When discussing the development of a nuclear bunker busting bomb during the debate Thursday, John Kerry intoned, “not this president”. Well, given Kerry's vote against every major weapons system now being used in the war on terror (Isn't that the dog that didn't bark Thursday?), is it really all that surprising the he would be against this one?
The Defense Department saw a need for this type of weapon when they were frustrated finding a conventional one that would burrow deep enough to destroy Osama’s and Saddam’s buried defense infrastructure. If we have trouble with a weapon for Afghanistan, which is not particularly well or long developed technically in such things, and in Iraq, where the terrain is particularly in our favor, how are we going to fair in the rugged terrain of North Korea where the North has been working decades on burying its weapons systems and command and control assets?
Kerry’s position is one of moral equivalence. He believes that the US can no more be trusted with such weapons than the Mullahs in Iran. That is sort of like saying that the sheriff has no more right to have a gun than the bank robbers. In Kerry’s world the sheriff has less of a right to a gun – canceling the bunker buster - while he would help put guns in the hands of the robbers – giving Iran nuclear fuel.
Rove is hammering "the global test" right now but, he will have an ad up before the next debate that list all of the weapons systems that Kerry has voted against, showing how they are being used in the war on terror and ending with the tag line, "Now John Kerry wants to tie our hands against North Korea." Or, “John Kerry trusts Iran with nukes more than his own country.”
No comments:
Post a Comment