January 5, 2008
Book Review - To Set The Record Straight
Let me say up front that I never delved into the details of the John Kerry/Swift Boat controversy that erupted during the 2004 presidential campaign. I've read neither Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, or John O'Neill's Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. The latter book was hugely controversial, as a quick look at the Amazon reviews shows. Out of a total of 3,142 reviews to date:
5 star: 56% (1,774)
4 star: 5% (174)
3 star: 1% (59)
2 star: 1% (35)
1 star: 35% (1,100)
There's obviously a contest between right and left going on, and many of the attacks are ad hominem
So when I received To Set The Record Straight (not available, interestingly, at Amazon) at a Christmas Party, I realized I would be reading it without the full background. My coverage of the 2004 election on this blog, and my opposition to Senator Kerry, was issues based and had little to do with the swift boat controversy.
To Set The Record Straight is by Scott Swett and Tim Ziegler, with a forward by John O'Neill. It is essentially the story behind how the Swift Vets came together, their role in the 2004 campaign, and the writing of Unfit for Command. Swett created and managed Swiftvets.com and WinterSoldier.com during the 2004 campaign, and Ziegler handled media operations.
Because I haven't read Brinkley or O'Neill's books, have not and will not delve into the details of what happened with John Kerry in Vietnam, I'm not going to go into any detail on any of it. My guess is that Kerry was not in Cambodia for Christmas of 1968, as he says. He probably exaggerated other things he did, and Brinkley bought into it.
But my main bone of contention with Kerry isn't over what he did or did not do in Vietnam. It's about what he did afterwards.
John Kerry betrayed the United States by participating in the "Winter Soldier" charade in which he and others told lie after lie about American "atrocities" in Vietnam. He was deeply involved with Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), and was present at their November 12-15 1971 meetings in Kansas City in which they discussed assassinating several pro-war US Senators. More from DiscoverTheNetworks
When Kerry returned from combat, he in fact became a key figure in the early-1970s, anti-America, pro-Hanoi crowd of protesters personified most visibly by Jane Fonda. Like so many of those protesters, Kerry publicly maligned American soldiers, and went on to become a prominent organizer for one of America's most radical appeasement groups, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). He developed close ties with celebrated activists like Ms. Fonda and Ramsey Clark, the radical Attorney General who served under President Lyndon Johnson. He supported a document known as the "People's Peace Treaty," which was reportedly composed in Communist East Germany and contained nine points - all of them extracted from a list of Viet Cong conditions for ending the war. By frequently participating in VVAW demonstrations, Kerry marched alongside many revolutionary Communists.
For these reasons alone the Swift Vets had every right and duty to organize to oppose him as president.
As such, what motivated John O'Neill, Admiral Roy Hoffman (ret) and the others at first was Kerry's actions after he returned from Vietnam. They remembered with bitterness his infamous testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. ...They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
It has since been shown that virtually all of the charges brought against American soldiers, sailors, airman and marines at the "winter soldier" investigation was a lie.
The main charge against O'Neill and his fellow Swift Vets was that they were attacking Kerry for political advantage. There are two problems with this: One, even if they were it does not address the issue of what John Kerry did or did not due. Either John Kerry lied about his record in Vietnam or he didn't. Either he betrayed his country when he got back or he didn't. The motives of his attackers do not change the facts.
Two, Kerry is the one who made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. He essentially said "I am qualified to be president because of my military service in Vietnam". As such, it was only reasonable that his record them be up for examination. That Kerry seemed indignant that anyone would have the temerity to question his record speaks to his own arrogance and haughtyness. Not a wonder he lost the election.
In the end, To Set The Record Straight is an interesting book but not one I would have bought on my own, since the 2004 election is over and I don't usually believe in fighting past battles. It was very interesting as a piece of history, and I am glad that I had a chance to read it.
Posted by Tom at 10:36 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
November 5, 2004
But Should We Care?
Over on the other side of the pond, the Guardian has a roundup of what they see as world opinion as regards the election in particular and our role in a post 9/11 world in particular. Are they ever bitter over there.
Of the 14 articles that make up their post-election "America's Place in the World", all but two are critical, if not outright hostile, to George W Bush. One country friendly towards us is Israel. No surprise there. But the other is Russia, where there may be a New-Found Friendship. According to the author of that piece, in the aftermath of the Beslan massacre Russians have developed a more favorable attitude towards the United States. Funny what a terrorist attack on one's own soil will do to one's predilections.
A review of just a few of the articles will suffice
Poll Reveals World Anger at Bush George Bush has squandered a wealth of sympathy around the world towards America since September 11 with public opinion in 10 leading countries - including some of its closest allies - growing more hostile to the United States while he has been in office.Never mind that this is a load of bunk. The reality is different. I'm willing to believe that most Europeans were actually sympathetic (even if privately happy to see us humbled). The problem is that they simply do not see 9/11 as a cause for war of any sort. Afghanistan, maybe. But a broader war? No. They are far too cynical, too sardonic, to accept the idea that we can reform the Middle East. The idea of moral values driving foreign policy is quite beyond them.
