Lets list all the Kerry was right about during the campaign

[greenbriar]

Civil War in Iraq

[electropop]

1. "Count every vote"

'course, that one ended on election night.

[greenbriar]

2. don't be

a tard

[electropop]

6. Sorry, it was the main reason I supported him - thought he could win

and he did, but gave in without a whimper. I'm still pissed.

On edit - I did a lot of campaigning for him: phone banking, signs, money. I would have loved to see him take the office he won.

[blm]

11. The problem was that they were looking for most anything BUT machine fraud

Kerry had enlisted Gore's people from 2000 to deal with voting as they had been down that road. They were dealing mostly from a civil rights angle.

The BIGGEST problem is that the DNC in 2004 did NOT believe in machine fraud and did not expend any effort to secure the machines. The machines need to be secured BEFORE the vote, because after is too late.

My candidate in 2008 will be the one who believes in machine fraud, because that will be the only candidate who CAN win.

[electropop]

14. Yup, but expect some new angle, once we address the machines,

and of course the civil rights violations were expanded at the same time as they use the Trojan HAVA to install their machines.

[WildEyedLiberal]

33. Hahaha

Best response yet.

[stepnw1f]

3. wow... wasted no time did ya? (nt)

[stepnw1f]

4. Alienating the Muslim World More and More

not to mention the rest of the World.

[blm]

5. Tora Bora. Social Security. Port security. Rumsfeld should be fired.

.

[MiniMe]

7. Cost of the war, social security privitazation, and everything else

[mike_c]

8. staying the course in Iraq, his IWR vote, winning the war on terra....

Oh wait.

[blm]

12. He never said stay the course in Iraq. Why the disinfo campaign?

And fighting terror as a law enforcement issue is way better than fighting wars in countries that didn't attack us. Or didn't you agree with Kerry on that?

[mike_c]

17. here ya go....

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

"This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0711-01.htm

Senator John Kerry's representatives avoided a Democratic Party platform fight over Iraq on Saturday by persuading platform committee delegates supporting Representative Dennis J. Kucinich to withdraw their proposals for a quick withdrawal of United States combat troops from Iraq.

Instead, the committee agreed to present a platform to the Democratic convention in Boston this month that reflects Mr. Kerry's position.

(snip)

It pledges to remove American troops "when appropriate so that the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no longer be seen as the direct continuation of an American military presence."

(snip)

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll found that, by a margin of 56 percent to 38 percent, people who identify themselves as Democrats say United States troops should "leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable" and not "stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy."

But the platform to be adopted in Boston takes the second view.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-06-bush-kerry-iraq_x.htm

President Bush says U.S. forces will stay in Iraq as long as necessary but no longer.

John Kerry says he wants to bring U.S. troops home but will not "cut and run" before the country is stable.

Despite differences over how the United States went to war, either man as president would pursue a similar strategy now, their campaign statements show. The strategy involves building up Iraq's security forces, seeking foreign help and keeping U.S. troops there until the country is more stable. "My impression is that both the candidates have more or less the same plan," Paul Bremer, the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, said this week.

Lots more available-- I just grabbed the first few.

As for your second question-- I disagree with its very premise, that "fighting terror" is a necessary part of either foreign policy or law enforcement. The "war on terror," which Kerry SUPPORTED throughout his campaign, is an utter scam designed to give the neocons a signature issue and political cover for one of the worst and most incompetent administrations in U.S. history.

[LittleClarkie]

23. The circumstances in Iraq changed, and so did his position

Kinda nice to have someone who can look at the facts and change his mind based on them, innit.

Anyway, his position now is that we should get the fuck out. Whatever window we had to get or make things right in Iraq has closed now.

Even so, cherry-picking doesn't fairly represent what he said about the war. He wouldn't have done what Bush did, but since we were there, he thought we had an obligation to try and leave the Iraqis a viable country. Now since the Iraqis can't even seem to put together a viable government, and indeed we can see a civil war starting, it is now time to get out.

[mike_c]

29. the OP isn't about his changed views....

It's about his views during the campaign. As I recall, and as these clippings support, his views were that the U.S. should stay in Iraq "until the job is finished," win the war on terror, and that his IWR vote was proper and justified. Now we can fling quotes at one another all day long, but I'm not likely to change my recollection of Kerry's positions-- which I considered dangerously wrong-headed at the time-- and you're not likely to change your views that his positions were correct.

edit: iraq, iran, arrgghh....

[LittleClarkie]

32. My point I guess is that his opinions may have been right at the time

in the circumstances of what was happening then, but they have evolved.

