Friday, October 15, 2004
Was Kerry Right?
From Diana West via The Washington Times:
Was Mr. Kerry right to champion the cause of North Vietnam's brutal communist dictators? (They think so: The War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City depicts Mr. Kerry as a hero of its victory against the United States.) Was he right to boost the Soviet-supported Sandinista regime in Nicaragua? To knock the liberation of Marxist Grenada as a "bully's show of force"? To embrace the nuclear-freeze movement during the height of the Cold War? To vote against the first Gulf War? If Americans elect Mr. Kerry president, they will answer yes, validating a long career of uninterupted, unshakeable leftism that has opposed, time and again, the expansion of freedom and democracy.
If Mr. Kerry had his way, Saddam would still be in power, and in Kuwait. If Mr. Kerry had his way, Ronald Reagan's military expansion, which bloodlessly defeated the Soviet Union, would never have occurred. Indeed, Mr. Kerry called the Strategic Defense Initiative, the visionary straw that broke the USSR's back, a "cancer on our nation's defense." If, in a time of war, we elect a man whose idea of protecting American lives is holding summits, canceling such vital weapons programs as "bunker-buster" nukes, and allowing such enemies as Iran to keep their nuclear power plants in exchange for promises, we would not only be repudiating the security-boosting moral interventionism of Mr. Bush. We would also be rejecting the doctrine of peace through strength that Ronald Reagan applied with triumphant result against communism's evil empire.
Of course, Mr. Kerry called the Reagan years a "moral darkness." Was he right? I would hope the answer breaks the tie.
Was Mr. Kerry right to champion the cause of North Vietnam's brutal communist dictators? (They think so: The War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City depicts Mr. Kerry as a hero of its victory against the United States.) Was he right to boost the Soviet-supported Sandinista regime in Nicaragua? To knock the liberation of Marxist Grenada as a "bully's show of force"? To embrace the nuclear-freeze movement during the height of the Cold War? To vote against the first Gulf War? If Americans elect Mr. Kerry president, they will answer yes, validating a long career of uninterupted, unshakeable leftism that has opposed, time and again, the expansion of freedom and democracy.
If Mr. Kerry had his way, Saddam would still be in power, and in Kuwait. If Mr. Kerry had his way, Ronald Reagan's military expansion, which bloodlessly defeated the Soviet Union, would never have occurred. Indeed, Mr. Kerry called the Strategic Defense Initiative, the visionary straw that broke the USSR's back, a "cancer on our nation's defense." If, in a time of war, we elect a man whose idea of protecting American lives is holding summits, canceling such vital weapons programs as "bunker-buster" nukes, and allowing such enemies as Iran to keep their nuclear power plants in exchange for promises, we would not only be repudiating the security-boosting moral interventionism of Mr. Bush. We would also be rejecting the doctrine of peace through strength that Ronald Reagan applied with triumphant result against communism's evil empire.
Of course, Mr. Kerry called the Reagan years a "moral darkness." Was he right? I would hope the answer breaks the tie.
# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 7:47 AM 