The most condesending article was regarding opinion in Spain
A Mature Society Condemns the War Generally speaking, the polls show the same pattern in almost every country: rejection of the Iraq invasion, contempt for the Bush administration and lukewarm support for Kerry, but no clear sentiment of anti-Americanism, no rejection of the Americans or of their society. Such is the case in Spain, where there has traditionally been anti-American sentiment on the extreme right and the extreme left, but not in the centre. This lack of anti-Americanism is evidence of a mature society.Thi attempt to separate "Americans" from "Bush", seen in other Guardian articles too, grates. Do they not realize that in a democracy a government is a reflection of what the people want? Or is it that the only Americans they meet are the Michael Moore-types?
But should we care? Niccolo Machiavelli offered this response to his Prince
Here the question arises; whether it is better to be loved than feared than feared or feared than loved. The answer is that it would be desireable to be both, but, since that is difficult, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one must choose.
We live in a time in which we might just have to choose. As Robert Kagan wrote two years ago
It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power — the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power — American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant’s “Perpetual Peace.” The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. That is why on major strategic and international questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus: They agree on little and understand one another less and less. And this state of affairs is not transitory — the product of one American election or one catastrophic event. The reasons for the transatlantic divide are deep, long in development, and likely to endure.If he is right, and I believe that he is, then the idea that holding summits will change matters was more than naive. Thank heavens John Kerry did not win the election and force us to witness several useless get-togethers by the world's leaders.
So yes, we should care. No, we should not compromise. As a result of the election it is they who will be forced to deal with us. We will see articles like those in the Guardian for a time. Let them get it out of their system. But at the end of the day they must come to grips with four more years of George W Bush. The American people have spoken, and they approve of his policies. American power and determination cannot be ignored.
Posted by Tom at 9:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 3, 2004
Kerry Concedes
Finally, the moment we've all been waiting for.
John Kerry has conceded the election to George W Bush.
Victory hasn't been this sweet since 1984. Or this important.
Congratulations to you, Mr President, and everybody who worked to make your re-election possible.
And thank you, John Kerry, for doing the right thing and not putting the nation through the same thing we went through four years ago.
It has been written elsewhere that this election mirrors the race between Truman and Dewey in 1948, and I agree. Truman was not terribly popular, and neither was he well spoken. He was blunt and direct ("the buck stops here") but no one would say that he was eloquant. Thomas Dewey was cerebal but boring. The election took place at the dawn of the Cold War, just when it became evident that we were facing a new, and terribly dangerous threat. As I have written, I believe that Truman was just the person that we needed to run the country during those perilous times.
And I have made no secret of the fact that I believe that George W Bush is the right person to lead us today.
Truman was considered "divisive" at the time, but is considered to have been a very good president today. I believe that the same thing will be said about Bush fifty years hence.
Posted by Tom at 11:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 2, 2004
Election Day Thoughts
I've been voting since 1980 and this is the first time I've been actively involved in campaigning. It's not as though I never cared, anyone who knows me knows how closely I follow the news and how passionately I take my politics. So why did I get involved this time?
The short answer is that George W Bush is the first president since Ronald Reagan that I have felt strongly about. I despised Gore in 2000, but didn't feel that passionately about Bush at the time. Bob Dole? Well, "it was his turn", but he wasn't going to beat Clinton and everyone knew it. George H W Bush was my hero during the Gulf War but then proceeded to squander the rest of his presidency.
I'm not going to go into why I think George W Bush is better than John Kerry to lead our nation, for an answer to that read the rest of this blog.
Today I stood outside one of our local voting places and handed out GOP literature. Loudoun County Virginia is fairly Republican, so I'm not worried about losing the state. The congressman that I've been working for these past few weeks, Frank Wolf, will also win handily. But there is the popular vote to consider, and every bit helps.
And then there is the main reason I've been out campaigning. Sure, I've sent money. They have my number on that score and I get the usual dozen mailings and emails each month. But there's been this nagging feeling over the past few months that this time I had to do more. "Time to get off your butt and do something," I told myself. If George Bush does loose, I could not look myself in the mirror the next day and say to myself "You did not lift a finger to help."
And I must say that I had a lot of fun campaigning. Today, in front of the polls, there I was, face-to-face with the Democrats handing out there literature. Arthur Chrenkoff (in a post of his that I can't find at the moment) was right, there is a certain comradere with the opposition in these situations. There were many times when turnout lighened up, and we used these times to chat it up with each other. We talked about everything but the election, of course.
But enough with that. It's time to grab a bite and get off to the party. I'll be on-line later tonight, regardless of how things turn out.
Here's hoping.
