Monday, August 30, 2004
Captain Scott O'Grady: Kerry committed Treason
The AP reports:
Scott O'Grady, the Air Force pilot who captured headlines in 1995 when he survived being shot down over Bosnia, on Friday said Sen. John Kerry committed "treason" during the Vietnam War.
O'Grady, in an appearance with other military veterans coordinated by President Bush's re-election campaign, said Kerry helped push North Vietnam's proposals for the United States to withdraw at a time when the two countries were still officially at war.
"I see that as treason," said O'Grady, who lives in Texas and has been speaking at veterans events for Bush around the country. He's now retired from the military.
A Bush campaign spokeswoman, Tracey Schmitt, said O'Grady's views were his own.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
God's Honest Truth
Kerry says that his version of the story is "God's Honest Truth". Would that include the, at a minimum, two versions that have been admitted "errors" (to be kind)?
To remind Kerry, Cambodia and Vietnam are in fact different countries, and your name isn't Ted Peck.
Oh, but other than that, it's God's Honest Truth.
Kerry "saddened", redux
I must post this link again, of what John Kerry said about Vietnam in 1992 in defense of Bill Clinton, who hadn't served there.
When juxtaposed with Kerry's recent flaunting of his military career, if this is not the greatest example of political hypocrisy, and a demonstration of a man who will shamelessly say and do anything for political advantage, will someone please tell me what is?
For your convenience, I am posting Kerry's statement in it's entirety:
Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.
I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.
What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.
What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.
What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.
What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.
The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.
We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?
Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?
Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.
But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.
I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.
We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.
Exploiting Vietnam
The WSJ published a rather thorough review of Kerry's statements concerning Vietnam over the years. This noted flip-flop is hilarious!
When Mr. Kerry came back from Vietnam, he said:we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom . . . is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy.But now he sounds rather proud of what he did in Vietnam. He proclaims:We fought for this nation because we loved it . . . I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president.
Saddam moved WMD?
The Washington Times is reporting an interesting development:
Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.
The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.
Kerry still won't release war journals
After telling America for the last six months that we should vote for him because of his amazing record in Vietnam, Kerry still won't tell us the details in his war journals. Again, what is he afraid of?
And now he has found himself a rather nifty excuse. He can't, because he granted exclusive access to Douglas Brinkley, his all-to-friendly biographer:
The Kerry campaign has refused to release Kerry's personal Vietnam archive, including his journals and letters, saying that the senator is contractually bound to grant Brinkley exclusive access to the material. But Brinkley said this week the papers are the property of the senator and in his full control.
Ann Althouse thinks all of this is just a little too cute. And I have to agree. Senator Kerry, just release the journal!
More Compassionate Conservatism
Instapundit links to a commentary on the progressiveness of the Bush Tax Cuts in the Detroit News.
A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry claiming it proves that “Over the last four years, the burden of taxes has shifted from the wealthy to the middle class.”
Those are politically motivated lies that distort the findings of the report. Here’s the truth.
The report proves that what President Bush said about his tax cuts is true: “Tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes.”
And it's backed up by data from the CBO. Note that contrary to Kerry's fantasies, the burden has shifted away from the middle and lower class.
Of course, this isn't news to those in the middle-class, especially those with children, who remember receiving several refund checks since Bush took office.
Friday, August 27, 2004
Kerry Crumbling Continues
Recent updates to last post that about Kerry's first Purple Heart that I'm sure you will not hear from Peter Jennings:
Retired rear-admiral, William L. Schachte Jr., who is not associated with Swift Vets for Truth and has not previously commented on the issue, has decided to break his silence "when he saw his own involvement and credibility challenged, starting with [Lanny] Davis on CNN's 'Crossfire' on Aug. 12."
He says he was in command of the 3-man boat at the time, and that Kerry's story is false, and therefore his first Purple Heart was awarded under false pretenses.
Schachte, also a lieutenant junior grade, said he was in command of the small boat called a Boston whaler or skimmer, with Kerry aboard in his first combat mission in the Vietnam War. The third crew member was an enlisted man, whose name Schachte did not remember....
Schachte described the use of the skimmer operating very close to shore as a technique that he personally designed to flush enemy forces on the banks of the Mekong River so that the larger swift boats could move in. Around 3 a.m. on Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer -- code-named "Batman" -- fired a hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, the new officer picked up the M-79 and, "I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire from the enemy," he said.
However, there is still disagreement about who was aboard the boat at the time. Kerry's campaign maintains that Schachte wasn't with Kerry during this incident, and that Kerry was in command at the time:
Two enlisted men who appeared at the podium with Kerry at the Democratic National Convention in Boston have asserted that they were alone in the small boat with Kerry, with no other officer present. Schachte said it "was not possible" for Kerry to have gone out alone so soon after joining the swift boat command in late November 1968....And more damning to Kerry's story is that John Kerry wrote in his war journal that it wasn't until nine days later that he received his first enemy fire:
Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis are the two enlisted men who said they were aboard the skimmer and did not know Schachte. However, two other former officers interviewed Thursday confirmed that Schachte was the originator of the technique and always was aboard the Boston whaler for these missions.
Mr. Kerry has claimed that he faced his "first intense combat" that day, returned fire, and received his "first combat related injury."So Kerry wrote 9 days after receiving a Purple Heart war wound that he felt "invincible"? The explanation from his campaign is pretty weak:
A journal entry Mr. Kerry wrote Dec. 11, however, raises questions about what really happened nine days earlier.
"A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky," wrote Mr. Kerry, according the book "Tour of Duty" by friendly biographer Douglas Brinkley.
If enemy fire was not involved in that or any other incident, according to the Military Order of the Purple Heart, no medal should be awarded.
A Kerry campaign official, speaking on background, told The Washington Times yesterday that the "we" in the passage from Mr. Kerry's journal refers to "the crew on Kerry's first swift boat, operating as a crew" rather than Mr. Kerry himself.Still, I doubt someone who had already received a Purple Heart would write that "we felt invincible". And did you notice the story is changing again? Did Kerry not "yet have his own boat or crew on December 2" or did Kerry lead the mission with the two aforementioned enlisted men.
"John Kerry didn't yet have his own boat or crew on December 2," according to the aide. "Other members of the crew had been in Vietnam for some time and had been shot at and Kerry knew that at the time. However, the crew had not yet been fired on while they served together on PCF 44 under Lieutenant Kerry."
This should be easy to clear up with even a cursory review of Kerry's records. Was Schachte in command or not? Was the wound from schrapnel or small arms fire? Who signed for the Purple Heart?
The records should show who is telling the truth, which must be why Kerry won't release them.
Mother of All Hissy Fits
Another reason to vote for Bush -- it's your chance to get back at the mainstream media!
Thursday, August 26, 2004
The Devil we Know
If you think the most important issue in the upcoming election is the War against Islamic Facism, then The Truth Laid Bear eloquently states why you should be voting for Bush in November. He concludes:
Bush is no prize. But he's the devil we know, and a devil who, for all his flaws, takes seriously the threat facing our nation and appears to be trying to do something about it. With Bush, I expect I will have four more years to quibble with and argue about his tactics in the conduct of this war. With Kerry, once the campaign was over, I fear I'd have a difficult time convincing him there was a war at all.Is that a risk America can afford to take? We are at a time where the cost of complacency will be high. Terrorists are on the run, their ideology is looking like a failure. It is time to finish them off, not a return to Clintonian diplomacy.
