Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
October 2, 2004
POLITICS: You Can Tell A Man By The Company He Keeps

In light of John Kerry's puzzling insistence on a go-it-alone approach to North Korea in Thursday night's debate, I thought I'd make a little list. Admittedly, I'm doing much of this from memory, but there seems to be a certain consistency . . .

1. The North Vietnamese, during the Vietnam War, compared Ho Chi Minh to George Washington, argued that their war was one of national liberation, accused US troops of regularly committing war crimes and atrocities, called on Nixon to end the war immediately, argued that the people of South Vietnam would be happy to accept communism, and generally argued that the US war in Vietnam was immoral from beginning to end. John Kerry, during the Vietnam War, compared Ho Chi Minh to George Washington, argued that the North's war was one of national liberation, accused US troops of regularly committing war crimes and atrocities, called on Nixon to end the war immediately, argued that the people of South Vietnam would be happy to accept communism, and generally argued that the US war in Vietnam was immoral from beginning to end.

2. The Soviet Union and its allies denounced the US invasion of Grenada in 1983. John Kerry denounced the US invasion of Grenada in 1983.

3. The Soviets, in the 1980s, denounced Ronald Reagan as a warmonger and a threat to peace for deploying missiles in Western Europe. John Kerry, in the 1980s, denounced Ronald Reagan as a warmonger and a threat to peace for deploying missiles in Western Europe.

4. Daniel Ortega, in the 1980s, denounced US support for the Nicaraguan contras and argued that the US should have peace talks with his regime. John Kerry, in the 1980s, denounced US support for the Nicaraguan contras and argued that the US should have peace talks with Ortega's regime.

5. Moammar Qaddafi argued that Reagan's bombing of Libya was unjustified and caused excessive civilian casualties. John Kerry argued that Reagan's bombing of Libya was unjustified and caused excessive civilian casualties.

6. Our adversaries during and since the Cold War have argued that we were reckless and irresponsible by pursuing missile defense. John Kerry has argued that we were reckless and irresponsible by pursuing missile defense.

7. Fidel Castro has, for decades, regularly denounced US sanctions against Cuba. John Kerry has, for decades, regularly denounced US sanctions against Cuba.

8. In 1991, Saddam Hussein wanted to draw out the process of the Western response in the hopes that it would bog down. John Kerry said we should have drawn out the process.

9. Yasser Arafat has denounced the security fence erected by Israel. John Kerry has denounced the security fence erected by Israel.

We can add four more from the debate alone:

10. In 2002-03, Saddam Hussein wanted to draw out the inspections process and make it more multilateral. John Kerry says we should have drawn out the inspections process and made it more multilateral.

11. Kim Jong-Il wanted to have bilateral talks rather than multilateral talks. John Kerry says we should have had bilateral talks rather than multilateral talks.

12. Osama bin Laden says we helped him by invading Iraq. John Kerry says we helped bin Laden by invading Iraq.

13. The Iranian mullahs oppose US sanctions against Iran, wish to enter into agreements with the US, and insist that there are plausible reasons why a poor but oil-rich country needs nuclear power. John Kerry opposes US sanctions against Iran, argues that we should enter into agreements with Iran, and insists that there are plausible reasons why a poor but oil-rich country needs nuclear power.

Does Kerry have company on some of these stances? Yes. Can he defend some by pointing to occasions (as with Israel and Cuba policy) where he's since taken the opposite position? Yes. Is he actually an unpatriotic America-hater? Of course not. But remember: Time and time and time again, America's enemies have argued against us - and Kerry has echoed their charges. I'd rather trust the national defense to someone who's not so quick to echo the words and strategies of our enemies.

(A partial list of sources: Kerry's stances on Grenada and Nicaragua, the first Gulf War, the Cold War and Grenada again, the security fence, the Cold War again, Libya, Nicaragua again, and Grenada again, and Cuba).

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:42 PM | Politics 2004 | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

This ones a keeper. I will be sharing this extensively.
Thanks,
Bill

Posted by: LargeBill at October 3, 2004 11:38 AM

I am worried that Kerry wins the elections, i am a european who supports mr Bush.