Posted by Tom at 6:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 31, 2004
John Kerry's new Radio Commercial
It's taking the airwaves by storm, and you can listen to it here.
(hat tip American War Monger)
Posted by Tom at 8:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
There He Goes Again
John Kerry just will not stop the lies about Tora Bora. Once again, yesterday he repeated the same old tired canard
"When Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, he was wrong to outsource the job of capturing them to Afghan warlords — who a week earlier were fighting against us — instead of using the best-trained troops in the world, who wanted to avenge America for what happened in New York and Pennsylvania and in Washington," Mr. Kerry told a crowd of supporters at a campaign stop in Appleton, Wis., yesterday morning.Wrong on any number of counts.
Tommy Franks, commander of CENTCOM (Central Command) during the operations in Afghanistan, wrote in a New York Times editorial last week that Kerry's "understanding of events doesn't square with reality."
First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.
Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.
Third, the Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
(hat tip to Kat - Middle Ground)
Kerry seems to think that we should have flooded Afghanistan with troops. But, er, didn't the Soviets try that in the 1980's, Senator? And wasn't it an utter failure, mostly because it alienated the Afghanis?
Posted by Tom at 7:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 29, 2004
Notes from the Campaign Trail
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I've spent most of my non-regular work time campaigning for Frank Wolf, GOP Congressman for Virginia's Tenth District. He's up against a carpetbagger from Californial named James Socas. I've done door-hangers, made get-out-the-vote phone calls, and stood outside grocery stores handing out literature. It's the first time I've ever worked for a national campaign, I've met some great people, and it's been an awful lot of fun.
Anyway, in the aforementioned post I said that the final straw that prompted me to get involved that I heard one of James Socas' radio ads, which essentially called Mr Wolf a "religious extremist."
Just to show how far his challenge has gone, the liberal Washington Post has come out strongly for Frank Wolf, and has condemned Socas' tactics in no uncertain terms. Money paragraph in the Post editorial:
...Mr. Socas has used the telephone survey as well as fliers to suggest to voters that Mr. Wolf is a member of an "extreme" religious group known as "the Family," which was the subject of a lengthy article in Harper's Magazine last year. Mr. Wolf makes no secret of his deep Christian beliefs, which he says have motivated him to take a leading role in Congress on behalf of oppressed people (including Muslims and Buddhists) in Darfur, Ethiopia, Tibet, China and elsewhere. We have long admired Mr. Wolf's commitment to human rights around the world; few members of Congress have more actively pushed for recognition of the ongoing genocide in Darfur. For Mr. Socas to portray Mr. Wolf as some kind of religious fanatic is reprehensible.
Reprehensible. The Post does not use that word lightly.
Readers of this blog will recall that in several posts (examples here and here) I've come out strongly in favor of action to alleviate the situation in Sudan.
As Virginia is reliable Bush country, I've decided to focus my efforts on this congressional race. However, on Tuesday, I'll be at one of my local polling places handing out literature for both Bush and Wolf.
Posted by Tom at 9:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 25, 2004
The "Social Justice" Candidate
John Kerry now tells us that he is the "Social Justice" candidate;
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry said a broad vision of social justice, including care for the poor and those without health insurance, is at the root of his religion and would guide his presidency.He then went on to quote Matthew 25:40
The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for meThis is in context of a series of lessons and parables that Jesus is telling to his disciples as they sat on the Mount of Olives. (Full text of Matthew 25 here for context)
Kerry then told the audience what this passage means to him;
"The ethical test of a good society is how it treats its most vulnerable members," he said, arguing that the government has an obligation to protect the environment, fight AIDS, reduce poverty and defeat terrorism."Apparently, then, it is to him the justification for government spending. And that is fair enough, as far as it goes. I would not be one to argue that governments should not provide a "safety net" for it's disadvantaged citizens.
But let's think about this a bit more; what Kerry is saying here is that religion will guide his actions as president. What he is clearly saying here is that "because it is in the bible we have to make this public policy."
What comes to mind in a nanosecond is his position on abortion. Consider his answer to a question on this subject in the second debate;
Whoa there, senator. Which is it?GIBSON: Going to go to the final two questions now, and the first one will be for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Sarah Degenhart.
DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?
KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.
First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.
But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.
Apparently it depends on which audience he is speaking to. Just last March, when speaking at a church in St Louis, he told is that
``The Scriptures say: `It is not enough, my brother, to say you have faith, when there are no deeds.' We look at what is happening in America today and we say: Where are the deeds?'' preached Kerry.
The contradictions just keep coming.
Posted by Tom at 10:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 1, 2004
The First Debate
Perhaps the most insightful comment was one that I read on National Review's blog The Corner:
ON THEIR KNEES [Tim Graham]Surely accurate. However, as a confirmed conservative egghead and blogger, I'll go ahead and provide some analysis.
An old friend nailed it for me:Plain and simple. The conservative eggheads are overanalyzing and the liberals are praying.