It looks like more and more people are coming to this conclusion, as new polls are showing. Some people are even writing John Kerry off.
But as long as Kerry has the media on his side, this is a long way from over. Here's hoping more Americans wake up and understand we cannot afford to switch horses midstream.
Senator, just release ALL the records!
John Kerry's military records could settle some of the latest controversy over his Vietnam service, and obviously he would like to prove that he is telling the truth, and yet still has not released all his records, after promising to do so in April.
The day after John F. Kerry said he would make all of his military records available for inspection at his campaign headquarters, a spokesman said the senator would not release any new documents, leaving undisclosed many of Kerry's evaluations by his Navy commanding officers, some medical records, and possibly other material.So why is he refusing to release all of them? The obvious question is, what is hiding in his file?
Kerry, in an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press," was asked whether he would follow President Bush's example and release all of his military records. "I have," Kerry said. "I've shown them -- they're available for you to come and look at." He added that "people can come and see them at headquarters."
But when a reporter showed up yesterday morning to review the documents, the campaign staff declined, saying all requests must go through the press spokesman, Michael Meehan. Late yesterday, Meehan said the only records available would be those already released to this newspaper.
And why is the media still uncurious about them? Why the double-standard?
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Purple Heart Update
Yesterday I posted an excerpt of Swift Boat Vets accusing Kerry of gaming the system to get a Purple Heart for a self-inflicted wound.
The injury was self-inflicted, that's what made sense to me. I told Kerry to "forget it." There was no hostile fire, the injury was self-inflicted for all I knew. Besides, it was nothing really more than a scratch. Kerry wasn't getting any Purple Heart recommendation from me.
Today Captain's Quarters has Fox News reporting that "Kerry's campaign has said it is possible his first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound."
Swift Boat Vets vs Kerry, 2-0?
Stay tuned...
Spinsanity has my back
The emperically non-partisan Spinsanity backs up my post yesterday about what swift boats were doing in Vietnam at the time Kerry volunteered for them.
The myth that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry volunteered for swift boat duty in Vietnam knowing it was particularly dangerous continues to spread despite clear evidence to the contrary.Spinsanity links to this article from May 2003 in the Boston Globe, with some telling quotes from Kerry himself:
As we have written before, Kerry actually volunteered at a time when swift boats were engaged in relatively safe coastal patrols. They were redeployed to the rivers of Vietnam -- a far more risky mission -- after Kerry's decision. Kerry himself has admitted as much, writing in 1986 that "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."
Kerry served two tours. For a relatively uneventful six months, from December 1967 to June 1968, he served in the electrical department aboard the USS Gridley, a guided-missile frigate that supported aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin and was far removed from combat.
"I didn't have any real feel for what the heck was going on [in the war]," Kerry has recalled. His ship returned to its Long Beach, Calif., port on June 6, 1968, the day that Robert F. Kennedy died from a gunshot wound he received on the previous night at a Los Angeles hotel. The antiwar protests were growing. But within five months Kerry was heading back to Vietnam, seeking to fulfill his officer commitment despite his growing misgivings about the war.
Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe.
"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."
But two weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed -- and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous. Under the newly launched Operation SEALORD, swift boats were charged with patrolling the narrow waterways of the Mekong Delta to draw fire and smoke out the enemy. Cruising inlets and coves and canals, swift boats were especially vulnerable targets.
Pretty clear, right? Then this quote from John Kerry's own website is more than a little misleading.
John Kerry enlisted in the Navy in 1966. After completing Naval Officer Candidates School, he began his first tour of duty on the USS Gridley, a guided-missile frigate in the waters adjacent to Vietnam. In 1968, John Kerry began his second tour of duty, and volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat, one of the most dangerous assignments of the war.
A new slogan for Kerry? John Kerry: Stretching the Truth into the 21st Century
Cambodia goes mainstream
The Kerry's Cambodia tales have finally made the mainstream media in the Washington Post today. Joshua Muravchik writes that Kerry's own journal belies his claim to have been in Cambodia:
Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry "on one occasion crossed into Cambodia," on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry's campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry's own journal, kept while on duty. One passage reproduced in Brinkley's book says: "The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side." His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry's final mission.As noted at Captain's Quarters, on his final mission, Kerry was still wondering aloud in his journal what was across the Cambodian border. So when was Kerry in Cambodia again? er, never?
Monday, August 23, 2004
Unfit for Command
The Washington Times has published an excerpt from the best-selling book, "Unfit for Command." I have to say, I understand why the Kerry campaign is afraid. It's worth reading the whole thing, but this part describing the circumstances of Kerry's first Purple Heart struck me:
The Globe reporters noted that upon the group's return to base, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, Kerry's superior officer in Coastal Division 14, was skeptical about the injury....
When the authors interviewed Hibbard on June 17, he was emphatic that Kerry's slight injury, in his opinion, could not possibly merit the Purple Heart....
Kerry requested permission to go on a skimmer operation with Lieutenant Schachte, my most senior and trusted lieutenant, using a Boston whaler to try to interdict a Viet Cong movement of arms and munitions.
The next morning at the briefing, I was informed that no enemy fire had been received on that mission. Our units had fired on some VC units running on the beach. We were all in my office, some of the crew members, I remember Schachte being there.
This was 36 years ago; it really didn't seem all that important at the time. Here was this lieutenant, junior grade, who was saying, "I got wounded," and everybody else, the crew that were present were saying, "We didn't get any fire. We don't know how he got the scratch."
Kerry showed me the scratch on his arm. I hadn't been informed that he had any medical treatment. The scratch didn't look like much to me; I've seen worse injuries from a rose thorn.
Q: Did Kerry want you to recommend him for a Purple Heart?
Hibbard: Yes, that was his whole point. He had this little piece of shrapnel in his hand. It was tiny. I was told later that Kerry had fired an M-79 grenade and that he had misjudged it. He fired it too close to the shore, and it exploded on a rock or something. He got hit by a piece of shrapnel from a grenade that he had fired himself.
The injury was self-inflicted, that's what made sense to me. I told Kerry to "forget it." There was no hostile fire, the injury was self-inflicted for all I knew. Besides, it was nothing really more than a scratch. Kerry wasn't getting any Purple Heart recommendation from me.
Q: How did Kerry get a Purple Heart from the incident, then?
Hibbard: I don't know. It beats me. I know I didn't recommend him for a Purple Heart. Kerry probably wrote up the paperwork and recommended himself, that's all I can figure out. If it ever came across my desk, I don't have any recollection of it. Kerry didn't get my signature. I said "no way" and told him to get out of my office....
How he obtained the award is unknown, since his continued refusal to execute Standard Form 180 means that whatever other documents exist are known only to Kerry, the Department of Defense and God.
Only a treatment record reflecting a scratch and a certificate signed three months later have been produced. There is no "after-action" hostile fire or casualty report. This is because there was no hostile fire, casualty, or action on this "most frightening night" of Kerry's Vietnam experience.
AP and Al Sadr
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan "expert" on Iraqi Shiites says of Al Sadr's armed opposition to the Iraqi government:
Without any doubt, it's making him a hero.... He's become a symbol of opposition to the continuing American occupation of Iraq.Last week, the AP agreed:
Iraqi Shiites expressed anger Thursday at a major U.S.-led assault on a rebel militia in the holy city of Najaf, warning the violence could spread to other parts of the country and damage the political process....