The only real true "stay the course" people I can think of right now are Lieberman and Clinton. Kerry and Clark were more like Pottery Barn people.

[ProSense]

34. The first clip

is Kerry's speech, and it was against war and Bush's entire foreign policy. The other two clips are spin, and blatantly obvious.

[mike_c]

40. so Common Dreams is a spin site now...?

Wow. Who'd have thought?

[ProSense]

42. The article is from the NYT, and

the site does post articles by people who have an agenda that is not the Democratic Party's agenda.

[mike_c]

45. so you've decided that anything...

...that's "not the Democratic Party's agenda" is spin? I'm Green-- we opposed the war in Iraq back when IT was the democratic party's agenda. Was that "spin" too?

[ProSense]

50. Did I say that? The war was never the Democratic Party's agenda. Spin! n/t

[mike_c]

56. then why did the Kerry campaign force the removal of all references...

...to the antiwar movement and all antiwar sentiment from the party platform in 2004 and from the floor of the national convention? Silence is complicity, my friend.

[ProSense]

60. Kerry removed it, but mentioned it in his speeches and the debates?

Spin!

[LittleClarkie]

61. I remember watching CSPAN

Kerry was in Ohio, and one of his old anti-war buddies was there at the rally, and he spoke about how they had fought together against that "terrible war". In other words, he'd mention it, and wasn't ashamed of it.

Ever see "Going Upriver"? It was several things at once. It was a chronicle of the anti war movement of the time. It was a chronicle of Kerry at that time. And, if you listened to what people like Kennedy and Clelland had to say especially, it was oddly enough a bit of a campaign piece. The timing didn't seem to be accidental, and I know the Vets for Kerry here in Wisconsin were paying for free showings of the thing at one of the movie houses. I would argue that it was part of the campaign, and certainly didn't shy away from his past.

What I DID think they shied away from, and mostly because Shrum thought the American people were stupid, was his involvement in BCCI and Iran/Contra. People don't know that about Kerry, and were always impressed when I'd mention it. Pisses me off that more people don't know about his fairly impressive past.

Speaking of Winter Soldiers and such, did you know Kerry's giving a speech about Iraq on April 22. I'm thinking picking that date was NOT an accident.

(helpful hint: April 22 is the date that he gave his testimony back in 1972, the "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake" testimony.)

Rather than looking two years in the past, I would suggest looking at the man now. I think you'll see what you're looking for. And no, he's not just saying it to woo the left for 2008. I do believe he means it. OUT NOW.

[LittleClarkie]

49. Often yes. They're a bit better than Counterpunch

but only a bit.

I could find nasty stuff about most people favorite Dems there, I bet.

And the dude who runs it doesn't like Kerry. I'd rather he didn't have that bias. It's one thing to disagree with a person. It's another for that person's name to be a red flag producing a Pavlovian response.

[mike_c]

58. LOL-- try mentioning Nader around here...

...for a real demonstration of "Pavlovian response!" Although it has gotten a bit better since 2004. You've been on DU long enough to remember some of that though, IIRC.

[LittleClarkie]

59. I disapprove of the "It's Nader's fault we have Bush" position

He had every right to do as he damned well pleased, running for prez included.

Nevertheless, I no longer see him as the man he once was. I think he's gone a bit crackers, actually.

Even so, how we react is one thing (the internets, doncha know) but how a site that sells itself as a news source should try to reel in the bias a bit. I would, anyway, if it were my site.

[blm]

62. Kerry's course at that point was to stabilize Iraq so its people could

take over. Bush's course was always to keep the status quo so they could drain the country of its resources.

Kerry's plan also called for NO PERMANENT BASES to prove to the Iraqis that we had no intention of occupying their country. Bush continues to build permanent bases to this day.

So, I guess that you believe that Kerry would would have no exit plan for Iraq because he is just as dumb and greedy as Bush?

See, what invalidates your conclusion is that one would really have to believe that Kerry would have done everything the same as Bush - that IS what stay the course means in this case.

If you think that, then that's just willful blindness on your part.

[ProSense]

15. Here is what he actually said:

Kerry Hits Nail on Head

By Marjorie Cohn t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 04 October 2004

Snip...

John Kerry cut to the heart of the matter when he said during Thursday’s debate with George W. Bush that, "a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn’t have long-term designs on it." Kerry cited the U.S. construction of 14 military bases in Iraq that are said to have "a rather permanent concept to them."

Building these bases belies Bush’s protestations that he has "no ambitions of empire."

Snip...