The president knows what he is doing and believes in it. Kerry will say anything he thinks is different than Bush.
Bottom line is that Kerry says: I would have done what the president did but better.
My bottom line analysis is that Bush won on substance, Kerry on style. Kerry's positions are so contradictory and full of holes that they cannot stand up to any serious scrutiny. Bush could have done without the occasional sighing and looking annoyed or distracted.
The Bad News
Let's also just get the negatives for Bush out of the way right away. Bush takes time to warm to his subject. When asked a question, he at first hesitates and stumbles. It takes a noticable few seconds for his thoughts to form as to what he wants to say. Once he get's going, however, he's fine. His um's and ah's do not help. The worst part were the loud sighs before he spoke. At times he even sounded too defensive, never a good thing.
Further, Kerry sounded decisive. He knew what he wanted to say and said it well. He is a good speaker and avoided Al Gore's mistakes. The good news for Democrats is that their candidate did better than they feared, and on a subject that is supposed to be home turf for Republicans. If the Democrats are looking for a reason to cheer, last night gave it to them.
The Good News
The first bit of good news is what we knew it would be; Kerry's positions will not stand up to serious scrutiny.
The second bit is that even thought the elite media will "score" the debates as if they were judging a college event, the reality is that the average person at home doesn't see it that way. Some will be taken by Kerry's smoothness, but most others I believe look for honesty and "genuiness" (I know, an overused term. It even sounds like psychobabble but it is still useful sometimes). I'm therefore going to ignore what the elite media say and leave that job to others who will do it much better than I.
Further, we need to remember that it is easier to attack than to defend. By my take the moderator, Jim Lehrer, did not ask Kerry any questions about his record relating to national security. He got a free pass. And almost by definition, there are some things that will not have gone right over the course of four years. Bush had a record to defend, Kerry had only to attack. Criticism is cheap.
Lastly, in order to believe that Kerry "won", you have to ignore the substance of what he actually said.
But before I delve into substance, however, Bush did do well in some aspects of the "style" department, and these should not be ignored. He was quick to respond to Kerry's attacks, and asked the moderator for a response many times. He called Kerry on a number of his mistakes and poorly thought out positions and responded clearly. As I said earlier, once he gets going he is good. Although he somewhat fumbled the first question, his response to Kerry on the second one was strong.
It is clear that Kerry, like Gore and Clinton before him, will say whatever it takes to get elected. He'll read the polls and study the focus groups and change his position day by day, if necessary. He was tough-talking before the war, but careful not to commit himself too deeply. Once the insurgency started he tries to tell us that oh no, it was all a mistake.
Kerry tried to tell us that he has had "one consistent position", but that is laughable. As Glenn Reynolds pointed out during the debate on his website;
KERRY PUTS HIS FOOT IN IT: The President says that even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction he would have gone in the same way. I would not.He'll hold a summit. Don't you know that "summit's" are the answer to all our problems?Er, but Kerry said he would have gone to war even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction.
And how's Kerry going to "change" the fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons?
All those "Allies"
And as I've said before, for a guy who talks incessantly about how he's going to reach out to all of these supposed allies, and hold all these summits, he sure insults other countries a lot. Well, ok, he hasn't insulted France or Germany. He only insults those countries who are actually helping us. The ones who actively work against us he compliments.
Also, for all Kerry's talk about lining up allies, his record speaks just the opposite in this regard. John Kerry voted against the resolution authorizing George H W Bush to use force to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in what became the Gulf War. And this vote took place after we had lined up all of the nations that Kerry today thinks are so important. Bush Sr also had the UN firmly behind him, something that Kerry also ignored then.
So much for Kerry's talk last night about a "Global Test."
Rushing to War
Perhaps Kerry's most absurd charge, and one we hear from the left in general, is that we "rushed to war" with Iraq.
In response to Lehrer's question reagarding what he thought were Bush's "collossal misjudgements", Kerry said that we should have gone to war only as a " last resort". He said that we should have continued the inspections, that we had Saddam trapped. I went to war, he said. I know what it is about We could have used that money on healthcare. And Iraq is not the center of terrorism.
Wrong on all counts, senator. As a theoretical one can always say that there are more options, that we can give diplomacy or sanctions one more chance. Talk like this is cheap and easy to make for those who do not have to make actual decisions. History is littered with examples; Lincoln could have tried diplomacy and a simple blockade of the South, McKinley could have tried the same with regards to Spain, and Churchhill could have given in to Halifax and sought accomodation with Hitler.
And of course the notation that we had Saddam "trapped" is absurd. As John McCain pointed out during the Republican convention, the sanctions were falling apart. France and Russia had proposed that we weaken the sanctions. Iraq was gaining sympathy throughout much of the Arab/Muslim world on the charge that the sanctions were "killing babies", which in a way, they were, given how Saddam stole billions for his secret military programs. The idea that there was a stable status quo is laughable. Let's also not forget the "Oil for Food" scandal, which gives us reason to believe that influential people within countries such as France and Russia were bought off with millions of dollars.