"This will lead to revenge for the holy sites and for those killed," said Salama al-Khafaji, a former member of the disbanded Governing Council....
But now the AP has found another point of view altogether:
Radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has emerged from a bloody, two-week showdown with U.S. forces with his militia intact but his heroic image in question.
Now that the fighting is over, some Shiites are criticizing al-Sadr as a dangerous maverick who threatened one of their faith's most-cherished shrines.
Al-Sadr — young and street-smart — was never popular in Najaf, where older clerics including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, hold sway.
Now, after devastating violence that killed scores of civilians and chipped a wall surrounding the beloved, gold-domed shrine, the firebrand cleric is liked even less.
"Najaf ... now serves as an example of war and destruction. This is all because of Muqtada and his followers," said 37-year-old Najaf resident Mohammed Saad. "They have brought us destruction. We hope they'll leave the city as soon as possible."
...[E]ven in Sadr City, support for al-Sadr may be slipping.
Backed by helicopter gunships, U.S. forces have battled Mahdi Army fighters in the district for nearly two weeks in fighting that has left dozens dead and cut off most electricity.
"His followers are hiding among our houses and causing a lot of damage by their random shooting," said Jassim Mohammed, a 27-year-old college student. "Nobody respects him now."
An ongoing subplot of the Iraq war is that the media and so-called experts have no idea what they are talking about.
Wasn't it just April when the media was on the verge of declaring the war was already lost?
Bush slashes budget by 90%!
New findings released Saturday by the 9/11 commission:
Al Qaeda's annual budget appears to have shrunk from about $30 million a year before the Sept. 11 attacks to as little as a few million dollars per year now, the commission reported....Read the whole thing. This is great news! Al Qaeda can no longer afford to train terrorists or fund affiliated organizations.
The organization no longer pays out an estimated $10 million to $20 million a year to support the Taliban, or millions more running terrorist training camps and providing funds to affiliated organizations.
But the spin of the article is telling. When it's good news, George Bush isn't even mentioned and b) the overall tone of the article is that we're not doing well enough! Hilarious!
527s
BlogsForBush mocks the NY Times with a Web of Connections for Kerry.
Of course John Kerry doesn't like the anti-Kerry 527's, saying
"They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the president won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know -- he wants them to do his dirty work."Uh, hundreds of thousands of dollars? That's it! That barely covers the slip fees for John Kerry's yacht! The Truth Laid Bare puts this into perspective, documenting over $100,000,000 dollars that 527's have been using to attack Bush.
The Instapendent links to Bush's response to all of this.
Bush criticized the groups' first commercial and all other outside group attack ads — many of which have targeted his own re-election.And Kerry?
"That means that ad, every other ad," he said. "I can't be more plain about it. And I wish — I hope my opponent joins me in saying — condemning these activities of the 527s. It's — I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold."
Bush's comment about 527s was a reference to independent groups that raise money in unlimited amounts. The so-called McCain-Feingold bill, a campaign finance overhaul bill which Bush signed reluctantly earlier in his term, banned the political parties from raising such funds.
While Kerry and Democrats have demanded that Bush condemn the attack on his war record, the president has been targeted by an estimated $60 million in commercials by outside groups since the campaign began.I'd say the fact that he "won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know -- he wants them to do his dirty work."
Kerry has declined to call for an end to those ads, which helped him at a time when he did not have the funds to compete with Bush' campaign advertising budget.
The Hero and the Deserter
Conventional Wisdom says that while Kerry enthusastically signed up to fight the war in Vietnam, indeed even volunteering for the dangerous tour aboard swift boats, George W Bush used family connections to enter the Texas Air National Guard as a fighter pilot (if he showed up at all), thus safely dodging the Vietnam War. Right?
Well, as usual, the Conventional Wisdom comes up a bit short...
Kerry
First of all, it seems John Kerry attempted to defer his service for at least a year, so that he could study in Paris.
Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate who is trading on his Vietnam war record to campaign against President George W Bush, tried to defer his military service for a year, according to a newly rediscovered article in a Harvard University newspaper.Also, at odds with what he depicts today as his enthusiasm to serve in Vietnam in defense of his country, in 1986, John Kerry said, "I didn't really want to get involved in the war. That explains why he chose service in swift boats, where "Kerry had little expectation of seeing action." The details, reported by the Washington Post:
He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s.
The revelation appears to undercut Sen Kerry's carefully-cultivated image as a man who willingly served his country in a dangerous war - in supposed contrast to President Bush, who served in the Texas National Guard and thus avoided being sent to Vietnam.
When Kerry signed up to command a Swift boat in the summer of 1968, he was inspired by the example of his hero, John F. Kennedy, who had commanded the PT-109 patrol boat in the Pacific in World War II. But Kerry had little expectation of seeing serious action. At the time the swift boats -- or PCFs (patrol craft fast), in Navy jargon -- were largely restricted to coastal patrols. "I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry wrote in a 1986 book.But things soon changed for Kerry:
The role of the swift boats changed dramatically toward the end of 1968, when Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in South Vietnam, decided to use them to block Vietcong supply routes through the Mekong Delta.So yes, the facts show that John Kerry was involved in more than a few dangerous missions in Vietnam. But they also show the Kerry attempted to avoid depoloyment to Vietnam with a deferment to study in Paris, served (with distinction) for some time aboard the USS Gridley, and then volunteered for the swift boats, which were considered to be a relatively safe assignment. Only when circumstances outside of Kerry's control changed, did he find himself thrust into the role of a decorated war hero.
Taking a 50-foot aluminum boat up a river or canal was replete with danger, ranging from ambushes to booby traps to mines....
Bush
Did Bush use family connections to get his plum assignment? At a minimum, that is unclear. The Dallas Morning News reported that he got his assignment because no one else wanted it:
[T]he Dallas Morning News, which also looked into Bush's military record, reported that while Bush's unit in Texas had a waiting list for many spots, he was accepted because he was one of a handful of applicants willing and qualified to spend more than a year in active training flying F-102 jets....Well, that doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't anyone want to fly F-102's in the Texas Air National Guard if it was such a great assignment? Perhaps because
Bush, a Yale University graduate, has said he joined the Air National Guard rather than volunteer for Army combat duty because he wanted to learn how to fly jet fighters like his father, who was a fighter pilot in World War II.
"He said he wanted to fly just like his daddy," Bush's commander, Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, told the Times. "Nobody did anything for him. There was no ... influence on his behalf."
The Times reported that many of Bush's former colleagues and superiors in the Guard remember him as a bright young leader who worked hard.
"He did the work. His daddy didn't do it for him," said retired Maj. Willie J. Hooper.
- The F-102 was a difficult and dangerous airplane to fly. There were more than a few accidental deaths in Bush's unit.
- There were better ways to avoid the war in Vietnam. In fact, at the time Bush enlisted in his National Guard unit, it had active deployments in Vietnam.
[W]e have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. In fact, pilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a program called "Palace Alert" from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air Force program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for periods of three to six months for frontline duty.
Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush's who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required. Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants....
...
