Kerry Record Indefensible

Rosen: Kerry Record Indefensible
By Mike Rosen
September 10, 2004

Perhaps you're familiar with the latest smoke screen from the Kerry campaign and his apologists in the liberal media. It goes something like this: "How can you say that John Kerry is weak on national defense? He was against some of the same weapons systems that Dick Cheney opposed when he was Secretary of Defense." This is the hoary tactic of extracting a pound of lie from an ounce of truth.
Even Kerry lacks the chutzpah to run for president in the post-9/11 world on his voting record as a hawk. Thirty years of Kerry history, including 20 in the U.S. Senate, brands him clearly and accurately as a dove.
Would he have us believe that Dick Cheney is one, too? Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has also opposed some weapons systems. Does that put him in bed - so to speak - with Jane Fonda?
As Secretary of Defense, Cheney dealt with the perennial problem of infinite spending demands in conflict with finite budgets, having to settle for lower quantities than his generals and admirals wanted of this weapons system or that. He had to confront the age-old parochial interests of members of Congress who placed the spoils of winning defense contracts for their states or districts above the nation's national security needs. He opposed some specific weapons systems on their relative demerits. And, most importantly, he served from 1989-1993 during a period of military demobilization after the fall of the Soviet Union, while our country reaped the so-called "peace dividend."
The essential difference between Cheney and Kerry is that Cheney wasn't opposed to defense spending in principle. Kerry's opposition was ideological. While running unsuccessfully for Congress as an anti-war candidate in 1972, Kerry aggressively promised to "vote against military appropriations." In the 1980s he sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," an activist group with the goal of "develop(ing) support for cutting the defense budget." And that's just what he did as a senator during the Reagan defense buildup that led to the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union. Kerry voted against nearly every major weapons system. He also supported the dunderheaded "nuclear freeze," opposed the deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe, voted against the first Gulf War to evict Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait, and advocated post-Cold War cuts in funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. I could go on.
Since Kerry has invited a comparison with Cheney, let's play his game. It's a matter of record. Cheney represented the state of Wyoming in the U.S. House from 1979-1989. Wyoming is a pretty conservative state, so you'd expect its elected representatives to be pro-defense. And you'd be correct. The American Security Council is a pro-defense group in Washington, D.C., once headed by the late Adm. Thomas Moorer, former chief of naval operations. Its National Security Voting Index rates each member of Congress based on the group's analysis of numerous votes on defense issues. Throughout his years in Congress, Dick Cheney racked up a rating of 100 percent.
John Kerry has represented the state of Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate since 1984. The People's Republic of Massachusetts is a very liberal place, the only state to go for George McGovern in the Nixon landslide of 1972. On defense issues, Kerry faithfully reflects his constituents' mentality. Here are his biennial NSVI ratings for his first two Senate terms: 1986: 0 percent, 1988: 0 percent, 1990: 20 percent, 1992: 40 percent, 1994: 10 percent.
Would you like some corroboration? The Center for Security Policy is another Washington think tank whose stated goal is "promoting international peace through American strength." Analyzing more than 75 key votes over the past decade, the center gave Kerry one of the lowest rankings in the Senate. In 1995, Kerry's rating was 5 percent; in 1997 it was 0 percent. From 1998-2002, Kerry's rating "soared" to 25 percent, perhaps as he contemplated his presidential run and wanting to shore up his image as a neo-hawk.
America finds itself at war with radical Islamist terrorists. In this election, the nation wants a wartime president.
John Kerry realizes this. So he's buried his anti-war activism, his public appearances with Hanoi Jane and his 20-year Senate voting record. He's dug up his once discarded ribbons and is running on his four months of combat service in 'Nam. "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty!"
It might as well be Michael Moore.