Need help with an LTTE to defend Kerry

[T Roosevelt]

this from one of the Orlando Slantinel's esteemed columnists (Peter Brown) - need to register but hopefully I've posted enough here:

Kerry not weak on defense -- just wrong
Published April 23, 2004

The crucial issue is not whether John Kerry is "soft" on defense, but whether U.S. national security would be at risk with him in the Oval Office.

This is much more than a semantic dispute, and it lies at the heart of the debate about whose worldview should prevail.

Kerry wants to link U.S. foreign policy to participation in -- and a willingness to be constrained by -- international organizations, such as the United Nations.

<snip>

Efforts by Kerry and his minions to distract attention from his record, and label the questions about it as attacks on his patriotism, are horse hockey:

* Kerry's willingness to give U.N. members greater voice in U.S. foreign policy is wrong for America, unless one thinks the views and values in Paris should carry the same weight as those in Peoria.

* Kerry's opposition to forcing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991 was, in hindsight, especially shortsighted and would have been disastrous.

<snip>

Dukakis lost because he was out of sync with middle-class voters, especially on defense matters, and did not fit their definition of a strong leader. He, like Kerry, favored lower defense spending and was less supportive of using military force to protect U.S. interests than was his GOP opponent.

McGovern, who flew bombers in World War II, was, like Kerry, a war hero, yet voters rejected his foreign policy as hopelessly naïve.

<snip>

My response (still in work):

Neither weak nor wrong
I am disappointed that a columnist such as Mr Brown would continue to perpetuate the misperceptions regarding Senator Kerry's position on defense.

{CIA and Pentagon budget cuts - NRO slush fund; Republicans favored larger cuts}

{Reagan's approach alone did not win the cold war, though we are still paying for his spending excessses}

{hindsight is a wonderful thing, though I remember the nuclear threats of the 80s quite well, and there's not necessarily a correlation between Kerry's nuclear freeze stance and the internal collapse of the Soviet Union}

{postwar funding vote was admirable when one understands that Kerry supported an alternate bill that would have asked the wealthy to sacrifice some of their tax cuts to pay for our troops, something that Mr Bush has not done. Instead, the bill has been passed on to our children.

Only the neoconservatives are associating Kerry with the spectres of McGovern and Dukakis, which until recently had been used only in reference to Howard Dean.

{McGovern lost not because of a perceived weakness on national security, but because he stated up front that taxes would need to rise.}

And remember that Dukakis lost because he didn't fight back; instead he allowed the Republicans to define him. Kerry is no Dukakis as much as Mr Brown would have us believe.

The willingness to disregard facts and ignore international opinion to unilaterally wage a preemptive war on a country that, by facts known today, was not a threat to us, does not equate to strength in foreign policy. Senator Kerry recognizes the Constitution, and the need for international cooperation in the effort to bring terrorists to justice (where IS Osama anyway?). Kerry also understands that the United States, in order to be secure militarily, must be secure economically.

Rather than attack Kerry through misdirections, perhaps Mr Brown should spell out exactly what qualifies Mr Bush to defend this country. That will be a much more difficult challenge.

[sangh0]

1. Your LTTE is too long

It's needs to be short and punchy. Unfortunately, that means that you can't address every point and refute every inaccuracy. I suggest you refute two points

1) Kerry will NOT give the UN or any of it's members a veto over the US policy (You can use his statements from last Sunday's Meet the Press interview where he clearly refutes this)

2) The references to Dukakis and Mondale, like the distortion that Kerry will let the UN veto US policy, is another example of how the Repukes lie, and why they shouldn't be trusted with the White House

[T Roosevelt]

2. Yeah, I know it's too long

looking for help on what to address and what to leave out. As it stands it's about 50 words too long (of course that's without cleaning up the grammar).

And I still need to refute the $87 billion vote because that's the main thrust of the * ad.

[sangh0]

3. Go to Kerry's website

He has a response for the $87 billion vote

[T Roosevelt]

4. Updated LTTE

Neither weak nor wrong
I am disappointed that a columnist such as Mr Brown would continue to perpetuate the misperceptions regarding Senator Kerry's position on defense.

The postwar funding vote was admirable when one understands that Kerry supported an alternate bill that would have asked the wealthy to sacrifice some of their tax cuts to pay for our troops, something that Mr Bush has not done.

Kerry stated his position regarding the UN clearly on Meet the Press (4/18):

"In fact, I say the following and I say it very clearly, I will never cede the security of the United States to any institution and I will never cede our security to any other country. No country will have a veto over what we need to do to protect ourselves."

Only the neoconservatives are associating Kerry with the spectres of McGovern and Dukakis, which until recently had been used only in reference to Howard Dean.

McGovern lost not because of a perceived weakness on national security, but because he proposed to raise taxes. Dukakis lost because he allowed the Republicans to define him. Kerry is no Dukakis, as much as Mr Brown would have us believe.

Disregarding facts and ignoring international opinion to invade a country that was not a threat does not equate to strength in foreign policy.

Rather than attack Kerry through misdirections, perhaps Mr Brown should spell out exactly what qualifies Mr Bush to defend this country. That will be a much more difficult challenge.