Kerry’s Security Credentials
A Long History of Wrong National Security Decisions

National survival may well rest on the election decision made on November 2, 2004. We are a country at war; we have a wartime leader (George W. Bush) who is committed to fighting the war against global terrorism on enemy soil, not ours.

The crucial question all of us will have to answer in November is which administration would be best qualified to fight the war against global terrorism? A Bush Administration or a Kerry Administration? All other issues involved in the upcoming election pale in comparison to getting the answer to this question right.  

Reviewing John Kerry’s National Security Credentials
Commentary by: Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)  

Kerry’s National Security Record.  As we approach the national election, it is essential that each voting citizen take time to review the credentials of John Kerry for the position of Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. The Commander-in-Chief is responsible for U.S. National Security and by definition is the leader of the war against global terrorism.

National survival may well rest on the election decision made on November 2, 2004. We are a country at war facing a grave threat; we have a wartime leader (George W. Bush) who is committed to fighting the war against global terrorism on enemy soil, not ours. The crucial question all of us will have to answer in November is which administration would be best qualified to fight the war against global terrorism? A Bush Administration or a Kerry Administration? All other issues involved in the upcoming election pale in comparison to getting the answer to this question right. 

As you review Kerry’s national security record,  consider who would likely be in charge of the war against global terrorism should a Kerry Administration come into power. Who would be the guiding light? Would it be Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Tom Daschel, Nancy Pelosi, Jane Fonda, pacifists, appeasers, Left-Wing anti-war, anti-military, anti-Patriot Act, anti-intelligence gathering people and the United Nations - to include the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese? The above represent the front line players of the Left-Wing Democrat Party.

John Kerry has a record of thinking like the people and groups above. Trusting him with U.S. National Security makes the same sense as putting the peace movement in charge of our war against global terrorism. Such a decision would be insane; such a decision would lead to disaster; and such a decision could ultimately cost millions of our citizens’ lives. Let’s now review John Kerry’s national security resume for the Commander-in-Chief position.   

Kerry’s Gulf War I and II National Security Decisions:      

In Gulf War I, the United States and its coalition partners achieved the limited objective of removing a hostile invading force (Iraq) from a sovereign territory (Kuwait). John Kerry was against Gulf War I (Operation Desert-Storm in 1991). Had John Kerry’s national security perspective prevailed, U.S. National Security would have been severely undermined; the world’s oil supply would have been jeopardized and the entire region of the Middle East destabilized and thrown into chaos. The whole world got this decision right – kick Iraq out of Kuwait; John Kerry got it wrong.

In Gulf War II (Operation Iraqi Freedom), John Kerry was willing to jeopardize the lives of our soldiers by voting against the bill to fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan ($87 billion for body armor, vital equipment; ammunition; fuel, spare parts and monies critical to winning the war against terrorism). John Kerry voted to commit our troops to war - then withdrew his support - after our soldiers were engaged in battle. The U.S Commander-In-Chief doesn’t abandon our troops on the battlefield but John Kerry did! He got it wrong.

Kerry’s Decisions on National Security would have Cost Thousands of U.S. Lives.  Beyond John Kerry’s non-support for Gulf Wars I and II, John Kerry has repeatedly opposed major weapon systems vital to winning the War on Terror and sustaining a strong National Defense. Had John Kerry’s votes prevailed in the Senate, the U.S. would not have been able to fight the war on terrorism - without the loss of thousands of our soldiers. One wrong decision about a weapon system may result in the loss of hundreds even thousands of our servicemen, servicewomen and civilians. The Patriot Missile system illustrates this point. During Iraq War II, people may remember Iraqi Missiles inbound to Kuwait, warning sirens going off and people praying they wouldn’t be hit. What happened? Our Patriot Missiles took those inbound missiles out and saved the lives of our soldiers and Kuwaiti citizens. John Kerry’s perspective on the Patriot Missile (had it prevailed) could have resulted in thousands of lives being lost.