I would be grateful if you could help me in my petition against the French press....

Dear friend,

As you know the french press is anti Bush, America and Israel

Please sign this petition against the FRENCH PRESS.

http://www.acmedias.org/petition_e.asp

It takes only a few seconds, please, pass it to your friends and

groups you belong to.

Thank-you. Kristian

Posted by: Kristian at October 3, 2004 4:17 PM

Why can't GWB grasp these parallels and articulate them at the right time, i.e., prime time, with a huge audience watching? GWB is his own worst enemy.

Posted by: wdennis at October 3, 2004 6:36 PM

Why can't GWB grasp these parallels and articulate them at the right time, i.e., prime time, with a huge audience watching? GWB is his own worst enemy.

Posted by: wdennis at October 3, 2004 6:36 PM

I think the way the master debater wins is by larding every syllable with twists, misrepresentations, out-of-context de-facto lies, all delivered rapid-fire with great conviction, and, by the end of his opening statement, the opponent is quite simply flabbergasted. I could see it in the debate, GWB didn't know where the hell to even begin, non-plussed by a half-dozen lies before he ever had a chance to say a word. On the playground, Kerry wouldn't try to argue that way; his opponent would instantly decide the guy wasn't worth trying to reason with, and would just bust him one in the mouth.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at October 3, 2004 8:26 PM

Kerry’s vote against the first Gulf War is, even more than the infamous $87 billion flip-flop, the most damning vote in his legislative career. I’m very surprised that it hasn’t been used against him more, since it really renders his whole philosophy of dealing with foreign aggression excessively dovish and indecisive.

Opposition to the UN-sanctioned military action to repel the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is completely irreconcilable with any kind of responsible national security position, including many of those which Kerry has subsequently tried on for size.

Posted by: The Mad Hibernian at October 3, 2004 9:36 PM

great minds think alike.

I posted this on my blog - the astute blogger -
on

Another Troubling Kerry Pattern ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???

OR - "KERRY & TYRANNY: natural together"

1 - In 1970 (and through 1975), Kerry returned from Vietnam and publicly, repeatedly - even famously under oath - opposed the war-time foreign policy of his own nation's duly elected president of the USA, and instead took the same exact position on the war as the communist North Vietnamese Government. Kerry parroted the NVG claims that the USA military were war criminals, and testified that he felt that it made no difference whether Vietnam went communist, or not.

Since 1975 - (when the Democrat majorities in the Congress pulled the plug on supporting the South Vietnamese government), 65 MILLION Vietnamese have lived in poverty under the tyranny of communism -- much more like the North Koreans, than the South Koreans.

(One can only wonder that if the Democrats has NOT pulled the plug on the SVG whether or not we'd be driving cars made in a democratic and prosperous South Vietnam, as we are from a democratic and prosperous South Korea - a nation we did NOT ABANDON.)

2 - In 1985 Senator Kerry opposed the foreign policy of the duly elected president of the USA - who supported the Contras, and instead publicly supported the communists led by Ortega - even visiting with Ortega before a crucial vote in the Congress (with Tom Harkin - see photo with this link).

3 - While first running for the Senate in 1984, and while in the Senate - from 1985-the collapse of the USSR in 1989 - Kerry supported the Nuclear Freeze Movement, and opposed every major weapons system and deployment during the Cold War - ONCE AGAIN agreeing with the USSR - our communist enemies - that the USA's weapons buildup was destabilizing. (SEE: Boston Globe Online John Kerry: A Candidate in the Making "... Kerry tried to stand out, not only as a crime-fighting former prosecutor with progressive credentials, but also as a champion of a nuclear weapons freeze. ..." www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061903.shtml - 54k - )

4 - Kerry sided with SADDAM in the 1991 war and voted AGAINST authorizing the president to use force to expel SADDAM from Kuwait. If Kerry's position had prevailed, then Saddam WOULD STILL BE IN KUWAIT! (SEE: MSNBC - What Kerry's 20 years of Senate votes reveal ...Kerry voted against use of US military forces in 1991 after Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Kuwait. ... www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4741992/ - 42k .)