The point of this discussion is that the military record of George W. Bush deserves a fair treatment. Bush has been criticized for avoiding service in Vietnam, though the evidence proves that the Texas Air National Guard and its F-102 pilots where serving in Vietnam while Bush was in training. Bush has been criticized for using his family influence to obtain his assignment, but the evidence shows that he successfully completed every aspect of the more than two years of training required of him. Bush has been criticized for pursuing a safe and plush position as a fighter pilot, but the evidence indicates the F-102 was a demanding aircraft whose pilots regularly risked their lives. Bush has also been criticized for deserting the Guard before his enlistment was complete, but the evidence shows he was honorably discharged eight months early because his position was being phased out.
Also, note this debunking of the Bush AWOL myth, and this follow-up.
Chrenkoff's Afghanistan Update
Part 3, from Chrenkoff:
[O]ptimism is back, and since the overthrow of Mullah Omar's regime almost three years ago it has been making a slow but steady comeback. For all the continuing security problems and sporadic fighting with the Taliban and al Qaeda remnants, Afghanistan's resurrection has been an unheralded success story of the recent times. Huge challenges remain, to be sure, but for the first time in a generation there is real hope that the country is finally breaking out of the cycle of violence and succeeding in its first steps on the road to normalcy.Be sure to read the whole thing!
The Afghans know it's happening, but we in the West, looking at Afghanistan through the prism of mainstream media coverage, are far less aware of all the positive developments taking place over there. Here is some good news from the last four weeks that you might have missed while the media, true to their form, continued to focus on the negatives.
Friday, August 20, 2004
Kerry at VFW
The NY Times summarized Kerry's speech at the VFW:
The veterans' group played host to both candidates this week - Mr. Bush spoke to them on Monday - as the two camps vie for the hearts and minds and votes of veterans, an important constituency in this election and one that has traditionally leaned Republican. This year, however, veterans seem more closely divided in their support of the two candidates. Today, the V.F.W. audience greeted Mr. Kerry with frequent applause, much as it had Mr. Bush on Monday.
But somehow they forgot to mention these guys, who refused to even look at Kerry:
The AP, no surrogate of the Republicans, captioned their photo as
War veterans Jere Hill, middle, from Warham, Mass., and Robert Gibson, right, from Lexington, Ky., stand with their backs turned during Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's speech at the 105th Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Cincinnati on Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004. Man in foreground is unidentified. Kerry received a polite if not overwhelmingly positive reaction from the VFW. But there was a clear divide, with scores of veterans sittings with their arms folded while others clapped.
You would almost think the NY times was biased or something.
Don't kill the Messenger!
If Republican Donors say the Earth revolves around the sun, is its still true? Maybe not, according to John Kerry. He keeps saying the Swift Boat Veterans are lying, and how does he know? Because they are backed by Republicans!
At Dean's World: Oh My GOD! People who like Bush are willing to give money to a group that opposes Kerry? CALL THE FBI!!! WHAT AN OUTRAGE!!!
And the Instapendent notes, the few veterans trailing Kerry around the country are backed by Democrats -- actually by Kerry's campaign, so with Kerry's own logic, they are even less credible.
AP laps up Iranian propaganda
AP unquestioningly reports that Iran is "concerned" about the violence in Najaf, and that Iran wants a stable Iraq.
In his conversation with OIC chief Badawi, who is also Malaysia's prime minister, Khatami said the Iraqi interim government was facing a difficult situation in Najaf and that Iran was interested in seeing a stable Iraq.
"Allowing these conditions to continue and keeping silent in the face of these events will create grater problems for us," Khatami warned.
It was unclear if a meeting would be held, but Iran's call reflects the growing concern in the Middle East over violence in Iraq and, in particular, Najaf.
I mean, what is there to question? Why wouldn't Iran want peace in Iraq? I mean, the Iranian government is just full of well-meaning, nice people, right?
Yes, Iran would just love to see a democratic, peaceful ally of the United States on its Western border. That would go nicely with American allies Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan, not to mention Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and India.
George Bush to Ayatollah Khamenei: "We have you surrounded! Come out with your hands up!"
Of course, that's exactly what Iran doesn't want. That's why the Iraqi government believes Iran is helping create the chaos with secret meddling backing Al Sadr.
The recent declaration by Iraqi Defense Minister Hazim Shalan al-Khuzai that Iran is the "first enemy" focuses renewed attention on Baghdad's relations with Tehran. In an interview this week with the Washington Post, Khuzai also accused Iran of taking over some Iraqi border posts and sending spies and saboteurs to destabilize the country.
Nourizadeh said that although Tehran officially supports stability in Iraq, he believes Iran's Revolutionary Guards and its own security agencies have their own agendas and are acting in contradiction of the official line.
Nourizadeh pointed out that the presence of US troops in Iraq worries Iran and complicates its relations with Iraq. He said Iran faced a difficult geopolitical situation, with US troops also based in neighboring Afghanistan.
Even more, he said, Iran was afraid Iraq might eventually become a democratic and secular state. "I don't think that by just removing Americans from Iraq, the problem between Iran and the new government of Iraq will be solved," Nourizadeh said. "No. The Iranian regime [will be] unhappy to see a secular, prosperous, federal Iraq near Iran."
NY Times attacks Veterans!
Instapundit summarizes blogger coverage of a new NY Times editorial attacking Swift Vets.
As Patterico says
If you think that the New York Times would downplay a clear story of Bush unmistakably lying about an event he claimed was a turning point in his life, raise your hand.
Fair-minded people only!
I see no hands.
P.S. The Times also runs an article titled Kerry Calls Ad Group a 'Front for the Bush Campaign'. No mention of the apparent fact that the New York Times is now a front for the Kerry campaign.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Fatal Flaw in Kerry Plan
USA Today finally discovers the fatal flaw in the plan to replace American troops with troops from our allies. They don't have any!
[H]elp in Iraq isn't likely to be on the way anytime soon - at least not in numbers that would change the U.S. burden.Even in Afghanistan, where our allies are "stretched thin", non-US security forces amount to only 6,500 troops. So John Kerry, where is this bonanza of allied soldiers going to be coming from? Iran?
Since the Cold War, Europe has slashed defense budgets, and NATO already is stretched thin stabilizing Afghanistan. Even if more forces were found, the question remains: How would their inevitably small numbers change the role of the 140,000 U.S. troops already there?
Oregon vs Al Sadr
Interesting story about the upcoming fight between The Oregon National Guard and Al Sadr's militia.
I realize this is just anecdotal, but there are some nice quotes from local Najaf residents:
All the roads leading to the Old City are blocked off by tanks or Humvees. Residents who walk in the streets where the electric power cables swing loose, raise their hands in the air as they approach the American troops.
Are the locals friendly? "It seems," says SFC Compton, who has joined his colleagues in an abandoned house where they are resting up and where they stock provisions. "They seem nice but really I don't know," he adds cautiously.
But he is wrong. The few residents who have stayed apparently want just one thing: to see the Americans finish off Sadr's militia as quickly as possible.
"The Americans are good with us," says 27-year-old Hassan Mohammad Ibrahim, who has been left alone in his home. "The militia, when they occupied the street, made us suffer. I want them out of here alive or dead."
"They ruined us," said Karim Hussein, a 38-year-old mason, who has dropped by his home to pick up a few possessions before leaving again. "It's time they were done with. Let the Americans attack and have done with them once and for all."
Harkin Update
Apparently CNN still thought, as of January 2004, that Harkin was a Vietnam veteran.
