Sunday, October 03, 2004

Best of the Symposium

Click here for Amazon!The following are highlights from Hugh Hewitt's virtual symposium. Full disclosure: I used a cheat sheet while preparing these items.

In the debate Thursday night, John Kerry attacked President Bush for underwriting research into bunker-busting nuclear weapons. "I'm going to shut that program down," says Kerry, arguing that we are not "sending the right message to places like North Korea" when we are pursuing such programs. Evidently, Kerry believes that if we provide the proper role model by abandoning such efforts, then North Korea and Iran will be more inclined to abandon their own nuclear programs.

Which makes about as much sense as arguing, in the late 1930s, that Britain and the U.S. should have provided a better role model for Nazi Germany by abandoning key weapons programs--say, the Spitfire fighter and B-17 bomber. Could any sane person believe that such actions would have led Germany to moderate its behavior? And today, could any informed person not believe that the leaders of Iran and North Korea are cut from cloth very similar to those from which the Nazi leaders were cut?

Photon Courier

Note to John Kerry: a double standard concerning the possession of nuclear weapons does exist. We are America, we are morally better than nations such as Iran and North Korea, we can be trusted to act responsibly with our nuclear arsenal, and our possession and development of bunker busting nukes in no way spurs the development of nukes by other nations. Iran and North Korea (plus Pakistan, India and Israel) developed nuclear weapons programs for their own national interests, not in reaction to our arsenal...

Is the development of bunker busters going to cause Iran to want nukes even more? Who is kidding whom? America is not a proliferator of nuclear weapons, as he implies in his statement. John Kerry has always opposed America’s nuclear deterrence, as evidenced by his opposition to the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe in response to the Soviet’s movement of nukes into Eastern Europe. John Kerry indicates that he does not trust America’s ownership of nuclear weapons. He is shortsighted on the need for bunker busting nukes as well, as there may be a real military need in the future.

Bill Roggio

Hearing John Kerry's "Not this president!" during the debate gave me flashbacks to childhood. I remembered Jimmy Carter getting nuclear weapon advice from Amy. (In googling to refresh my memory on that, I found this fascinating transcript of an interview with President Carter by Jim Lehrer on the topic of presidential debates). I remembered how President Carter, too, was on the wrong side of nearly every issue. Those were dark times for our country, and I shudder to think of returning to them under a Kerry Administration. Can you imagine having our president, in this age of radical Islamic terrorism, believe that we are in the wrong for wanting to have the best, most precise weapons available?

Palmtree Pundit

My global test for whether to attack our enemies is twofold:

1. Did somebody attack us or are they acting like they are going to attack us?
2. Are they somewhere on the globe?

Two out of two earns a visit from Mr. MOAB and their snake-eating friends. Or a corps or two. Whatever it takes to defeat the threat.

And if it takes using small yield earth penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy a rogue regime’s nuclear arsenal, I do not think we need to feel any guilt at all wielding them as we tell those rogues to give up their nuclear weapons. We are not morally equivalent. I have no patience with somebody who thinks our possession of weapons designed to destroy enemy weapons is the same as an enemy with weapons intended to slaughter civilians...

Brian James Dunn

In all actuality, a new arms race has begun. The race is between the democracies and rogue nations. Democracies need the ability to wipe out rogue nations' secretly located, deeply buried atomic installations. The rogue nations, WHO ARE DICTATORSHIPS that kill thousands if not millions of their own citizens, want to develop and spread these weapons. They may want to give them to terrorist organizations. That must be stopped.

But Kerry, incredibly, views this simplistically. He feels he has no answer if a rogue nation asks us "Why should we stop developing nuclear weapons when the U.S continues to do so?"

The answer of course, is that we are democracies and they are dictatorships. When they become democracies, we will begin to accord them the full rights of states. Until then, they are illegitimate and have no rights.


John Kerry, who opposed Reagan as a Senator, now wants to once again unilaterally disarm ourselves of a critcal weapon while arming one of our most intractable enemies of the last 25 years. His logic must be that if the US "sets the example" of not moving forward with a critical tactical nuclear weapon, then the psychotic mullahs will see our peaceful gesture and reciprocate. WTF?


When asked what is the greatest threat facing us, he replied "nuclear proliferation". Not terrorism, not WMD in general, not even al Qaeda or Osama himself. And he was careful to say that Iraq was a "grand distraction" from the real war in Afghanistan. But all of that is beside the point.

No, the War on Terror is not the greatest threat to us. Not Islamic extremists who want to slaughter each of our children in the name of "divine justice". Not WMD in the hands of terrorists. No, he thinks nuclear weapons in general are the greatest threat, especially those produced by his own country.


... John Kerry goes a' trippin.

First he asserts that the situation in Iraq can be resolved by a summit ... then he tells us that it is hypocricy to tell others to give up their nuclear weapons, even as we develop new, deep-penetration nuclear weapons for "bunker busting"... Once again, his hippie roots are showing -- in particular, the myopic assumption that, if we get rid of the tools men can use for evil, that evil itself will disappear.


The underlying assumption in all this is that Americans are, all recent events and facts notwithstanding, exactly as trustworthy and sane and humane as the mooooolahs of Iran and other terror supporters. No, not even that, we are somehow less trustworthy and sane and humane. Now, how many normal, everyday Americans actually believe that? Somewhere in the 10% range? The same percentage that believe the moon's made of green cheese? Such an inexplicable rejection of facts, history, and common sense in favor of some self-flagellating "we are the enemy" position means John Kerry's not fit to teach 7th grade history, let alone lead the nation...


Sen. Kerry asserts that development of high-yield Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators, better known as the “bunker busters” sends a mixed message. What it does is add force to the message. Not only do we want you to stop WMD development, but if you fail to comply we have the ability to destroy what you have... Sen. Kerry supports a unilateral U.S. nuclear arms moratorium!


(Technically not part of the symposium, but worth repeating) I'd really like to live in John Kerry's world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well.


No comments: