All the candidates get some attention, but here's a straight cut and paste of the segment devoted to the Democrats' latest frontrunner.
John Kerry's record of service in our military is honorable. But his long record in the Senate is one of advocating policies that would weaken our national security.
In 1972, when John Kerry first campaigned for Congress, he made a commitment to vote against military appropriations. After he was elected, he went one step further, actively introducing legislation to reduce funding for defense and intelligence.
In addition to his opposition to defense funding, John Kerry opposed the policies that led to victory in the Cold War.
In 1984 he called for a freeze on testing, production and deployment of nuclear warheads, missiles, and other delivery systems.
In 1985, he introduced a Comprehensive Nuclear Freeze Bill, and sponsored two amendments to freeze SDI-related nuclear development.
In 1991, he acknowledged Saddam Hussein's possession of WMD, but voted against military action in the Gulf War.
In 1993, Sen. Kerry introduced a plan to:
cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews;
reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one;
reduce Air Force tactical fighter wings;
terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program; and
force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.
In 1995, Sen. Kerry voted to freeze defense spending for 7 years, cutting over $34 billion from the defense budget.
His policy positions belie his assertion that his approach to national security will make us safer as a nation.
You know, after September 11, one high-ranking Al Qaeda official said the attacks were "the beginning of the end of America." He didn't say September 11 was the beginning of the end of Russia.
He didn't say September 11 was the beginning of the end of France. He didn't say September 11 was the beginning of the end of the United Nations. He said it was the beginning of the end of America.
He couldn't have been more wrong, but it's our prerogative to make sure he's wrong--with or without the unanimous international consent demanded by the President's critics.
One of these critics, Sen. John Kerry, twelve days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, said, "And the tragedy is, at the moment, the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence. It's the single most important weapon in this particular war ..."
This is the same Sen. Kerry who in 1995, two years after the first World Trade Center bombing, voted to cut FBI funding by $80 million.
That same year, again, only two years after the first World Trade Center bombing, he unsuccessfully proposed legislation to slash $1.5 billion--over the next 5 years--from our intelligence budget.
That's a $300 million cut in intelligence funding in 1995; the year before terrorists attacked the Khobar Towers.
That's a $300 million cut in intelligence funding in 1997; the year before terrorists attacked U.S. embassies in East Africa.
That's a $300 million cut in intelligence funding in 1999; the year before terrorists attacked the U.S.S. Cole.
Twelve days after September 11, after saying that America is weakest in the area of intelligence, he added, "So it's going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this properly."
Had Sen. Kerry's drastic cuts in intelligence passed, it would be taking us a lot more time to do this properly.
I'm interested to see if the voters in the next primary races get cold feet. I don't think this race is done. Not by a long shot.
