A great many on the Right have made misinformed criticisms of Kerry, claiming he supported such actions at the time - and using, as evidence, a quote from a Larry King interview in which Kerry said:
...what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.
So, Kerry supported our strategy in Afghanistan! Wrong. A brief look at the transcript will disabuse one of that notion. In fact, Kerry was responding to a caller who had asked "why they don't use napalm or flamethrowers on those tunnels and caves up there in Afghanistan?"
It is, I think, disingenuous to infer larger meaning from Kerry's statement on flamethrowers and napalm
But.
There's another, lesser-known, interview from that time-period. On December 11th, 2001, John Kerry appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show. The transcript appears to be available only at Lexis.com, but pieces of it have shown up online at various blogs. They are, I think, enough to establish context. In this case, I got the transcript from TalkLeft - a liberal blog. I've edited out irrelevant portions, but you can see the more complete version at TalkLeft to check behind me.
O'Reilly: In the "Unresolved Problem"segment tonight, there continues to be much debate about confronting Saddam Hussein. There's no question that the Iraqi dictator has encouraged terrorist acts around the world, including an assassination plot against former president Bush. One of the possible Democratic presidential candidates next time around, Senator Joseph Lieberman, told THE FACTOR last week he wants to go in and get Saddam.
Joining us now is another possible presidential contender, Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. And do you feel the same way as Joe Lieberman, senator?
U.S. SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Essentially, yes. I'm not sure exactly what Joe means by that, but I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on no matter what the evidence is about September 11.
But I think we have to do it in a thoughtful and intelligent way. .... O'REILLY: ... the guy is simply -- he is an out of control guy...
KERRY: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: ... and he's not going to, he's not going to respond to embargoes, no-fly zones. He's not going to do that. How would you put enough pressure on him to open up inspections again?
KERRY: Well, I'll reinvigorate that process as step number one, and I think the administration is now suddenly starting to move in that direction. I think you have to work our allies sufficiently to pull that component of the effort back together.
But the second thing I would do, and I wouldn't hesitate to do it, is back opposition more openly, and do it in a way that begins to put a counterinsurgency in the country itself... [...] There are other members of the opposition. There are people who are outside of the country prepared to go in, there are others inside the country.
And I believe -- I mean, I was in Safra (ph), I went there when the signing of the armistice took place at the end of the war. And I remember seeing that land, which lent itself, in my judgment, considerably, to the creation of almost an enclave, which I thought we should have done then, and I think is one way to begin to approach things now. [...] He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities... ... that are unacceptable.
O'REILLY: But I -- you know, I still don't see the hammer that's going to convince him to open anything up.
KERRY: The hammer, ultimately, will be the evidence that we uncover as we go further down the trail that shows his support for terrorism and begins to build the coalition even more strongly...
O'REILLY: Have you seen any...evidence that's really compelling that has not come out yet?
KERRY: I have not seen any evidence yet with respect to the 11th. But there are avenues of -- to pursue there. The important thing is that Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein fired weapons on Israel. They took some -- I think it was 29 or more Scuds without even responding during the war.
In addition to that, he has refused to live by the terms of the treaty that he signed at the end of the war in which he agreed to do certain things. [...] He hasn't...the international community ought to hold him accountable for that.
O'REILLY: But the international community won't. If we're going to get -- if he's going to get...
KERRY: Well, ultimately...
O'REILLY: ... out of there, it's going to have to be us. ... Nobody else going to do anything because they're all frightened little ninnies. Now...
KERRY:In the end ... we protect our own national security interests. In the end, I'm prepared for the United States to do what it has to do in order to do that.
Here's what you take away from this: John Kerry, in December of 2001--2001!--before Bush said public-Word One about an invasion of Iraq, was advocating:
Further investigation into connections between Iraq and 9/11. [a reasonable request at the time, I think]
Increased pressure on Iraq, regardless of a lack of connection to 9/11.
Deal with Iraqi intransigence with--OR WITHOUT--the support of the international community.
But more to the point, in December of 2001, at the time of the Tora Bora confrontation, John Kerry was advocating the outsourcing of an entire war to deal with Saddam Hussein and the threat Iraq posed to our national security.
Today, John Kerry criticizes Bush for "divert[ing] critical resources to Iraq" and "outsourc[ing] the job [of getting Osama Bin Laden] to Afghan warlords". But, at the very time we were involved in the job of getting Osama Bin Laden, John Kerry was advocating the diversion of resources to Iraq....in order to outsource a war to Iraqi warlords.
Note: More election commentary throughout the blog. Check the main-page, and scroll.
Less than 24 hours and media has failed to ask question about Kerry's discharge. It is simply outrageous.
http://www.nysun.com/article/4040
"A former officer in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve has built a case that Senator Kerry was other than honorably discharged from the Navy by 1975, The New York Sun has learned.
The "honorable discharge" on the Kerry Web site appears to be a Carter administration substitute for an original action expunged from Mr. Kerry's record, according to Mark Sullivan, who retired as a captain in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve in 2003 after 33 years of service as a judge advocate. Mr. Sullivan served in the office of the Secretary of the Navy between 1975 and 1977."
"There is overwhelming evidence that the Navy gave John Kerry either a dishonorable discharge or an undesirable discharge which is the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge without the felony conviction and that, as a result of such discharge, he was stripped of all of his famous but questionable Navy awards and medals. And the kicker? The evidence is on his website!"
Less than 24 hours and media has failed to ask question about Kerry`s discharge. It is simply outrageous.
http://www.nysun.com/article/4040
I`ve read that and as one who`d be vitally interested in putting something substantial up there regarding his discharge, all you have here is a good circumstantial case ... and I just find that not enough to go with. As for the media, they`re not going to touch this story at this time.Kerry`s refusal to sign an SF 180 has kept this as a circumstantial case. As someone said, it`s the only 180 Kerry hasn`t committed.
Great post, Jon. O'Reilly is replaying his interview with President Bush tonight. I have written him at oreilly@foxnews.com asking him to replay his December 11, 2001 interview with John Kerry too. I would like to ask your readers to join me in asking O'Reilly to expose the fact that Kerry was the one distracted by Iraq during the battle of Tora Bora and that he was calling for an "outsourced" war in Iraq. It's now or never and O'Reilly is the one with the tape that can expose the hypocrisy of Kerry's final attack campaign on Bush.
Kerry wants to outsource the war in Iraq to the Germans and the French. What's wrong with signing up a few warlords in Afganistan?
I have so many disappointments with the MSM, but probably none is greater than the fact that they gave him a "Get out of Jail Free" pass on his Form 180. I will never forget that as long as I live.
His refusal to sign convinces me that his original separation from the Navy was for less than honorable reasons. If that's the case, we citizens have a right to know about it.
"And I believe -- I mean, I was in Safra (ph), I went there when the signing of the armistice took place at the end of the war. And I remember seeing that land, which lent itself, in my judgment, considerably, to the creation of almost an enclave, which I thought we should have done then, and I think is one way to begin to approach things now."
And let us not forget he was there when the armistice was signed with Iraq.....or was he.
John K obviously has a device or power that allows him to be in places that the rest of us can, using the current laws of space and time as we understand them, prove he couldn't have been in.
Should the nation elect him to be President today, I trust this device or power will serve him in good stead as he saves our nation by being places he can't possibly be. Now if only he would DO something useful while he was in those places (sorta making up for his time in the Senate).
Kerry (him, not me) shows himself to be a rank opportunist, willing and capable of saying ANYTHING he wants, from Christmas in Cambodia to 'raping', 'killing farm animals' 'as a matter of policy' 'reminiscent of Genjis Khan'...
This scurrilous, treasonous, gutless windbag is Not Fit for Command.
But the real war is being fought against America BY Mainstream Media! Shameful!