Kerry’s Antagonism to Intelligence Gathering. Outside of John Kerry’s non-support for Gulf War I, non-support of the troops in Gulf War II, and his record of non-support for national defense, John Kerry also demonstrated non-support for the Intelligence component of national security. After the first World Trade Center bombing, John Kerry sponsored Senate Bill 1826 and later introduced Senate Bill 1290. These Senate Bills would have taken billions from our Intelligence budgets, further degrading U.S. capabilities to gather intelligence on terrorist threats. Just as with national defense, John Kerry has a well documented record of non-support for the Intelligence gathering component of national security. Had John Kerry’s perspectives on national security prevailed, additional terrorist attacks may have already occurred in the United States.

Kerry, U.S. National Security and the United Nation. It is of great concern that John Kerry would take action to transfer major responsibilities for fighting World War III (the war against global terrorism) to the United Nations. America must make a choice: does the U.S. stand with its allies to fight the War on Terror and continue to engage the terrorists on their soil or does the U.S. turn over the responsibility for leading the War on Terror to the U.N.?

Given the anti-American sentiment of the U.N.; its abysmal track record in handling Iraq security issues; wide-scale corruption in the U.N. Iraqi Oil-for-Food Program, (and many other issues), putting U.S. national security in U.N. hands would be a great mistake; however, the U.N. can be helpful in some well defined areas.

John Kerry voted for Gulf War II with the idea that the U.N. would make the final decision. Given the different economic and political agendas of the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese (and corruption via the U.N. Iraqi Oil-for-Food Program), meant that there was virtually a 100% probability that the U.N. would not take any action against Iraq – no matter how long the U.S was willing to wait. John Kerry’s approach for protecting U.S citizens was to do nothing to change the dynamics in the Middle East - the terrorist breeding grounds, the killings, the tortures and the rape rooms would still be in operation – along with the funding of terrorist activities.

Kerry’s Probable Post 9/11 Actions.  Given John Kerry’s willingness to subordinate major national security matters to the United Nations, it is probable John Kerry (post 9/11) would have put the U.N. in charge of deciding the U.S.’s next move against global terrorism—in which case the U.N. would (even now) be debating what to do. The Result: Afghanistan would still be under control of the Taliban; Iraq would still be under the control of Saddam Hussein; and cities in the United States may have come under attack on multiple occasions as terrorist organizations were further emboldened by our meek responses. Thousands of citizens might now be dead. Further, it would not be surprising if we were negotiating with al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to preclude further attacks on our cities.  Trusting a Kerry Administration along with the United Nations to engage the fight against global terrorism would put our country at great peril. 

John Kerry has gotten national security issues wrong so many times that he - and the people brought into his administration - would represent a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States and our survival. When terrorists attack our country (and sooner or later they will) John Kerry’s response would likely be twofold: (1) visit the United Nations to debate the attack and get agreement on what to do about it – possibly a resolution condemning global terrorism and (2) take measures to improve homeland security. The likely focus would not be how best to protect the citizens of this great nation but, instead, how not to offend the United Nations and the global community by our actions.

John Kerry would want to avoid any action that might further provoke the terrorists. So the John Kerry policy for dealing with terrorists: let’s give the problem to the U.N. and then wait and see what the terrorists do next! Good luck! I’m voting for President Bush. John Kerry as Commander-In-Chief would be a great insult to the Armed Forces of the United States but, more importantly, our national survival would hang in the balance.  How many times does John Kerry have to get it wrong on critical national security issues before our citizens understand that a Kerry Administration would be highly dangerous at the helm of U.S National Security?

The crucial question each of us needs to answer is:  which administration would be best qualified to fight the war against global terrorism? A Bush Administration or a Kerry Administration?  I’m voting for a Bush Administration.  A Kerry Administration (given its likely composition of pacifists, appeasers, Left-Wing anti-war, anti-military, anti-Patriot Act, anti-intelligence groups, etc.) would be nothing less than a catastrophe waiting to happen. See why Kerry’s position on Iraq is anybody’s guess. See Bush-Cheney 04 AD, Click Here.

For those interesting in entertaining positive outcomes to our war on global terrorism, I highly recommend the book: “ENDGAME – The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror” by Lt. General Thomas McInerney and Maj. General Paul Vallely. Also, if interested in understanding media manipulation, read Journalistic Fraud by Bob Kohn. 