Yes, as Kerry said, Bush made "a colossal error of judgment" when he invaded Iraq. "I will make a flat statement," Kerry declared during the debate. "The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq." With that promise, John Kerry turned the policy of Team Bush on its head. Kerry was also right on when, responding to Bush’s debate mantra that Kerry sends mixed messages, the Senator said: "You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, ‘You can’t have nuclear weapons,’ but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."

more...

http://www.uncle-scam.com/Breaking/oct-04/to-10-4.pdf#search=\'no%20longterm%20designs%20on%20staying%20in%20Iraq%20John%20Kerry\'

[LittleClarkie]

16. FACTS?! ARE YOU CRAZY!?

Put those things away! You might hurt somebody!

[mike_c]

20. kerrybots seem to have a pretty selective memory about facts....

I'm really pleased that he has changed his mind, but it only takes a couple of minutes with Google to find MANY instances when he refused to call for disengagement in Iraq during the campaign, refused to align himself with the anti-war movement, and in fact said the U.S. should stay the course (see #17 above, excerpt #1) AND maintained that his IWR vote was correct and justified.

[LittleClarkie]

21. What, are you saying he didn't give that speech?

Do tell.

[mike_c]

22. this is a real waste of time....

:banghead:

[LittleClarkie]

26. Don't I know it.

Which is why I'm not taking you all that seriously. I was being factitious.

[WildEyedLiberal]

35. LOL "kerrybots"

When you don't have shit, you start flinging it.

Then again, this is from a poster who thinks American soldiers are evil, so I'm taking this criticism with a packet of salt.

[LittleClarkie]

44. I prefer Kerry Krishnas myself

Sychophants is good too.

[mike_c]

46. LOL-- its good to keep a sense of humor about all this....

:toast:

[mike_c]

19. see # 17, above....

Kerry seems to have been pretty confused about what he wanted to do in Iraq.

[ProSense]

25. Guess you didn't read the entire speech

I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.

As I said last summer in New York, for Democrats to win America's confidence we must first convince Americans we will keep them safe. You can't do that by avoiding the subjects of national security, foreign policy and military preparedness. Nor can we let our national security agenda be defined by those who reflexively oppose any U.S. military intervention anywhere...who see U.S. power as mostly a malignant force in world politics...who place a higher value on achieving multilateral consensus than necessarily protecting our vital interests. Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. I believe they deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold, progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and the imminent but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decades, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

This Administration's approach to the menace of loose nuclear materials is strong on rhetoric, but short on execution. It relies primarily and unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations, which can be defeated if they are found, but will not be deterred by our military might.

http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=189831

[LittleClarkie]

30. Some have already formed their conclusions on Kerry, and as they say:

"A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking"

[mike_c]

36. I read the entire speech....

The focus of rhetoric among Kerry apologists seems to never quit shifting. The speech I linked and the excerpt I provided were in response to the previous comment that "Kerry never said stay the course." Clearly, he did. That's all I meant to demonstrate. The remaining excerpts were about his broader philosophy once the war was on-- he repeatedly advocated "staying until the job is done" (paraphrased from memory-- if you want to do dueling google searches we can do that, but I suspect you know as well as I do that Kerry did advocate precisely that during the campaign). At any rate, I did not link to discuss the merits of that speech, in which Kerry said some things that I agreed with, as well as many that I disagreed with, e.g. affirmation that Iraq had active WMD programs and stockpiles-- I linked it only to provide the quote the previous poster had apparently forgotten.

[ProSense]

41. Kerry never ever said stay the course.

His earlier withdrawal position didn't give a set date because the situation on was different. The change is now he's giving an exact date. His words (link to deabte transcript in post 25):

KERRY: The time line that I've set out -- and again, I want to correct the president, because he's misled again this evening on what I've said. I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months.

And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it.

As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them.

When you guard the oil ministry, but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, "Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil."

Now, the problem is that they didn't think these things through properly. And these are the things you have to think through.

What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders.

You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But you've also got to show that you are prepared to bring the rest of the world in and share the stakes.

I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.

You post spin and MSM articles with paraphrased and twisted quotes. Kerry never said stay the course, He didn't in his speech before the war, during the debate or any time since.

[mike_c]

43. are you BLIND? It's in bold type in the first paragraph...

...in #17-- that's from Kerry's speech on the senate floor: "...we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right."

Now let's argue over whether he really meant "stay the course" or whether that was code speak for something entirely different. Sheesh.

:banghead:

[LittleClarkie]

47. "must be prepared to stay the course"

Is a different stance than merely saying "stay the course" I should think. If circumstances warrant, that is. No code speak. But I do think it important to look at the context and at what he's said before and after.