On World Respect
Back to the classics. John Kerry would do well to consider these words:
Here the question arises; whether it is better to be loved than feared or feared than loved. the answer is that it would be desireable to be both, but, since that is difficult, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one much choose.Yes it would be nice if we could have a great big coalition, with others kicking in billions of dollars. But let's remember that the price of those coalitions is a "lowest common denominator", whereby the whole must acquiese to the weakest member. And the price in 1991 was a decision to stop at ejecting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and not to finish the job.Machiavelli, "The Prince"
Iran and North Korea
Kerry will apparently give nuclear material to the mullahs. An alert blogger (not me!) caught this last night during the debate.
I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together.
It is statements like these that truely reveal how clueless Kerry really is.
Regarding North Korea, he is going to give Kim Il Sung exactly what he wants; face-to-face talks with the United States. What does he think will be gained by this? They broke every promise they made to Bill Clinton when he tried a 'carrot and stick' approach. Kerry buys into the "broken telephone" theory of international relations, which says that if only we can all sit down together we can talk it out and resolve our differences.... grrr.
Attacking Mexico
During the debate Kerry said that attacking Iraq as a response to 9/11 was like FDR attacking Mexico as a response to Pearl Harbor.
Uh, senator, after Pearl Harbor we also fought Germany and Italy. What did they have to do with Pearl Harbor? As I've pointed out earlier, the Axis treaty that they had with Japan was defensive, with one party only obliged to come to the aid of the others if they were attacked. Japan abrogated this treaty with its attack on Pearl Harbor. And of course there is ample evidence that Saddam was in fact supporting terrorism well before the 9/11 attacks.
That's all for now, got to run. More later. Also, I can't get spell check to work in blogger, so please excuse the errors!
One place you can find a transcript of the entire debate is here.
Posted by Tom at 10:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 28, 2004
Hitch on Kerry's $200 billion
In an earlier post I objected to one of John Kerry's reasons for opposing our war in Iraq; that the $200 billion we will spend in Iraq would be better spent at home.
Of course, that was on a day when Kerry did oppose the war. His opinion may have changed by the time you read this.
Christopher Hitchens, a committed leftist who supports the war in Iraq, wrote these words about this objection almost two months ago;
There is something absolutely charmless and self-regarding about this pitch, and I wish I could hear a senior Democrat disowning it. It is no better, in point of its domestic tone and appeal, than the rumor of the welfare mother stopping her Cadillac to get vodka on food stamps. In point of its international implications, it also suggests the most vulgar form of isolationism, not to say insularity.
The further implication is that this is a zero-sum game, and that a dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar not spent on domestic needs. In other words, that this hospital or school in New Jersey or Montana would now be fully funded if it wasn't for a crowd of Arab and Kurdish panhandlers. Could anything be more short-sighted than that? Have we not learned that failed states turn into rogue states, and then export their rage and misery? Would we not prosper ourselves—if the question has to be stated in this way—if the Iraqi economy recuperated to the point where it could become a serious trading partner?
This common-sense or self-interested objection doesn't exhaust the argument. A few years ago, many of the same liberals and leftists were quoting improbable if not impossible numbers of dead Iraqi children, murdered by the international sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein. Even at its most propagandistic, this contained an important moral point: Iraqi civilians were suffering for the sins of their dictatorship (and from the lavish corruption of the U.N. supervision of the "oil-for-food" program). OK, then, we'll remove the regime and lift the sanctions. Happy now? Not at all! It turns out that 1) the Saddam regime was only a threat invented by neo-cons and that 2) we don't owe the Iraqi people a thing. Also, we could use the money ourselves.
Here here. Turns out that all the concern for Iraqi children being starved by the sanctions were just crocodile tears.
John Kerry's foreign policy is now apparently to be held hostage not just by France and the UN, but by the domestic spending demands of the AARP and NEA.
As Hitch says, we can perfectly well afford to educate our children and impliment any needed reforms in our health care system and spend the necessary money in Iraq.
And, as I've said in an earlier post, those who use this monetary line of argument are at best short sighted.
But the worst part is that the liberals, who tell us what kind and compassionate people they are, are perfectly willing to abandon the Iraqis, and all for a few more dollars of domestic spending.
Posted by Tom at 2:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 24, 2004
Kerry's Undercut
John Kerry has apparently decided that all is such gloom and doom in Iraq that we are already defeated. His remarks yesterday during the visit by Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi went way beyond what is acceptable during even the most heated of political campaigns.
Allawi, of course, has been in the United States to discuss the situation in his country with the president and other officials. Yesterday he gave a speech to a joint session of Congress in which he thanked our country for saving Iraq from more years of Saddam's tyrannical rule.
How did John Kerry repay Allawi?
