Kerry “Won”??

I have taken a few days to gather my thoughts about the debate between Senator Kerry and President Bush last Thursday. Not surprisingly, Senator Kerry was declared the “winner” and the Democratic spin machine is in high gear to generate some kind of traction for Kerry going into the home stretch of the 2004 election. Let me offer my own personal POV of the debate.

Yes, I will give Senator Kerry the “win” for style. He seemed polished, confident, eager and in command. And, it appears I am in good company on this account as the media, the DNC and most Republicans grant that Kerry won the style battle. And, all polls since the debate follow the same line of reason proclaiming loudly in both headline and news story that Kerry won the first round.

However, an interesting little tidbit buried within the polls is the fact that President Bush won the night on substance. The vast majority of people believe President Bush will do a better job protecting us, a better job on the war in Iraq and a better job fighting the war on terrorism. Hummmmmm, why not headlines proclaiming “Bush’s tough policy on war on terror leads to debate win!”

I find I am stunned that style takes such precedence over substance in the debate arena. How will style protect me, my family and my country from the next terror attack? How will style assure the Iraqi people they will have a chance to taste true freedom in their lifetime? How will style insure that the animals that killed 3,000 Americans, thousands world wide, and hundreds of children in Russia will be brought to justice? How will style insure that our military is well trained and equipped? How will style put the fear of God into the soul of the terrorists seeking to kill any and all that refuse to bend to their will?

So where does John Kerry intend to lead the United States in the event he is elected?

First, it appears he is not interested in leading at all but is interested instead in discourse and debate. He is interested in convening a summit of world leaders to let them know they can once again do business with Iraq and that they are now expected to bleed at least 50% of the blood for a free Iraq. Of course, the recent and very public pronouncements by France and Germany that they have no interest in supplying combat troops seems to not have been heard by Senator Kerry.

Future threats to the US will be handled much more appropriately. First, they will be run through “President” Kerry’s “global test”. I will not hop on the train teasing him about this test, I realize it was simply a poorly phrased response. However, it is very obvious that what this means is that he will FIRST consider how he will be able to defend his actions to the world and then act accordingly. I would just like to know just what US position has the world embraced of late? Certainly not our actions in Iraq, or many of our actions in Afghanistan, or our support of Israel, or our peace plan for the Palestinians, or our development of a missile defense system, or our decision not to sign Kyoto, or our decision not to enter into the International Criminal Court, or our resistance to a global internet tax, to name just a few positions that have raised the hackles of the international community.

Will “President” Kerry now reverse course on these issues just because they are unpopular with the global community even though virtually all are in the best interest of the US?

I am comforted by his assurance that he will RESPOND to any attack aggressively. Unfortunately, given that Al Qaeda has stated their goal is 4 MILLION American dead, I find I am a little dismayed this must happen FIRST before a response can be launched.

As for the war in Iraq, just how would “President” Kerry act? First, this war obviously does not come close to passing the global test. While he clearly states he would finish the job, the right way, he offers little detail. Obviously, he would expand the coalition forces. The only problem with that is that reluctant allies of the past show no signs of releasing troops to the cause. And, the coalition of the “bribed and coerced”, after being so completely insulted by “President” Kerry could hardly be expected to up their troop or support levels. In fact, after the able assistance of his sister campainging against Prime Minister Howard of Austrailia, PM Howard may well be out of office and Austrailia's forces extracted from Iraq even before the November elections occur. A definite "boost" to our efforts in Iraq!

How about the governing council within Iraq and interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi? Kerry advisor Lockhart called Allawi a puppet. Does this mean that “President” Kerry would first remove Allawi, install someone acceptable to the global community and then finish the war? (How about Saddam?) What kind of working relationship will he be able to have with this “puppet”?

Just what kind of global involvement within Iraq by the global community would meet with “President” Kerry’s approval? Fortunately, we have recent history to look to for some kind of answer. In the summer of 1990, Saddam invaded his neighbor to the south, Kuwait. And, much to his credit, President George H. Bush forged a broad coalition that involved most of our current critics that successfully expelled Saddam from Kuwait. A masterful stroke of both statesmanship and military might – that still DID NOT PASS Senator Kerry’s global test because he voted against Gulf War I. The historical reality of a "President" Kerry is that there has not been, in the past 40 years, a global conflict worthy of the involvment of US ground troops.

History does provide an insight into a “President” Kerry’s world view. And, rather unsurprisingly, it is VERY consistent. In fact, one could say it is a “stylish” approach and can be traced back to his earliest speeches.

His graduation speech at Yale has been described as very anti-war, which was in style then. However, with his political life still before him, it was stylish to check the old military box so he enlisted in the Naval Reserve. During his “tour” in Nam, it was again stylish to see a bit of combat and certainly a style requirement to slap a few medals on the old uniform. However, his conscience was bothering him and fortunately it was still stylish to be anti-war upon his early exit from "the Nam" and his return to "the world". America hungered for a young, stylish anti-war hero who had “been there, done that” and lo-and-behold VVAW was born. New fashion tips required the throwing of medals, the improper wear of the military uniform and the pronouncement that baby killers were running amuck back in Nam, we had to get out!!!

Keeping his eye on the future ball of being President, and checking his presidential style sheet, citizen Kerry pursued his legal career and finally ran for public office. All this running up quite a tab, socialite Kerry married well – twice. All to quite stylish and powerful women. And, in the process, landing a Senate seat that he has occupied over the past 20 years, all the while racking up a political accomplishment sheet guaranteed to consume less space than is found on one of his desk’s post-it notes.

Which leads us back to today. Yes, Senator Kerry did indeed win the debate on style, he has been practicing for it his entire life. However, American and global security depend little on style. Without a core, without a direction, without clear and consistent convictions a “President” Kerry would be at the mercy of a hostile world and a deadly enemy.

I picture our enemies, huddled around the tube in some little hut in Faluja watching CNN and the debate. And I wonder which candidate created fear in their heart, the one who won on style or the one who won on substance?