[mike_c]

52. only when they make patently ridiculous statements like...

..."Kerry never ever said stay the course" down thread of the quote itself. I mean come on-- I've been accused of running a disinfo campaign in this thread and I've provided links and quotes to back up each of my comments, only to have DUers respond with comments like that one. The DUer apparently didn't pay attention and posted a knee-jerk comment and yes, it elicted an equally reflexive frustrated response from me. Imagine if I said "LittleClarkie has not responded in this thread" in response to one of your posts.

[ProSense]

53. As my response states, you took the statement out of context. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

55. But I haven't.

It was all a dream...

;)

[ProSense]

48. Are you all right? OK, I take it back he strung those words together.

He was talking about involving the international community in the rebuilding effort, not fighting a war.

If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.

The challenge is great: An administration which made nation building a dirty word needs to develop a comprehensive, Marshall-type plan, if it will meet the challenge. The President needs to give the American people a fairer and fuller, clearer understanding of the magnitude and long-term financial cost of that effort.

The international community's support will be critical because we will not be able to rebuild Iraq singlehandedly. We will lack the credibility and the expertise and the capacity. It is clear the Senate is about to give the President the authority he has requested sometime in the next days. Whether the President will have to use that authority depends ultimately on Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has a choice: He can continue to defy the international community, or he can fulfill his longstanding obligations to disarm. He is the person who has brought the world to this brink of confrontation.

[LittleClarkie]

51. Using context. It's a good thing.

I think I just channelled Martha Stewart. Ick.

[mike_c]

54. he was affirming that the war was against Saddam Hussein...

...in his view and not "the Iraqi people," and yes, he did note the need to rebuild Iraq afterward. Do you agree that Kerry opposed withdrawing from Iraq from the invasion until at least November 2004? My saying that is what started this conversation.

It's late and I'm still in my office. Everyone else went home a couple of hours ago. I'm gonna go get dinner. Peace.

[ProSense]

57. He made the speech (and others) against the war before Bush started it n/t

[Canuckistanian]

9. "Failed to win the peace"

He said it over and over in every debate.

[KyuzoGator]

10. Military action must pass a global test.

[KyuzoGator]

13. Our goal should be to reduce terrorism to a criminal nuisance.

[politicasista]

18. kick!

:kick:

[LittleClarkie]

24. Here's something he was right about in 1997

The drug trade is part of the global crime (read terror) issue. Case in point most recently: Afghanistan's poppy trade is going like gangbusters.

[LittleClarkie]

27. Here's another one from 1997

“Though this country will continue to face danger from religious extremists, homegrown
anarchists, and perennial lone-bomber types, they are all in some sense “old news.” The
terrorists of tomorrow will be better armed and organized. {b}It will take only one mega
terrorist event in any of the great cities of the world to change the world in a single day.{/b}
As we shall see, that event could be nuclear or could just as easily occur on the Internet,
but whether our sense of secure well-being ends with a bang or a whimper will not be
the cause of the debate"

Hm. Sound familiar?

[globalvillage]

28. "these guys are the most crooked, lying group I've ever seen." n/t

[Patsy Stone]

31. Too true.

You win. :thumbsup:

[nonconformist]

37. He said they were going to privatize social security

And the wingnuts went ballistic denying it, saying it was "fear mongering". Ha, pot, kettle...

Anyway, sure as shit, shortly after the election they tried to do just that. And not a SINGLE PERSON in the media pointed out this flip flop.

[WildEyedLiberal]

38. The insecurity of our ports

[LittleClarkie]

39. A press release from the campaign about missile defense

ie Star Wars.

My favorite part of it was the comment that this program is what the Bush admin was focusing on instead of the run up to 9/11, while in the meantime Kerry's on the Senate floor talking about what we need to do to fight international terrorism.

An Effective Missile Defense

“Despite this administration's near obsession with missile defense, the greatest threat facing our homeland comes from terrorists who would do us harm. In the months preceding 9/11 George W. Bush and his closest advisors were preoccupied with missile defense and their misunderstanding about the threats we face continues to this day. John Kerry believes an effective missile defense is crucial to our national security strategy. But John Kerry also understands the importance of facing our most pressing national security threats while continuing to develop and deploy a national missile defense which we know will work.” - Kerry National Security Adviser Rand Beers.

WHO DOESN’T “UNDERSTAND THE THREATS OF THE 21st CENTURY”?
May 2001 -- Bush Said “Most Urgent Threat” Was Ballistic Missiles.

Bush: “Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some of the World’s least responsible states. Unlike the Cold War, today’s most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life. They seek weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors, and to keep the United States and other responsible nations from helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world.”