The 64-year-old Harkin is a political icon in the Hawkeye State where he grew up.
A Navy veteran who served in Vietnam, he first went to Washington in 1974 as a member of the House, where he served for 10 years.
To set the record straight, the WSJ has republished their news story from 1991, where they broke the original story:
In 1979, Mr. Harkin, then a congressman, participated in a round-table discussion arranged by the Congressional Vietnam Veterans' Caucus. "I spent five years as a Navy pilot, starting in November of 1962," Mr. Harkin said at that meeting, in words that were later quoted in a book, Changing of the Guard, by Washington Post political writer David Broder. "One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions. I did no bombing."
That clearly is not an accurate picture of his Navy service. Though Mr. Harkin stresses he is proud of his Navy record--"I put my ass on the line day after day"--he concedes now he never flew combat air patrols in Vietnam.
Carter endorses Chavez
A friend of mine noted that while Jimmy Carter still complains about missed ballots in Florida, he endorsed the election of a thug in Venezuala within hours!
Former President Jimmy Carter, who helped monitor Venezuela's recall referendum, endorsed on Monday returns showing that that President Hugo Chavez won the vote.
"Our findings coincided with the partial returns announced today by the National Elections Council," Carter told a news conference.
A different perspective, from a son who says his mother was shot by Chavez's men on Monday:
In the early hours of Monday, the Electoral Council's president (who had imposed a gag order on all exit polls until a full audit of the vote had been completed) issued a statement declaring that the computer votes had been tallied and that the government had won the referendum with 58% of the vote. The announcement came in a vacuum, without an audit, with no verification whatsoever from the international observers, and over the indignant protest of two of the five council members, who publicly questioned the result's transparency.
The opposition, understandably shocked and demoralized, insisted on a hand-count of all computer voting receipts as the only way of settling the dramatic disparity between exit polls that showed 58% to 41% in favor of the recall and the announced result of 58% to 41% in favor of retaining Col. Chávez. Later that morning the most important observer, former President Jimmy Carter, declared that he was shown the computer tally by government supporters and that everything seemed in order. Mr. Carter then left Venezuela, and the opposition groups that had put their faith in him to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Mr. Carter, who was vociferous and insistent about patience, transparency and hand-tallies during the Florida recount, left Venezuela to attend Mrs. Carter's birthday party.
Jimmy Carter: Lending legitimacy to brutal dictators around the world.
Kerry endorsed Bush's troop moves
Earlier this week, President Bush announced a "major realignment of U.S. forces around the world", a move that in my opinion, is a long time coming. This is just common sense:
Bush said about 60,000 to 70,000 uniformed personnel would move from overseas to posts in the United States over the next decade. The move would also involve about 100,000 family members and civilian employees, Bush said.
"The new plan will help us fight and win these wars of the 21st century," Bush said in a speech before a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Pentagon and senior administration officials told CNN that most of the reductions will come from Europe -- the rest, from Asia.
The Corner discovered that Kerry enthusiastically endorsed President Bush's plan:
The overall effort of a president right now ought to be really to try to find ways to reduce the overexposure, in a sense, of America's commitments. A proper approach to the Korean peninsula, for instance, should include the deployment of troops, the unresolved issues of the 1950s and ultimately, hopefully, could result in the reduction of American presence, ultimately. Those are the kinds of things that we ought to be trying to achieve in our foreign policy.
In fact, he endorsed it on April 14, even before Bush announced it, on August 17!
Oh, but now that Bush followed his advice, oops, Kerry changed his mind:
Sen. John F. Kerry, speaking to the nation's largest combat veterans organization Wednesday, denounced President Bush's proposal to bring home troops from Europe and Asia as vague, ill-timed and risky.
In a speech heavily salted with references to his own military service, the Democratic presidential nominee said Bush's plan would not bolster the country's ability to combat terrorism nor relieve the stress on overburdened troops.
John Kerry: Steady Leadership in Times of Change.
The Media Unravelling
The Instapundit believes that the media are now so blatently biased, that we are watching their "unravelling". (A bit of an optimistic viewpoint, I'm afraid.)
But this story seems to me to be absolutely fascinating in that it reveals just how in the tank for the Democrats the mainstream media are, and how little the vaunted Cronkitean claims of objectivity and research and factual accuracy really mean when the chips are down. What's more, lots of people are noticing.
To me, that's a bigger deal than the underlying issue or even, in some ways, the election itself. Elections come and go, politicians come and go, and pretty much all of them turn out to be disappointments one way or another. But the "Fourth Estate" is a big part of the unelected Permanent Government that in many ways does more to run the country than the politicians. And it's unravelling before our very eyes, which I think is the biggest story of the election so far.
Two other posts looking at how the major media refuses to touch the story of hundreds of Vietnam veterans questioning Kerry's version of the truth, while the behaved like rabid wolves when Michael Moore resurrected previously debunked allegations that Bush was AWOL.
The Media Research Center compares treatment by the national news networks. As they say, read the whole thing. Introduction:
Back in February, the three broadcast networks were obsessed with the story of President Bush’s National Guard service. But in May, when John Kerry’s former Navy colleagues from Vietnam went to the National Press Club to charge that Kerry’s tales of heroism as a Swift Boat commander were highly exaggerated, those same networks acted as if their job was to bury the news, not report it.
And the New England Republican dug up the transcript from a hostile press briefing at the White House. Here's a taste of the badgering that Scott McClellan got:
Q It's your position that these documents specifically show that he served in Alabama during the period 1972, when he was supposed to be there. Do they specifically show that?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think if you look at the documents, what they show are the days on which he was paid, the payroll records. And we previously said that the President recalls serving both in Alabama and in Texas.
Q I'm not interested in what he recalls. I'm interested in whether these documents specifically show that he was in Alabama and served on the days during the latter part of 1972 --
MR. McCLELLAN: And I just answered that question.
Q You have not answered that question. You --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said -- no, I said, no, in response to your question, Keith.
Q No, so the answer is, "no"?
MR. McCLELLAN: I said these documents show the days on which he was paid. That's what they show. So they show -- they show that he was paid on these days.
Q Okay, but they do not show that he was in Alabama when he was supposed to be --
MR. McCLELLAN: These are payroll records, and they reflect the fact that he was paid on the days on which he served.
Q Do any of them show that he was paid on days that he served in the latter part of 1972 when he was in Alabama? I don't see any dates for that.
MR. McCLELLAN: It just kind of amazes me that some will now say they want more information, after the payroll records and the point summaries have all been released to show that he met his requirements and to show that he fulfilled his duties.
Q But these documents do not show that. They do not show that he was in Alabama and served at that time. I don't even see any pay dates during that period.
MR. McCLELLAN: They show payments. No, they show pay dates during that fall of 1972 period.
Q They do?
MR. McCLELLAN: There's October on there, there's November on there, and then there's January on there, as well, in '73. There's some pay dates on there.
Q Okay, so then, do they specifically show that he served in Alabama during that time?
MR. McCLELLAN: They show payments in October; they show payments in November.
Q But just because he's paid doesn't mean that he served and worked there, does it?
...
When Bush is being questioned, the onus is on him to prove without a doubt that 30 year old charges are false. But when there are allegations against Kerry, the media requires that the charges be proven, without a doubt. Seems fair to me.
