Flush The John And Hope The B.S. Goes With It
By Brian Yates (07/26/04)
Immediately following the much-anticipated 9/11 report, Democratic nominee for president, Senator John F. Kerry – who, by the way, served in Vietnam – announced that intelligence reforms have been “long overdue” and that if he is elected president he will not waste any time reforming the intelligence services. “Mark my words: If I am elected president and there has still not been sufficient progress on these issues, I will not wait a single day more,” he dryly announced, “I will lead.”
Kerry also said that the report was a call for Democrats and Republicans to produce bipartisan solutions. “This is not a time for bickering…not a time for politics. This is a time to come together. This is a time for bipartisan solutions. And this is a time to act – now,” Kerry said right before blasting President Bush for failing to make reforms in handling the threat of terrorism.
For once, Kerry is right; now is the time to act. With the national security of the United States at stake, it is absolutely imperative that we immediately begin to revamp and restore our intelligence gathering services. It would seem, however, that Kerry didn’t actually mean what he said about acting quickly. The presumptive nominee – who, by the way, served in Vietnam – will be taking vacation along with the rest of Congress. The Washington Times reports that, “Congress will begin acting on some of the recommendations in the September 11 commission’s report when lawmakers return from summer recess.” While John McCain has called for a special session to deal with the report, Kerry doesn’t seem to be chomping at the bit to actually do the job to which he was elected. Of course, since the Vietnam veteran-turned-Jane-Fonda-accomplice has missed 89% of Senate votes since beginning his campaign, it would appear that he hasn’t been chomping at the bit in quite some time.
Clearly Kerry does not mean what he says about acting quickly, but what of his promises to reform intelligence services? The Kerry record on intelligence matters should concern any citizen apprehensive over national security.
In 1994, Kerry introduced an amendment on the Senate floor that would have cut the intelligence budget by $1 billion. His amendment was so dangerous that was blasted by then-Intelligence Committee chairman Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) and Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI). The Kerry amendment failed by a decisive 75-20 vote, and was even rejected by senators such as Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd.
Undeterred by his colleagues’ rejection of his proposed cuts, in 1995 Kerry again attempted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. These cuts were again rejected, again by even the liberal likes of Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, and Barbara Boxer. Kerry also supported slashing the FBI’s budget by $80 million in 1995.
During the 1990’s, Kerry served eight years on the Senate Intelligence committee. The man who claims that he will lead when it comes to reforming intelligence failed to do so during his term on the committee. He proposed zero legislation that would either increase intelligence funding or reform the services themselves. On the other hand, he proposed three budget cuts totaling $7.5 billion. Leadership, Kerry style.
In 1997 he asked his fellow senators – apparently he actually did visit Capital Hill in those days – “Now that [the Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow?” (Anyone else sensing, flip – flop?)
The presumptive nominee’s senatorial record would certainly seem to reject his claims of leading the charge to reform intelligence matters, but another indication as to Kerry’s views on national security could be gleaned from the advisors he surrounds himself with.
Former Clinton national security advisor Sandy Berger had to quit the Kerry campaign after it was disclosed that he stole – sorry, inadvertently removed – highly classified documents from the National Archives. Kerry though, claims that Berger has “tirelessly served this nation with honor and distinction.” Trying to smuggle codeword-level documents out of a guarded and secure room in your pants is honorable? Reportedly, Berger was under consideration to be secretary of state in a Kerry administration.
Kerry is claiming that he knew nothing of the criminal investigation into Berger; a claim that rings rather hollow after Bill Clinton said he has known of the probe for several months. “We were all laughing about it…all of us who’ve been in his office have always found him buried beneath papers,” said Clinton, who also said that the investigation was a “nonstory.” It’s good to see just how seriously the former president takes major breaches of national security. And does anybody believe that Clinton and his aides all knew about it, but no one had bothered to tell Kerry?
Another Kerry advisor is former ambassador Joe Wilson, who has been exposed as a lying fraud. After a year of being the centerpiece of a vast media orgy, Wilson’s claim that Bush’s 16-words were false was completely discredited by a Senate Intelligence Committee report. Kerry has yet to comment on Wilson’s year of lies, and yet to remove him as an advisor to the campaign.
In short, Kerry claims to stand for a strengthened intelligence community while spending a career attempting to gut spy services; he blasts President Bush for “lying” about the Iraq threat, while keeping as campaign advisors a man who has been caught lying about Iraq to smear Bush, defending a former advisor who smuggled classified documents out of the National Archives in his pants. Flip. Flop.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Brian Yates