May 2001 – Kerry Said “Immediate Threat” was From Terrorists and “Non-State Actors.”
Kerry: “But let me underscore that missile defense will do nothing to address what the Pentagon itself considers a much more likely and immediate threat to the American homeland from terrorists and from nonstate actors, who can quietly slip explosives into a building, unleash chemical weapons into a crowded subway, or send a crude nuclear weapon into a busy harbor.”

Before 9-11, Bush Administration Didn’t Focus on Terrorist Threat, Highlighted Missile Defense
Bush’s Pre-9/11 Focus on Missile Defense Over Terrorism is Widely Recognized. A Washington Post editorial noted that “By now it’s common knowledge that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration's attention was focused not on terrorism but on other national security priorities -- most notably missile defense.”

Rumsfeld Threatened Veto Of Plan To Divert Money From Missile Defense to Terrorism. On September 9, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld threatened to urge a presidential veto of a Senate plan to divert $600 million from missile defense systems to counterterrorism. Instead of anti-terror planning, “the whole Bush national-security team was obsessed with setting up a national system of missile defense.”

Rice Focused On Matters “Other Than Terrorism.” In the months prior to the September 11 attacks, Condoleezza Rice “was usually fixed on matters other than terrorism, for reasons that had to do with her own background, her management style and the unusually close, personal nature of her relationship with Mr. Bush.”

Rice’s Major Foreign Policy Address - Scheduled For 9/11/01 – Was to Focus on Missile Defense, Downplay Terrorist Threat. The Washington Post reported that “on Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address ‘the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday’ -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.” Rice's speech was postponed by the terrorist attacks, and while “it mentioned terrorism” it “did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States.

Two Days Before 9/11, Rice Was Highlighting Missile Defense. “What we’re ready to do is to get serious about the business of dealing with this emergent threat. Ballistic missiles are ubiquitous now. It’s accidental launch, but it is also the fact that this technology rests in the hands of all kinds of irresponsible states.”




KERRY HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THE URGENT THREAT OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
Kerry: “In today’s world, in a non-cold-war world, the greatest threat is a rusty freighter hobbling its way into New York Harbor, or nearby, and has the potential to launch a cruise missile at us, or the greater threat is some group of terrorists assembling in New York the multiple parts of a nuclear weapon and holding us hostage, or, as we saw in Japan with the sarin gas attack, terrorists who want to cripple the community through chemical or biological warfare.”

Kerry Recognizes Missile Defense is only Part of an Effective Defense Strategy. The administration's proposals will now go to Congress, which will debate whether to fund the project. Doubters include Senator John F. Kerry. "National missile defense is only one part of a comprehensive approach to national security, and the Bush administration seems to spend a disproportionate amount of time, attention, and money trying to make it law," the Massachusetts Democrat said yesterday.

As President, Kerry Will Build a Realistic, Effective Defense Against Ballistic Missiles. Regarding a sensible missile defense system, John Kerry has stated: “I support the development of an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers. If there is a real potential of a rogue nation firing missiles at any city in the United States, responsible leadership requires that we make our best, most thoughtful efforts to defend against that threat. The same is true of accidental launch. If it were to happen, no leader could ever explain not having chosen to defend against the disaster when doing so made sense. I opposed the Bush Administration’s decisions to proceed with early deployment of a national missile defense system and to abrogate the ABM treaty, destroying an important arms control achievement while also doing damage to important international relationships.”

Kerry Will Streamline Large Weapons Programs Such as Missile Defense To Pay For Larger Army—Will Add 40,000 Troops to Active Duty, Not Iraq. John Kerry will add 40,000 troops to the active duty Army to prevent and prepare for other possible conflicts. Kerry will also emphasize electronics, advanced sensors and munitions in a ‘systems of systems’ approach to transformation, reducing total expenditures on missile defense, and further reforming the acquisition process, this proposal can be made budget neutral.

Kerry Wants to Shape National Defense to Defend Against Modern Battles—Not Unproven Missile Defense Systems. “Instead of over-relying on weapons and tactics to fight the battles of the past, against enemies out in the desert or on open seas, we must build mobile and modern forces to prevail against terrorists hiding in caves or in the heart of a city. We must broaden our capabilities to create a military ready for any mission, from armored battle to urban warfare to homeland security. Yes, we must invest in missile defense. But not at the cost of other pressing priorities. We cannot afford to spend billions to deploy an unproven missile defense system. Not only is it not ready, but it’s the wrong priority for a war on terror where the enemy strikes with a bomb in the back of a truck, or a vial of anthrax in a briefcase.”