5 - NOW, in 2004 - THREE YEARS AFTER WE WERE ATTACKED BY JIHADOTERRORISTS - Kerry calls the Iraq War a sham built on lies; he calls it a QUAGMIRE and a diversion;
(see: www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0906d.html - 10k ) , and one of his official spokesmen calls the official UN-designated interim Prime Minister Allawi a "puppet" of the USA (see: .http://instapundit.com/archives/018015.php).

And now - in 2004 - Kerry is taking the SAME POSITION AS KIM JONG IL: KERRY AND KIM both want bi-lateral talks.


IS THERE A PATTERN HERE?

I suggest there is. I suggest it is OBVIOUS and INESCAPABLE:

Kerry consistently takes the position that American military power is bad, and that it should not be used to support DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENTS WHEN THEY ARE UNDER ATTACK BY TYRANNICAL FORCES, and that that USA military should NOT even be strengthened, and that our enemies - (first the North Vietnamese, then the CONTRAS, and then the USSR, and now the Jihadoterrorists who we're fighting in Iraq and Kim Jong Il of North Korea) - were (or are) in the right, and that we - the USA - are in the wrong.

(It is interesting to point out that the chattering classes, HIP LEFTIST LITERATI, and other assorted lefty luminaries from Europe and the UN also opposed the USA on each of these points; Kerry has CONSISTENTLY taken the EU's position against the USA's for his entire political career. It is also important to note that the USA was right in every case.)

YES: History has already proven that Kerry's track record on foreign policy reflects BAD judgment. But as 1-Senator-out-of-100, Kerry did NOT do too much harm, thank God.

As president, and COMMANDER IN CHIEF, he would be a DISASTER. WHY?

(A) One would reasonably expect Kerry to ABANDON IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN
as they begin their journey toward democracy and prosperity.
(B) One would expect him to weaken our military.
(AT BEST, one might hope that Kerry would keep our military at its present strength. REMEMBER: in the debates, he said he would UNILATERALLY give up our quest for bunker-busting nukes that might be able to destroy the secret undergorund WMD programs of tryannical rogue states, like Iran and North Korea! Does this sound like someone who - as president - would ensure that the USA military would be as strong as possible?!)

Kerry has been a leftist Dove his entire life -
one who has DEMONSTRATED a penchant for attacking the USA
and the US military
while we are at war.
And he has shown an indisputable penchant for supporting tyrants.
Or at the very very very least: shying away from confronting tyrants
and from using the military to defend democracy.

There is NO LOGICAL reason to
think Kerry has suddenly become a Hawk,
or to trust that if he is now a Hawk that this "election-year-conversion" is genuine.
KERRY AND TYRANNY - SINCE 1970, NATURAL TOGETHER:
Kerry & Ho Chi Minh 1970...
Kerry supported the Vietcong demand for our immediate withdrawal!
Kerry & Ortega 1985...
Kerry supported the communists in Nicaragua!
Kerry & Breshnev (ET AL) 1984-9...
Kerry aped Soviet position on arms control - supporting a freeze!
Kerry & Saddam in 1991...
Kerry voted AGAINST the first Iraq War!
Kerry & Saddam 2003...
Kerry voted against funding the second Iraq War!
Kerry and Zarkawi 2004...
Kerry and al Qaeda BOTH call Iraqi P.M. Allawi a USA puppet!
Kerry and the mullahs in 2004...
Kerry would GIVE IRAN nuclear fuel!
Kerry & Kim Jong Il 2004...
Kerry and Kim BOTH want bilateral talks!
THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES:
THERE IS A PATTERN HERE.

Posted by: reliapundit at October 3, 2004 11:20 PM

wdennis - It's not fair to say Bush is his own worst enemy - unlike Kerry, he rarely says anything that can haunt him. It's more that he's often not his own best advocate, because there are so many arguments and types of arguments he prefers not to make.

Posted by: Crank at October 3, 2004 11:22 PM

If Kerry wins

then the USA will have the same foriegn policy as the EU: pandering and appeasing the Jihadoterrorists,
emasculating military forces,
and
pandering to Arafat
and
as a BONUS:
we'll get socialized medicine.

