Secretary Powell Tells Kerry To Put Up Or Shut Up

On Fox News Sunday Chris Wallace asked Secretary of State Powell about Kerry's assertion that foreign leaders want Kerry to defeat Bush:

WALLACE: All right. I'm not sure you can answer this one, but I would like to get your comment on it, if I could.

Senator Kerry says that foreign leaders — you look like you know this — want him to beat the president. And here's what he's had to say: "I've met with foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy."'

POWELL: I can't even talk to that, Chris. I don't know what foreign leaders Senator Kerry is talking about. It's an easy charge, an easy assertion to make. But if he feels it is that important an assertion to make, he ought to list some names. If he can't list names, then perhaps he should find something else to talk about.

Kerry refused to reveal which foreign leaders are rooting for him when questioned about the issue during a town meeting in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Secretary Powell is right. Kerry should not have said that he met foreign leaders that want him to win if he is unwilling to name those leaders. It's too easy to make such assertions when you are not required to offer any evidence to support them.

When could Kerry have met with leaders that told him they prefer Kerry to President Bush? The Washington Times reports that Kerry has made no official foreign trips since the start of last year, and a review of Kerry's domestic travel schedule revealed only one opportunity for him to meet with foreign leaders here:

According to travel records kept by the Secretary of the Senate, Mr. Kerry's last official trip abroad was in early 2002 when he visited the United Kingdom, Jordan, Egypt and Israel. The only other trip noted in Senate records since that time is an October 2002 domestic trip to Charleston, S.C., to appear on MSNBC's Hardball program.

The Washington Times also scoured White House, State Department and other public records for all official trips made to the United States by foreign leaders since the start of last year. During more than 30 such trips, Mr. Kerry was out of town campaigning, at home or in the hospital for a prostate-cancer operation, according to his travel schedules from this year and last.

The only instance found when Mr. Kerry was in the same town as a foreign leader was Sept. 24, when New Zealand Foreign Minister Philip Goff was in Washington meeting with State Department officials. On that day, according to his schedule, Mr. Kerry received the endorsement of the International Association of Fire Fighters in Washington.

I'm sure there are world leaders would prefer Kerry to President Bush such as North Korea's Kim Jong-il and 's mullahs.

Comments

[Jerry Sitner]

Dear Secretary Powell:

I feel the following correspondence may be of some interest to you.

Respectfully yours,

Jerry Sitner
14 Washington Place Apt 12J
New York, NY 10003
(212) 254-3358

Dear Lynn:

I just read the diatribe against President Bush. I personally find it ingenuous and dangerous rhetoric. That kind of negative list can be made out for practically all politicians including John Kerry and most likely every person on the face of the earth. You and I included. It's really simply a political red herring in order to avoid the real problem. I have no doubt the most dangerous time in maybe the history of the world is right now, today, and anyone who can't recognize that has their head buried in the sand. This catastrophic danger stems from a combination of 2 things. The possible availability of weapons of mass destruction and an organization known as AlQaeda and/or the World Terrorist.

The following writing hopefully will make my point more clear:

Bush Versus Kerry

First hopefully I can present what I believe we can agree upon:

1) Al Qaeda and/or the World Terrorist Organization (WTO), is as dangerous to the United States and the other freedom loving people of the world as was the Axis (Germany, Japan and Italy) during World War 2 (WW2).

2) The attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) was as much an act of war as the attack on Pearl Harbor.

3) A major difference is that unlike today, we were able to clearly identify our enemy in WW2 whereas Al Qaeda is not a specific country or an entity in itself. Therefore fighting our enemy today poses a special problem.

4) The bottom line for all freedom loving people should be the "Destruction of the infrastructure of the Al Qaeda (WTO)" and thereby the defeat of the Terrorist Movement.

5) The question becomes, "How do the freedom loving people of the world accomplish that?"

The differences between John Kerry and George Bush is embodied in number 5.

Since Al Qaeda is not a country nor an entity in itself, a different approach has to be found. Whoever is president must first clearly identify our enemy. Not to do so, leaves the United States and the coalition fighting ghosts. In WW2 one of our main tactics was to cut the supply lines to the Axis countries. Well, that in a sense, becomes the number one target in this conflict but there is no identifiable country to attack. The United States must cut off all support to Al Qaeda (WTO). Therefore those countries that are supporting Al Qaeda (WTO) become the identifiable enemy. What made the Axis of Evil countries identifiable, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and North Korea, as our enemy? Both their actions and non action, support of Al Qaeda (WTO) terrorism. President Bush had the courage to name them. None of these countries have ever arrested a terrorist. Perhaps you don't believe there are terrorist in those countries? Terrorist training camps to all intents and purposes mainly exist where the governments permit them. Perhaps you think those camps are in the United States or England and not in the Axis of Evil countries? Al Qaeda is not an Entity in itself. Osama Bin Laden and his cronies cannot financially support the world terrorist movement by themselves. They need outside financial support. That major support comes from and through the Axis of Evil Countries. Again, perhaps you think the American coalition is the financial supporters of Al Qaeda?

My problem with John Kerry is, I haven't as yet heard a viable alternative to
destroying the terrorist infrastructure to that of President Bushes approach. If Kerry became president he says he would stay in Iraq. OK that's where the coalition is. He says he would make a better effort to gather support from other countries. How would he have handled the disgrace of Spain and the Philippines? With friends like France, Germany and Russia in this battle I'm not sure we need enemies. They act like the United States is the enemy not Al Qaeda. I could understand if they strongly voiced their disagreement with President Bush's tactics but not to recognize the utter world threat of Al Qaeda and treat the United States as the enemy is inexcusable. Not to give support to the US and the coalition is cutting off their nose to spite their face. It seems they can't recognize Al Qaeda is as much their enemy as it is the coalition's enemy. Kerry seems to support France, Germany and Russia's view. I've never heard him say anything against them.

Peaceful terrorists are an oxymoron. You are either pro or anti the war to destroy the infrastructure of the terrorist's organization. Yes! Iraq is a war of choice in order to get to win the war of necessity, the total destruction of the terrorist infrastructure. Hopefully we will not wait until there is, lord forbid, a mushroom cloud over one of our cities. Then "sorry" will not make it.

Jerry