Just for fun, look at the Tom Brokaw interview of John Kerry and his tough questions like
Senator, at the end of this week in Boston, what will the American people learn about you that will surprise them?
oooooh, Tom, don't pull any punches!
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Another Senator (D) Mis-remembers
Update to my post on Senator Harkin's recent comments about Cheney and Bush:
Instapundit follows up on Donald Sensling's recalling Harkin's own false memories. Kerry thought he was in Cambodia, not Vietnam, on Christmas Eve, 1968. Well Senator Harkin ups the ante -- Harkin once claimed that he flew combat missions in Vietnam, when in fact he hadn't even served in Vietnam!
And Iowa still elected him senator!? Iowans must have low standards.
Donald Sensling has some words of wisdom, which helps explain why I find all of this Vietnam boasting unsettling:
How did a political party that last held the White House with a man who admitted he dodged the draft and said he loathed the military, who demonstrated against his own country while living overseas, come to be the party that now trumpets more militarism than any other?
When I was a kid I learned that the only kids who always talked tough were either bullies or were in reality just chicken. The real war heroes I have known hardly ever talked about it and certainly didn't want to be heroic again.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
More Vietnam Controversy
Because Peter Jennings won't do it, Byron York researches consistencies and inconsistencies in the self-described relationship between John Kerry and David Alston.
In particular, Kerry seems to have tried to steal the glory for a hostile action where David Alston was wounded, but in which Lt. Tedd Peck was in command:
For his part, Kerry has sometimes left the impression that he was present when Alston was wounded. Paying tribute to Alston's service during a speech before a South Carolina veterans' group in May 2002, Kerry said, according to an account in The New Republic, "He [Alston] sat up in a turret above my head in the pilot house — firing twin fifty-calibers to suppress enemy fire from ambushes. We were extremely exposed — always shot at first.... On one occasion in an ambush his turret was riddled with almost one hundred bullets penetrating the aluminum skin. This gunman kept firing even though he was wounded — one bullet going through his helmet, grazing his head and another hitting his arm...."
That description sounds precisely like the incident on January 29, 1969 in which Alston was wounded. But Lt. Peck, and not Kerry, was in command of PCF-94 that day.
According to a report in the Boston Globe, the Kerry campaign website has in the past listed Kerry as being the skipper of PCF-94 at the time of Alston's wounding. When Kerry's military records were first posted on the site, according to the Globe, "the campaign summarize[d] action that took place on Jan. 29, 1969, this way: 'While Kerry's boat and another (PCF-72) were probing a canal along the river, Kerry's boat came under heavy fire and was hit by a B-40 rocket in the cabin area. One member of Kerry's crew Forward Gunner David Alston suffered shrapnel wounds in his head....'" The campaign website also listed two other incidents that took place prior to January 29 as having occurred under Kerry's leadership.
Peck, who would later sign a letter to Kerry written by the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, protested. "Those are definitely mine," he told the Globe. "There is no doubt about it." The campaign later removed the January 29 reference from the website.
Norman Podhoretz's World War IV
Bloggers are pointing to Podhoretz's lengthy analysis of the War on Terrorism, a.k.a. WWIV. It's worth reading the whole thing, but let me highlight the Belmont Club summary:
This extensive article is nothing less than an attempt to understand the Global War on Terror in the context of the last 60 years. Podhoretz compares the manner in which GW Bush met the threat posed by radical Islam to Harry Truman's response to the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent, the way Roosevelt faced global fascism. The article argues that in terms of scope, potential deadliness and the fundamental nature of issues, the current struggle against radical Islamism ranks as a World War. Podhoretz lays out the themes of Bush's policy speeches side by side with their implementation and concludes the President has founded his strategy on four pillars.
- The idea that Western civilization is worth fighting for in a contest with an ideology which aims to destroy it;
- That regimes which abet this hostile ideology will be destroyed or reformed;
- That America has the right not merely to respond, but to pre-empt enemy action; and
- That the Arab-Israeli issues will be judged by their contribution to the goal of creating democratic institutions in the Middle East, and not upon any grounds of historical entitlement.
Major Anti-Terrorism Bust
The British government is charging 8 men with "terrorism-related offenses, including conspiracy to commit murder."
In addition, one of the men is charged with possessing plans that could have been used as the basis for a terror attack on financial institutions in New York and Washington.This story began with the arrest in Pakistan of Muhammad Naeem Moor Khan, which was made possible by the post-9/11 anti-terrorism strategy of the Bush Adminstration, which are clearly making America safer.
He and another man face a similar charge concerning a financial building in New Jersey....
All eight are accused of conspiring together and with unknown persons to commit murder and conspiring to commit public nuisance by "using radioactive materials, toxic gases, chemicals and/or explosives to cause a disruption, fear or injury."
Barot and Tarmohammed were charged with possessing documents or information that could be "useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" because authorities said they had a "reconnaissance plan concerning the Prudential Building in New Jersey."
Barot also was charged with possessing a reconnaissance plan concerning the New York Stock Exchange, Citigroup in New York and the International Monetary Fund in Washington, the statement said.
Update: Will Howard Dean and other Democrats now apologize for accusing the Bush Adminstration of inventing the latest terrorism threats out of thin air? Stay tuned!...
Free Muslim Coalition against Terrorism
Please, please, why can't there be more people like these?
hat tip: Instapundit
War Crimes
Newsflash! John Kerry committed war-crimes in Vietnam!
OK, not really a newsflash -- it's from 1971. John Kerry actually accused himself of committing acts "contrary to the laws of warfare" on Meet the Press in 1971:
“There are all kinds of atrocities,” Kerry says on the tape, “and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare.”Recently Kerry explained to Tim Russert that they weren't really atrocities exactly, you see, that wasn't really the right word to use -- he was angry at the time.
OK, then, good enough for the me. That's enough of that story.
But wait a minute, didn't he say his actions were "contrary to the laws of warfare"? Wake up, Russert! It doesn't matter if Kerry describes his actions as "atrocities" or not. What matters is whether they were illegal -- and he admits they were. And just following orders, if that's what he was doing, is not an excuse. Soldiers are obliged to disobey illegal orders.
Maybe there is a simple explanation for all of this. Maybe not. Perhaps one of the zillion "reporters" following Kerry around the country might bother to ask him?
Kerry vs Kerry
The Instapendent highlights some Democratic hypocracy on the issue of Vietnam.
Senator Tom Harkin:
Harkin, D-Iowa and a former Navy fighter pilot, said Monday, "It just outrages me that someone who got five deferments during Vietnam and said he had 'other priorities' at that time would say that."Honorably, John Kerry immediately reprimanded Harkin for "dividing" the country and "reopening" old wounds:
He said President Bush and Cheney are "running scared because John Kerry has a war record and they don't." He said of Cheney, "What he is doing and what he is saying is cowardly. The actions are cowardly."
"When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil," said Harkin. "He'll be tough, but he'll be tough with someone else's kid's blood."
I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning....Oh, wait a minute, that was the old John Kerry -- he said that in 1992 in defense of presidential candidate Bill Clinton. But at least John Kerry said he won't join in questioning Bush's service.
The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.
We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?...
But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time....
We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.
Later, Kerry questioned Bush's service:
Senator John F. Kerry extended his attack on President Bush's military service record and heaped scorn on Vice President Dick Cheney for avoiding the Vietnam War yesterday as the Kerry campaign continued to portray the nation's wartime leaders as once fearing war themselves....
