Bush Administration] haven't even engaged in a legitimate effort to try to really transform the ability of Israel to find a legitimate entity to negotiate with. The only thing they do is rattle the saber.

Do you really believe that the radical extremists are isolating the US? Is that because we're not fighting a more sensitive war? Let's see, what do we have to do?

1. 1. put in play


2. 2. isolate extremists


3. 3. bring leaders together


4. 4. pulling the world together


5. 5. engage


6. 6. really transform


7. 7. find a legitamte entity

Well that should clear it up. We throw alot of fancy verbs at them, and then viola', we have peace. And I thought we'd have to kill the terrorists. Who'd have thought? But one thing we'd never want to do is rattle a saber.

TIME

Our latest poll indicates that terrorism has become the No. 1 issue for voters.


KERRY

I will fight a more effective war on terror, and over the next weeks the American people will see the phoniness of the Bush efforts.
They haven't done port security; they're cutting cops; they haven't taken assault weapons off the streets. Firehouses are opened in Iraq; they're shut in the United States. Port security: 95% of our containers come in, and they are uninspected.

Phoniness? Yeah, just ask all those dead and arrested al Qaeda leaders. Just ask the Taliban. Just ask Saddam. Just ask Khadafi. But the real war on terror is opening firehouses in the US and taking assault weapons off the street.

KERRY

The fact is that these guys talk tough, but they haven't done what is necessary to make America as safe as it can be.

I also seem to recall that we waged to major military operations that removed two terror supporting regimes. If anyone is talking tough, it is "two tours of duty" Kerry.

TIME

It sounds as if you think the Bush strategy is based on scaring the country.


KERRY

I think they are trying to do everything possible to divert attention from the real issues in front of the country, and their entire strategy for six months has been distorting my record and attacking me because they don't have a record to run on.

The real issues? I forgot, we're not at war. We weren't attacked by terrorists on 9/11.
As I wrote earlier, John Kerry is just not a serious candidate. He just doesn't take seriously the threat we face. He is living in a 9/10 world. He'd rather focus on jobs, health care, the environment, etc. He can't even offer a real alternative to anything the president is doing, just that "I'd do everything differently." In a word, his candidacy is a joke.