"The prime minister and [Mr. Bush] are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story," Mr. Kerry said.It's hard to think of a better way to undercut the new government of Iraq than by making statements such as these."The United States and the Iraqis have retreated from whole areas of Iraq. There are no-go zones in Iraq today. You can't hold an election in a no-go zone."
If John Kerry or anyone else want to criticize our methods in Iraq, then fine, do so. If you want to say that we're losing, fine. If you even want to say that we should not have invaded in the first place that's fine too. All of these are within the boundaries of political discourse. But it is reprehensible to say them at the very moment that Allawi is in the United States to thank us for freeing his country.
The implications of Kerry's fixation on Vietnam are becoming more apparent by the day. At least when Nixon withdrew our troops he did so under the guise of "Peace with Honor." He declared victory and pulled out the troops. Nixon then relied on congress to support South Vietnam through arms shipments (that the congress did not do this is another matter).
Kerry, however, would apparently withdraw our troops regardless of the consequences for Iraq. He would leave Allawi and other faithful and good Iraqis to the wolves.
In Kerry's World, everything always goes back to Vietnam. Like so many others with Vietnamitis, all American wars are replays of Vietnam.
Why would he do such a thing? One reason is apparently because we need to save Medicare here at home:
"$200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford health care for our veterans...We're spending $200 billion in Iraq while the costs of health care have gone through the roof and we're told we don't have the resources to make health care affordable and available for all Americans. They're charging 17 percent more for Medicare while making America pay $200 billion for a go-it-alone policy in Iraq. That's the wrong choice; that's the wrong direction; and that's the wrong leadership for America."
That's right, folks; domestic spending uber alles.
No I'm not saying that we shouldn't make Medicare spending part of our political discussions. But to reduce great questions of foreign policy, of war and peace, of the future of the Middle East and whether millions will live under liberty or tyranny, to make all of these decisions on the basis of a few domestic spending bills, is at best extremely shallow, at worst simply greedy.
I've written about this more on my other blog here. The point is, are we going to elect someone president who makes foreign policy decisions on the basis of domestic spending priorities? Who undercuts the leaders of countries that we liberated (watch out, Mr. Karzai, You could be next)? Not if this blogger has anything to do with it.
Update
Kerry advisor calls the Iraqi PM a "puppet":
Senior Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart suggested Mr. Allawi was merely reciting talking points supplied by the president.Does Kerry realize that if he wins he will need to work with Allawi? Or does he just intend to declare defeat and pull our troops out, leaving the Iraqi's who trusted us to the wolves?"The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips," he said after the Allawi-Bush press conference.
For that matter, he's going to have to work with all of the countries that have troops in Iraq, countries such as the UK, Australia, Poland, Japan, and South Korea. You know, the ones he called part of a "fraudulent coalition"?
Bush calls Kerry to the mat
"This brave man came to our country to talk about how he's risking his life for a free Iraq, which helps America, and Senator Kerry held a press conference to question Prime Minister Allawi's credibility," Mr. Bush told an audience in Janesville, Wis.Words well spoken."You can't lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility," he added. "The message ought to be to the Iraqi people: We support you."
Update II
Roger Simon compares Allawi and Kerry
Kerry would thus do well to consider exactly who it is that he criticizes. Allawi is a true Iraqi patriot, but some people are going to start to question if John Kerry is an American patriot.1. Awad Allawi - a man who was once left for dead (1978) in his Surrey home after having been bludgeoned with an ax by one of Saddam's henchman who thought he had killed him. Allawi then spent a year in a hospital. He is still said to walk with a limp and is now the object of, one would imagine, daily assassination attempts.
2. John Kerry - a man who left the Vietnam War after 4 1/2 months after having been "seriously wounded" - a description that now even his biographer finds dubious.
 |
 |
Update III
Well, John, do you or do you not think that the war in Iraq is illegal?
When asked, Kerry did as he always does; he waffled. Bill Kristol, writing in the Weekly Standard, reports thus
Kerry was asked about Kofi Annan's description of the war in Iraq as an "illegal" invasion. Kerry answered: "I don't know what the law, the legalities are that he's referring to. I don't know." So the U.S. government is accused of breaking international law, and Kerry chooses not to defend his country against the charge, or to label it ridiculous or offensive. He is agnostic.Actually, "waffle" is probably not the best term to use. "Unintelligible" describes it much better.Then Kerry continued: "Well, let me say this to all of you: That underscores what I am saying. If the leader of the United Nations is at odds with the legality, and we're not working at getting over that hurdle and bringing people to the table, as I said in my speech yesterday, it's imperative to be able to build international cooperation." It's our fault that the U.N. is doing almost nothing to help in Iraq. After all, according to Kerry, "Kofi Annan offered the help of the United Nations months ago. This president chose to go the other way."