Earlier in the day in comments to the Dayton Daily News, Kerry said of Bush and Cheney: "I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard, and a vice president who got every deferment in the world and decided he had better things to do, criticizing somebody who fought for their country and served.
I am sure John Kerry is "saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign."
Ilana Wexler
There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who find it unseemly and grotesque when a know-nothing twelve-year-old girl mocks the Vice-President of the United States in front of the world, and those who endorse and celebrate it.
For the record, Ilana had no comment on John Kerry's potty mouth.
Monday, August 16, 2004
US occupation?
Did the AFP miss the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq on June 28?
Iraqi supporters of radical Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr (pictures) demonstrate against US occupation in front of Najaf's Imam Ali shrine, one of the holiest religious sites for Shiite Muslims.(AFP/Karim Sahib)
Get with the times, AFP! The government of Iraq is now fully endorsed by the United Nations, by unanimous vote, and US forces are only there at the behest of that government. The US is no longer an occupying power in Iraq, anymore than we are in Germany, South Korea, Japan or any of the over 100 countries where we have troops deployed.
At one time, there was a debate over whether the US forces should be referred to as liberators, with obvious positive connotations, or occupiers, with obvious negative connotations. Those who persisted in calling the US an occupation force declared that while it was debatable that the US should be considered liberators, still the US was literally and technically an occupier.
Fine.
But now the US is literally and technically not an occupation force, so it is only fair that the media cease to refer to it as such.
Of course, many people, even a well-known presidential candidate, still refer to a coalition of 32 countries as "unilateral", so I guess I should expect no better.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Union of Concerned Scientists bashes Bush
Earlier this year, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report attacking the Bush administration:
The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday.That's a serious charge, something the UCS describes as "unprecedented." But is it true?
The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization, also issued a 37-page report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. The statement and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether.
Not suprisingly, the White House doesn't think so:
President Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, said he was disappointed in the report, and called it biased.So what is the truth? If the UCS statement is over-zealous, why would a bunch of "independent" scientists go out of their way to attack the Bush Administration?
He said he was troubled by the fact that some very prestigious scientists signed the statement.
"We have to find a way to reach out to them and try to come to an understanding, because this administration has in fact been very supportive of science," Marburger said. He noted the administration has doubled the National Institutes of Health budget and increased the National Science Foundation budget....
"I think there are reasonable explanations for nearly all the things in the report, and rather than look for what those explanations might be, I think the (researchers were) somewhat biased in favor of a sweeping opinion of what this administration is all about, and I just don't think that's justified."
I did about 10 minues of research into UCS to see what this group might be about.
The first thing I noticed on their website was that all of their policy initiatives were pretty much in line with or to the left of the Democratic Party. So while they may be "independent", so is Ralph Nader. One might expect this on environmental issues such as drilling for Alaskan Oil, Mileage Requirements and Global Warming, but what about Missile Defense and even the War in Iraq?
Yes, UCS seems to have organized resistance to the Iraq invasion before the war, leading a letter-writing campaign:
Urgent: Tell President Bush To Give the Inspectors the Time They Need.They even provided a sample letter for the convenience of like-minded subscribers:
Next week the United Nations' inspectors in Iraq will give a preliminary report to the UN Security Council on their findings. At the same time, the Bush administration is amassing a huge military force in the region and seems prepared to go to war unilaterally no matter what those findings are.
The only real solution to the problem of weapons of mass destruction -in Iraq and around the globe - is to establish strong international controls based on the rule of law, supported by the international community, and enforced by the UN Security Council. Unilateral, preemptive US action against Iraq would undermine the prospects forsuch controls and could lead to still graver proliferation problems.
Dear President Bush:So what does this have to do with science? uh, Nothing?
I am writing to ask you to respect the decisions of the UN Security Council on how best to ensure that Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction are eliminated, and to allow the inspectors to do their work. I strongly oppose any US military action against Iraq without prior consideration and explicit approval by the UN Security Council....
I take this as pretty clear evidence that the UCS is willing to cross the line from science into politics, exactly as it accuses the Bush administration of doing.
With a little further digging, I found that others have already looked at the UCS and the quality of their reports. The Consumer Freedom Network does background work on independent non-profits:
This site, a part of the ConsumerFreedom.com network, is committed to providing detailed and up-to-date information about the funding source of radical anti-consumer organizations and activists.....They say:
As you read through the site, you may be surprised by some of the connections between these groups and individuals, forming a web of anti-consumer activism -- promoting false science, scare campaigns, inflated public health causes, and sometimes even violent anti-consumer "direct actions."
UCS embraces an environmental agenda that often stands at odds with the “rigorous scientific analysis” it claims to employ. A radical green wolf in sheep’s clothing, UCS tries to distinguish itself from the Greenpeaces of the world by convincing the media that its recommendations reflect a consensus among the scientific community. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Whether it’s energy policy or agricultural issues, UCS’s “experts” are routinely given a free pass from newspaper reporters and television producers when they claim that mainstream science endorses their radical agenda.... [ed. It wasn't hard for me to find this criticism of UCS. Shouldn't the Wired reporter Kristen Philipkoski have provided this perspective to her readers?]hmmm, so what is the truth behind all of this?
More recently, UCS pulled a partisan, election-year stunt in 2004 aimed at the Bush Administration. The group rounded up 60 scientists to sign a statement complaining that “the administration is distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies; manipulating the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions.”
On issue after issue, UCS insists, the White House fails to embrace global scientific “consensus” -- and that automatically means it has “politicized” science. But UCS itself is frequently guilty of that exact sin. For instance, it works overtime to scare Americans about a whole host of imagined environmental problems associated with genetically modified food. But every authoritative regulatory agency, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization, declares that biotech food crops are perfectly safe.
UCS routinely abuses and politicizes science....
I don't know, but I can say that UCS seems to be a generally leftist association of scientists that often strays into the political arena. That isn't necessarily bad. What is bad is the extent to which they portray themselves as something they're not, some sort of general "scientific concensus." That misrepresentation, in itself, detracts from their credibility.
But that doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong on this issue. Even if I, generally a Bush supporter, said that John Kerry is tall and lanky, that should not be taken as evidence that he is short and fat. And if UCS says that the Bush administration politicizes science, just because they lean to the left, it doesn't mean they're wrong.
So what is the truth? As Agent Moulder would say, "The Truth is Out There". But what is it? The truth is that I don't know, and I can't know without devoting hours and hours of more research investigating the UCS's charges, which like most people, I don't have time to do. That is ultimately the sad result when scientific groups or the media take political angles and don't tell us the whole truth -- they lose their credibility, and nothing they say can be taken at face value.
Both sides of this debate have a political agenda, and without more information, I don't believe it's possible to say what the truth is. And because I believe in "innocent until proven guilty" beyond a "reasonable doubt", for now I am giving George W Bush a pass on this accusation.
Friday, August 13, 2004
Cambodian Kerry Media Update
NY Times and Washington Post
Instapundit notes that the NY Times and Washington Post still have not covered John Kerry's changing stories about Cambodia at all, except for a single Post editorial attacking the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.