John Wambough is a retired Air Force colonel with 28 years of service. During his career in the Air Force, Colonel Wambough flew F-105 and F-111 tactical fighter aircraft. His combat tour in Southeast Asia was in the F-105s with the 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron. He was a Fighter Squadron Commander (F – 111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom) and later Group Commander at the same base. He served on the Air Staff and Joint Staff in the Pentagon -- and attended the National War College. He was head of the Joint Studies Group at Tactical Command Headquarters, Langley AFB, Virginia and completed his service in the Air Force as Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group and Commandant of the United States Air Force Air Ground Operations School, Hurlburt Field, Florida. He retired in March 1990 – having served 28 years in the Air Force. Contact Wambough at j-bwambough@cox.net

Left-Wing Democrats Kerry and Gore Allege “Catastrophic” Bush National Security Policies
by: Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) 

Be mindful that if Left-Wing Democrats had been in charge post 9/11, none of the below successes would have ever happened. (Three days into the Afghanistan War, the Left was calling it a Quagmire and doom and gloom scenarios were being manufactured hourly). However, no fear, had Kerry been President, he would have taken his terrorist problem to the United Nations; the U.N. would still be passing meaningless resolutions; negotiations with the Taliban Regime would be ongoing; the economic relationships the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese had with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq would have remained in tack; and the corruption of the U.N. Oil for Food Program would have never been exposed. In the meantime, the terrorists would have been able to devote their full energies to further attacks on the United States.

Also, Kerry would likely be telling the American people that he was working the terrorist problem harder and smarter with the International Community than any Republican Administrative. No fear, fighting terrorism would have been the top priority of a Kerry Administration—just like it was in the Clinton-Gore Administration—but no action.  Wars are bad for poll numbers and especially for Democrats—given their political philosophy of anti war, anti military, anti intelligence; anti national defense; anti-etc.; plus their well-known wartime indecisiveness and incapacitation caused by their perspectives of doom and gloom.

Below are some of the results of President Bush’s so-called “Catastrophic” policies. These results show what can happen when courage, strategic thinking, and the National Security of United States is put above courting polls and political popularity—nationally and internationally. Think about this question: What is the future of our country if we chose to systemically take apart the leaders that act to protect us in favor of those who are willing (for political power) to subvert us?  Here are results of an Armed Forces and a Commander-in-Chief that went after terrorists and terrorist nations to prevent future attacks on the U.S.

 

Eradicated al-Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan; removed the terrorist Taliban regime from power; elections scheduled 2004.

Millions of girls now can go to school in Afghanistan; millions of women have rights they didn’t have with the Taliban regime.

Removed the threat of Saddam Hussein in the Middle East and the national security threat he posed to the United States.

Stopped the torture and mass killings of Iraqis. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s killed by Saddam’s Regime.

Returned sovereignty to the Iraqi people June 2004; national elections scheduled January 2005.  

Introduced democracy to 50 million people. Each soldier that died, was injured or served in the Coalition made this happen. Thank you.

Captured or killed key terrorist leaders; disrupted and seized terrorist finances; destroyed terrorist weapons and training camps.

Fought terrorism on Middle East soil rather than U.S. soil; terrorists were drawn to Iraq instead of the United States.

Liberated millions of children (girls included) and gave millions of new textbooks to students that don’t teach hate.

Liberated millions of women from degrading treatment and established an environment conducive to a better future.

Infused a new dynamic in the Middle East of human rights, freedom, prosperity and hope for millions of people.

Removed the fear of terror and despair for millions of people in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Transformed terrorists breeding grounds (for attacks against the U.S.) to breeding grounds of promise and hope. 

Started a Five Point Plan for Iraq’s sovereignty, independence, security, freedom, and prosperity.

The citizens of the United States, our Armed Forces, our Commander-in-Chief  and the Bush Administration should be proud of the above foreign policy, national security and humanitarian successes. Yet, Left-Wing Democrats charge that these results represent “the worst strategic and military miscalculations and mistakes in the history of the United States of America.”  Let me predict that history will side with the President George W. Bush as it did with President Ronald W. Reagan; and not with the pessimism and rage of John Kerry, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi and the mass liberal media—agenda driven—propaganda machine. Click Here The coalition of the Wild-eyed