Oh I know, the liberal sophisticates will sneer that Kerry is "nuanced" and that the issue is so "complicated", and that the issue is just so "simplistic"...blah blah blah.
The issue may be complicated but the answers are quite simple. They are hard answers, but simple ones. And the answer is that yes, the war was legal, yes, what we are doing is right, and no, it is simply not acceptable to behave as Kerry and Lockhart have been behaving these past few days. And if they keep it up, they are going to be severely punished in the polls this November.
Posted by Tom at 9:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 21, 2004
Kerry's Great Coalition
John Kerry tells us that he wishes that President Bush had been able to secure a larger coalition before invading Iraq. No, he says that we shouldn't have invaded without a larger coalition. Wait, he says that we shouldn't have invaded at all unless we had more specific UN sanction.... Ok I give up.
But for all of Kerry's flip flops, he has been somewhat consistent in that he that he wishes that we had this grand coalition that included many many nations, including France and Germany. If this is the case, he has an awfully odd strategy for getting them to join any coalition he might wish to build. Thanks for Captain's Quarters blog, we have this article from the Weekend Australian:
JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists. Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased."Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.
Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."
John Kerry has said that he would have built a bigger coalition before going to war with Iraq. If Diane Kerry's views reflect those of her brother, then apparently joining this coalition would make you a bigger target for terrorism. Why in the world would anyone want to join in a venture that made them more vulnerable? According to Kerry's own logic, the smart move would be to say out of the coalition that he says he wants to build.
Then, of course, there's the fact that he and other Democrats criticize the existing coalition as "fraudulent." I bet that makes the existing members feel good. How would you like it if you took a risk, often at odds with public opinion, to support the U.S. and then the next guy running for office demeans your efforts? At the very least, all of this reveals very poor judgment. At worst, a complete misunderstanding of how international diplomacy is conducted.
Further, as Captain Ed points out, is Diana Kerry not interfering with the upcoming elections in Australia? Does she now realize that anything she says is going to be in the press, and statements along the lines of the one above are bound to hurt John Howard, the conservative incumbent?
Update - And she can't even get her facts straight
Check out this article by Katherine Mangu-Ward in The Weekly Standard:
Alert readers, including Amanda Sokolski on this magazine's website, quickly picked up on errors in Ms. Kerry's timeline. The Bali bombing took place long before Australia got mixed up with those nasty Americans and their "wanton disregard for international law." And the September 9 attack on the Australian embassy was perpetrated by Jemaah Islamiyah, al Qaeda's Southeast Asia franchise, which has considered Australia a target since well before the Iraq war. Evidently, the details of this timeline were blurry for Ms. Kerry, who has been .busy shuttling around the globe on her brother's behalf for the last several months.
Posted by Tom at 1:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 17, 2004
Kerry's other Vietnam Problem
Over the past few days a new story about John Kerry and his time in Vietnam has come out:
John Kerry and David Alston
Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters blog broke the story
Kerry's campaign keeps pointing to the men who sailed with Kerry on PCF-44 and PCF-94. One of them, David Alston, spoke at the Democratic convention in support of Kerry and remarked constantly about their service together.But did Alston, who suffered real and serious wounds from battle, ever actually serve on Kerry's boat as he and Kerry claim?
The captain's research called this claim into question.
For years now we have been lead to believe that both Sen. Kerry and the Rev. David Alston had served together on the PCF-94 in Vietnam, and therefore, making David Alston an eyewitness to Kerry's actions and heroism. The fact that Sen. Kerry has used a now famous photo of himself together with David Alston and other crewmates while serving on swift boats in Vietnam, left little reason to believe otherwise. As with most anything having to do with Sen. Kerry -- nothing is ever as it first appears to be.
Alston was a speaker at the Democratic National Convention in which he repeated his claim that he served with John Kerry on his swift boat in Vietnam.
Captain Ed provides evidence that David Alston never served with John Kerry. The essence of the discrepancy with Alston's story is a "timeline problem". Tom "River Rat" Mortensen did some research and reported to Capain Ed that:
Kerry was on PCF-44 until at least until 21 January 69. He was in Saigon with Zumwalt on 22 Jan 69 (see below). Alston and Peck were wounded on 29 January 69. Below you will see they claim Alston was on the PCF-94 from “late January to mid-march” . This is impossible as Alston was wounded and hospitalized. There is no mention of Fred Short who received a medal, NCM w/c V, for the “Silver Star” action on 28 Feb 69.I’m beginning to think the photo of Kerry with Alston was taken between 23 Jan and 29 Jan. For what reason, I don’t know. It may have been that Kerry was in a “crew familiarization” period with the guys on PCF-94 before the action that wounded and hospitalized Peck and Alston. What it says is Alston never served under Kerry’s command as he was wounded and hospitalized on the 29th. There is no record of Kerry being aboard PCF-94 on 29 Jan.
