John Kerry: Implosion Overdue John Kerry: Implosion Overdue

By: Rachel Marsden

It seems that the Democratic Party shares something in common with the "foreign leaders" that John Kerry claims are supporting him in his Presidential bid: both enjoy watching someone strap on a bomb and blow themselves up from time to time. First it was Howard Dean, whose runaway mouth eventually hit a major speed-bump -- "yeeeeahhhhh!" -- and abruptly grinded to a halt. Now, it's John Kerry, who only seems able to stop talking long enough to change his feet, while shooting a few holes in them in the process.

According to the most recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, if an election were held today, President Bush would topple Kerry, 51% to 47%. That's quite a change from just over one month ago when Kerry was beating Bush by a whole 12 percent (55% to 43%). The simple fact is now that primary season is over and a Democratic candidate has been defined, voters are starting to pay a bit more attention to the man who is set to challenge Bush for the presidency in November. And what they're seeing is likely pretty unnerving.

Ask anyone on the street -- particularly if they're apathetic or jaded when it comes to politics -- what matters most to them when selecting an elected official. One word will keep coming up: integrity. A steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. Having a set of values or principles and sticking to them. Fifty-seven percent of Americans are convinced that John Kerry has changed his positions on issues for political reasons. 'Nuff said.

I can hear the liberal whining already: "How can you possibly attack John Kerry for lacking integrity when Bush still hasn't found the weapons of mass destruction?" Before you lefties sit down at your computers and fire off more hatemail, consider the following: In a January 2003 speech at Georgetown University, Kerry said, "[We] need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm."

It's possible that the intelligence may have been wrong on the Iraq weapons issue, although we likely won't know the truth for awhile. If it was up to Kerry -- who has proposed legislation over the past decade to gut the intelligence budget by billions of dollars -- it most certainly WOULD have been wrong. The question to consider for the purpose of the upcoming election is not whether the weapons existed. Everyone on both sides of the political spectrum, accepted the fact that they did exist, that Hussein was in possession of them, and that he was ready to use them or sell them off to terrorists. The question is: Who was ready to act on the information that Hussein posed an imminent threat which, if ignored, could very well have led to another 9/11-scale disaster? Fortunately, Bush wasn't willing to let the security of the nation rest solely on the slim possibility that an unbalanced, fanatical madman may experience a sudden rush of warm n' fuzzies towards the country whose president he once tried to knock off, bada-bing style. He made a swift leadership decision, and he stuck with it.

Contrast that with what John Kerry has been up to: hopping back and forth across the fence, just like he did when he voted both for and against the first Gulf War. In October 2002, Kerry voted in favour of the Iraq war, and in favour of the US taking military action against Saddam Hussein without requiring a permission slip from the United Nations. But ever since, Kerry has been denouncing the very actions he voted for, and has been criticizing Bush for acting "unilaterally" and for "walking alone". I suppose this is an admission by John Kerry that when he "walks beside you" on an issue, you're essentially on your own--because you never know if, somewhere along the way, he'll come across a fence that he'll want to hop. And there really are very few fences that John Kerry has taken a disliking to--including the one that the Israeli government is building to protect its people from Palestinian terrorist attacks. But that was only after he denouced the fence first, calling it a "barrier to peace".

A recent Bush/Cheney TV ad features Kerry outlining his position on a supplemental appropriation bill to boost funding for US troops in Iraq: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." Perhaps Kerry figures that if he lifts up his hand twice during roll call, he gets two votes? Guess he'd better raise it a bit higher next time on the "yea" vote, since they didn't happen to catch that one for the record.

Bush should run a series of ads that start off with the requisite, "I'm President Bush and, man oh man, do I EVER approve of THIS message!" -- and then just run some footage of John Kerry letting 'er rip with his greatest flip-flopping hits. This guy will deliver himself a knockout punch in no time.

And to all you left-wingers out there who are still convinced that Bush "misled" you on the WMD issue, John Kerry has an important message for you: don't vote for him. In a Los Angeles Times article in January 2003, Kerry instructed you: "If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me." Quite possibly, it's the best advice ever to come out of John Kerry's mouth.