Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential frontrunner, spelled out what he said was a "comprehensive" plan to fight terrorism in a speech at UCLA.

Key points:

- He would raise troop levels by 40,000;
- Strenghten intelligence capabilities (though he doesn't specify how);
- Work better with other countries;
- Cut off more funds to terrorists (though he doesn't specify how he would do more than the Bush Administration, which has blocked almost $200 million in terror network funds since 9/11).

Kerry made a point of saying he would, if elected, "replenish our overextended military."

It would be interesting, then, to juxtapose his remarks today with his remarks in 1996 - in which he argued in the well of the Senate for one of the steepest cuts ever in the history of the U.S. military:

So you can look at all the potential threats of the world, and when you add the expenditures of all of our allies to the United States of America, you have to stop and say to yourself, ``What is it that we are really preparing for in a post-cold-war world?''

...The notion that we have to be proceeding to invest at a rate that is
commensurate with the pre-cold-war period is simply irrational.

The late Sen. Strom Thurmond, well into his 90s by this point, then rose to the Senate floor and recited a list of remarks from military expert about what the cuts Kerry proposed would mean to U.S. security:

General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, says he is ``very concerned that our procurement accounts are not where they ought to be.''

General Reimer, Army Chief of Staff, says that ``further deferral of
modernization will incur significant risk to future readiness.''

Admiral Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations, says ``If we do not
modernize, we ultimately place future readiness at risk.''

General Fogleman, Air Force Chief of Staff, says that ``Unless we
recapitalize, we are not going to be ready to meet the threats of the
future.''

And General Krulak, Marine Corps Commandant, says that ``The Marine
Corps * * * cannot absorb further reductions without sacrificing
critical core capabilities.''

Kerry, in his remarks, appeared to be hard-wired to think it was more imperative to cut military spending to keep it in line with entitlement spending. He didn't explain, today, the thinking that led to his 180.