Why don't the USA lefties just move there,
instead of ruining the USA?!?!

Posted by: daniel at October 3, 2004 11:25 PM

Crank - A reasonable reprimand. However, reticence or restraint rarely trumps Kerry and his machine(s) as Weld can readily attest.

Posted by: wdennis at October 4, 2004 9:53 AM

"Kerry's puzzling insistence on a go-it-alone approach to North Korea"

Check your "memory" of the debate, Crank. Kerry never said to abandon any multi-lateral talks. He said the US should initiate bilateral talks in addition to the multi-lateral talks:

LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.

You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?

BUSH: Right.

LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...

KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.

then later he follows up:

Now, I'd like to come back for a quick moment, if I can, to that issue about China and the talks. Because that's one of the most critical issues here: North Korea.

Just because the president says it can't be done, that you'd lose China, doesn't mean it can't be done. I mean, this is the president who said "There were weapons of mass destruction," said "Mission accomplished," said we could fight the war on the cheap -- none of which were true.

We could have bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il. And we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China. Because China has an interest in the outcome, too.

You heard and remember based on what the President said, not what Kerry said. Just because President "Can't Walk and Chew Gum" Bush can't maintain negotiations, doesn't mean President Kerry can't.

And points 10-13 are, frankly, ridiculous.

Posted by: Mr Furious at October 4, 2004 12:55 PM

That's absurd. Look, maybe multilateral talks won't work; I'm certainly amenable to the idea, if you think the other players in the region will be more harm than good. But the theory behind forcing the issues into being resolved as a regional problem would be totally undermined by opening separate talks. It would give Kim Jong Il exactly what he wants.

Posted by: The Crank at October 4, 2004 1:05 PM

It would give Kim Jong Il exactly what he wants.

Look, I'm not going to pretend to be a diplomacy expert, which is why I stuck to the quotes and mischaracterizations of positions (above) rather than the merits. so here goes...

In the time since Bush initiated his strategy of isolation of North Korea, then the multilateral talks, exactly no solution has been reached. NK now has multiple nuclear weapons and we have pre-emptively invaded another member of the exclusive "Axis of Evil".

KJI is clearly a maniac, but, Bush has managed, by invading Iraq, to give logic to his paranoia.

If you have to make concessions (clearly part of the process of negotiating treaties, etc) and we will, wouldn't you rather the big concession be having the negotiations than what you might have to actually give up in the negotiations?

If Bush isn't going to invade NK, (and he isn't/can't), then he needs to stop pretending this situation is doing anything but getting more dire. Negotiations need to happen, and since we're the one's NK fears, we're the country it needs to be with.

Posted by: Mr Furious at October 4, 2004 1:44 PM

If you start off the process with concessions, you are off on the wrong foot, and the North Koreans will smell weakness. Ask Harry Truman, whose administration spent a year negotiating the shape of the table to negotiate at with them.

Posted by: The Crank at October 4, 2004 1:57 PM

Well, I guess we'll never get started then. sounds like a plan.

Posted by: Mr Furious at October 4, 2004 3:21 PM

The problem with negotiating with North Korea is that they don’t keep to any of their agreements. They violated virtually all the terms of the 1994 Agreed Framework, developing nuclear weapons in clear contravention of the agreed-upon terms. North Korea bought time and material gain, the U.S. got essentially nothing. The same is true of South Korea’s “sunshine” policy, by which South Korea agreed to talk to North Korea and North Korea pretty much agreed to nothing meaningful. So negotiating, whether it be with two parties, six parties or two hundred parties is certainly necessary but is only going to get so far when the North Korean leadership is fundamentally deceitful and untrustworthy.

That, not Bush, is the root of the problem. But I do think that the more parties are involved, the better. North Korea’s not just our problem – it’s certainly South Korea’s and Japan’s as well. And I think we’d be crazy not to simultaneously keep researching and developing missile defense to even possibly prevent or deter the worst case scenario of a preemptive North Korean attack (i.e. a nuclear repeat of 1950).

Posted by: The Mad Hibernian at October 4, 2004 7:01 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg