Leave it to the incessant drumbeat of pro-Kerry propaganda,
otherwise known as the “news cycle,” to make the impossible seem
possible. Witness, for example, the amazing transformation of the
Massachusetts senator who spent two decades slashing defense
spending and slandering American veterans into…Commander Kerry,
military devotee and soldier’s best friend.
How is this possible? Too many of Kerry’s backers, it appears,
have been absorbing his pronouncements on defense matters without
question. The reception that greeted Kerry’s foreign policy address
last Thursday is a good illustration of this phenomenon.
“On my first day in office,” said Kerry, “I will send a message
to every man and woman in our armed forces: This commander-in-chief
will ensure that you are the best-led, best-equipped and most
respected fighting force in the world.” Hinting at his willingness
to commit higher troop levels, Kerry vowed that American forces
would “never be sent into harm’s way without enough troops for the
task.”
Kerry cheerleaders seized on the senator’s sudden hawkishness to
fudge his dovish voting record and duck charges of waffling. Not
only does Kerry support more troops, they claimed, but, indeed,
this has been his position all along. Thus, we got this sparkling
endorsement from Clinton National Security Advisor and Kerry
confidant Sandy Berger: “John Kerry has been amazingly consistent
from the beginning on Iraq and he has been consistently right on
the need for more troops.”
Aside from the dubious wisdom of increasing troop strength in
Iraq, Berger’s account had yet another flaw: It was totally false.
As MSNBC’s Tom Curry pointed out, in a debate last September with
other Democratic contenders in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Kerry
resolutely opposed sending more American troops to Iraq. “We should
not send more American troops,” Kerry argued, adding: “That would
be the worst thing. We do not want to have more Americanization, we
do not want a greater sense of American occupation.” So much for
consistency.
But what about Kerry’s pledge to strengthen our fighting forces?
Closer inspection reveals that this, too, is largely hype. For
instance, Democratic proponents note Kerry’s willingness to
increase the U.S. military by 40,000 troops to relieve the burden
on the National Guard and Reserve. Yet they conveniently ignore the
fact that the Bush administration already has beaten him to it:
Back in January, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the Army to boost
its size by 30,000 troops. Kerry’s supposed commitment to beefing
up our military turns out to be little more than warmed-over
pandering.
Beyond that, there is little in his record to suggest Kerry’s
newfound military enthusiasm is anything more than an election year
kick. A more accurate picture of Kerry’s priorities emerges if we
chart his voting record. The following becomes apparent: at vital
moments of national security, Kerry has undermined our military
resources. Throughout the '90s, he pushed through budget cuts in
weapons programs and in the Central Intelligence Agency. Following
the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Kerry voted to cut $7.5
billion from the intelligence budget. More recently, Kerry voted
against the $87 billion requested by Bush to bolster support for
U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
His chronic contradictions notwithstanding, it should be
manifestly clear were the senator stands on the military: he is
genuinely committed to shortchanging our armed forces. To be sure,
that may get him votes — particularly within the “Democratic wing
of the Democratic Party” — but our troops deserve more in a
Commander in Chief. With Kerry slated to present his proposals for
restructuring the armed forces this Thursday, it’s helpful to keep
in mind where he really stands.