Here's why: David Alston received career-ending wounds in a January1969 mission on swiftboat PCF-94, which at the time was commanded by Del Sandusky. His wounds were so serious "that he was medevaced out to a hospital with head wounds and no records indicate that he ever returned to the unit." Fred Short replaced Alston on the boat Kerry, however, did not take command until January 30, 1969.
Indeed, in a picture of John Kerry and his swiftboat crew, taken on March 6, 1969, David Alston is nowhere to be seen. While it is possible he simply missed being in this photo, that is questionable because the photo shows a full compliment for a swiftboat of one officer and five crew. Further, the photo was taken after a ceremony in which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. You would think that he would be present for this type of event.
But maybe they did serve together
Byron York of National Review checked into this story and his conclusion is that Alston did serve with Kerry, though only for a week or two. Further, they were only in combat together for two days. York interviewed Fred Short, Alston's replacement as gunner on PCF-94. and found him to be a credible witness:
In light of the timeline and interviews with the participants, it seems likely that Alston's time with Kerry was at most two weeks, and, if Short's recollection is correct, as little as one week. Given that, it is possible that some of Alston's public statements might have left audiences with the impression that he and Kerry were together for a longer period of time.
Given the timeline of events, it is understandable how Captain Ed reached his conclusion.
In addition, Alston has on at least one occasion seemed to give the impression that he was present for Kerry's Silver Star-winning actions on February 28
Further,
Kerry has sometimes left the impression that he was present when Alston was wounded.
However, York says, Alston was not present during that battle. At best, Kerry has been caught exaggerating his war experience. At worst the two of them have misrepresented their time together.
Captain Ed's Response
The captain seems to agree with York that maybe Kerry and Alston did serve together, even if for a short period of time. He does cite evidence, however, that casts doubt on Short as a credible witness.
Short gave an interview on April 29, 2003, in support of John Kerry in the early days of the campaign. In that interview, Short wildly exaggerated the ambush that Kerry fought through on 13 March.
Hoist by his own Petard
John Kerry has so far refused to release his full service records. This while using that record as the primary reason why voters should choose him in November. If Kerry's version of events is true, he could put an end to stories questioning his actions in Vietnam if he released those records. Why won't he?
The issues of whether David Alston served with John Kerry is still in doubt, in my opinion. Alston may be telling the truth. But this is one more discrepancy that John Kerry needs to clear up. If he had simply used his Vietnam service as one more "bullet point" on his resume, I'd say that we shouldn't pursue these stories. But he has made it central to his campaign. No doubt Kerry partisans will go on the attack and say that those who pursue these stories are "questioning his patriotism" or some such tripe. But Kerry cannot at once use his service as a central reason why voters should choose him as president, and then attack those who investigate that record.
Thank you to Mark from Colorado for alerting me to this breaking story.
Update 8/18
Some bloggers dispute Byron York's version of events here. I don't have time to go through the whole thing now, but their conlusion is that "The evidence still shows David Alston never served under Sen. Kerry and that David Alston and the rest of Kerry's "Band of Brothers" still refuse to tell the truth."
Posted by Tom at 12:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 6, 2004
Kerry the Clueless
Yesterday I was watching Fox News(naturally) I saw a clip of John Kerry giving a speech. Then he said something that almost made me fall down:
"First of all, had I been reading to children, and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had business that he needed to attend to, and I would have attended to it,"
Unbelievable. Of course today it's front page news, at least in the Washington Times. I checked the on-line edition of the Washington Post but didn't see the story there.
What does this guy think he was going to do? Order F-15s around? Move firetrucks around New York City? Short of ordering a nuclear strike, the president does not get involved in the minutiae of decision making. That's why we have a national command structure. You know, John, generals, fire chiefs, and all that?
Sounds also like he's echoing Michael Moore. Don't tell me that Moore represents a fringe element in the Democratic party. Sounds like he's been mainstreamed, too, along with Evil Al. As I recall reading somewhere Moore was invited to sit in Jimmy Carter's box seat at the convention.
And then today this story:
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has called for greatly increasing the size of U.S. special operations forces. Trouble is, if you talk to the folks in commando country at Fort Bragg, N.C., it's not that easy. Here's what one covert warrior told us:Oh but his military experience makes him uniquely qualified to be president.
"Special Forces [Green Berets] has been trying to drastically increase in size for the last five years. You don't just wave a magic wand and produce Special Forces soldiers. First of all, they are volunteers, and how many people out there want to, and are willing to, do the things we do? "The training facilities are finite. There are just so many that can push through the pipeline each year without lowering standards and cutting corners on training. The Clinton years gave us a drastically reduced Army. Since the Army is the pool from which we draw our recruits, normally on their second enlistment, where does he think we get enough candidates for SF training? "This shows his fundamental lack of understanding of Special Forces and how we work. President Bush and [Donald Rumsfeld] get it. They've let us do the things that we've trained for and advocated for years."
Posted by Tom at 11:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