And what's even more amazing -- and considerably more appalling -- is that I just checked the New York Times and Washington Post sites and there's still absolutely nothing on this story there. A Kerry claim proven false, a retraction, and a retrenchment -- and absolutely no coverage at all. If we were seeing the same sort of questions raised about George W. Bush I think we'd be getting wall-to-wall coverage. It's as is they're letting their coverage be shaped by the fact that they want Kerry to win or something. Kind of makes you wonder what else they're leaving out.
LA Times
Patterico is covering the LA Times. He says they've covered this with 4 stories, headlined:
America Needs an Antidote to the Election's Partisan Venom
Top Texas Donor's Influence Far More Visible Than He Is
It's Not All Fair Game
McCain Decries Ad, Vouches for Kerry
In other words, as Peterrico says,
according to the L.A. Times, the Swift Boat Vets' ad is partisan venom, denounced by John McCain and funded by a wealthy Republican activist, concerning a topic that is not "fair game." That's all you need to know.
Television News
The Media Research Center is monitoring the major cable and network sources and reports that only Fox News has been reporting on Kerry's backtracking.
In summary, if you're only getting your news from mainstream news sources like CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NY Times, the Washington Post or the LA Times, as a lot of people do, then you are almost completely uninformed about Kerry's shifting stories. You might even think that the net effect of this story is that it's the Republicans who are behaving badly.
But then, I guess that's what they want you to think.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Cambodian Kerry
John Kerry's story over his Christmas Eve in Cambodia has been unraveling, and painfully. Here is a good summary of where we started with Kerry's claims:
I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what is was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khme Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; The troops were not in Cambodia…I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me....
and
I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.
(btw, Richard Nixon didn't even take office until 1969. And Kerry was only in Vietnam for five months, so he couldn't have just remembered the wrong Christmas.)
Glenn Reynolds has been following this closely since then. See from Aug 10, morning and afternoon, Aug 11, and Aug 12 to the point where the Kerry campaign admitted that his "seared" memory was a "mistaken recollection":
On Fox News' "Fox and Friends," Kerry Campaign Advisor Jeh Johnson had this to say to the show's co-host Brian Kilmeade:Apparently he was only "near" Cambodia. But isn't that the whole point? He had to actually be in Cambodia for his charges against the US government to be true. Yet another case of him slandering the US war effort in Vietnam.
JOHNSON: John Kerry has said on the record that he had a mistaken recollection earlier. He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve 1968 which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the recorded to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about that date.
KILMEADE: I think the term was he had a searing memory of spending Christmas - back in 1986 in the senate floor in Cambodia.
JOHNSON: I believe he has corrected the record to say it was some place near Cambodia he is not certain whether it was in Cambodia but he is certain there was some point subsequent to that that he was in Cambodia.
Just for fun, if you're a Kerry supporter, try putting the shoe on the other foot. Let's pretend George W were running for President on the strength of his service record, and then it was discovered that he had been misrepresenting it, and then attempted to cover that up, allowing people closedly tied to his campaign, such as the featured Jim Rassman, to slander the hundreds of veterans who are blowing the whistle. (I quote: "vicious", "hate-filled", "dishonest and dishonorable" and "without decency".)
Do you think the media might happen to at least mention this to the millions of American voters?
After all, when Bush's military record was in question, the media spent about a month of coverage on it, and went so far as to openly speculate whether a dentist's signature was forged. And in that case, there was no story -- media research had already shown Bush had a clean record.
Now that Kerry's campaign has admitted his "seared memory" was invented, I can only assume Jennings, Brokaw and Rather will finally bring this to the public's attention. We shall see...
Views of Najaf
First, check out this recent entry from a Baghdad blogger named Mohammed:
It’s still tense here in Baghdad and everyone is talking about the expected major operations in Najaf. There are different opinions on who’s responsible of what happened but the majority clearly confirm the responsibility of the militias, and even those who hold the Americans responsible for the latest violence believe so because they think that the Americans together with the Iraqi government gave those gangs the freedom to act like this when they should’ve dealt with them firmly from the beginning.
I was talking about this with some of my friends and I was trying hard to explain that the government was patient to show that force is not the only nor the 1st choice to confront problems but it will be the last choice and after exhausting all other possible solutions. All this to show that Iraq’s policy will be entirely different from that of the dictatorships that ruled in the past. A policy that seeks what’s best for the people rather than the government’s will or desire, to avoid any possible losses among people.
However the truth has to be said and as one of my friends said, “what you say is true but the militias in question were the ones who raised arms and that was 1st choice, and here responding with force will be a self defense rather than a choice made in haste”....
Everyone here is waiting for the final attack and the end of this crisis. Most people I met are waiting for the moment when they can see Muqtada and his deputies in handcuffs, those criminals have been given a chance they didn't deserve in the 1st place.
Now check out this "news" report filed under the headline "Iraqi Shiites Angry at Fighting in Najaf" and at one time featured on the front page at www.yahoo.com.
Iraqi Shiites expressed anger Thursday at a major U.S.-led assault on a rebel militia in the holy city of Najaf, warning the violence could spread to other parts of the country and damage the political process....To be fair though, in what would seem to be a miracle given the tone of the report, the writer was able to find one alternate viewpoint:
"This will lead to revenge for the holy sites and for those killed," said Salama al-Khafaji, a former member of the disbanded Governing Council....
Sheik Jalal Eddin al-Sagheer, a Shiite cleric, said he and others were angry at seeing Najaf under attack, even if they did not support al-Sadr.
"Let's say Muqtada is the pinnacle of terrorism and extremism, still how can such a holy city with its special status be treated that way?" he said. "No one can accept targeting people in that manner."
Al-Khafaji, who has taken part in mediation efforts between al-Sadr and the U.S. and Iraqi authorities, said the military operations and the loss of life would harm the image of the Americans and Iraq's interim government. "This is not in the interest of America," she said.
In the southern Shiite city of Basra, nearly 5,000 al-Sadr sympathizers took to the streets Thursday, demanding U.S. troops withdraw from Najaf and condemning Prime Minister Ayad Allawi for his perceived support of the Americans.
"Allawi and the governor of Najaf are responsible for this massacre," said Abed Jassim, a Shiite in Basra. "They provided protection for the Americans to kill the Shiites."
Sadr's followers "should leave for their own safety and the city's peace," said Sheik Hassan, a Najaf cleric who only gave his first name. "That way the Americans would leave."But perhaps I am too generous, as the reporter ends with a quote describing the lawful response of the legitimate Iraqi Government (bearing the holy UN imprimatur) and allied US forces to attacks by heavily armed mobs as a "human massacre."
I have to ask, is this writer even in the same country as Mohammed?
I am John Kerry
This one is making the rounds, but I will save you the trouble.
I am John Kerry I was against the first Iraq war, I am against the second Iraq war, but I voted for it. Now I'm against it but I was for it (as of August 8, 2004 I am now telling everyone that I would have sent troops into Iraq, regardless if they had WMDs or not). I support the UN. I'm against terrorism and against the Iraq war. But I voted for the Iraq war. So, I voted against the first war and supported the second war, wait... I'm against gay marriage but for gay unions. I support gays but think the SF mayor is wrong. I support gay marriages. No, wait, gay unions. I'm Catholic. Wait, I'm Jewish. My dad was Jewish. But I was raised Catholic. What am I? I don't want to confuse people. I am for abortions, but wait, I'm Catholic, and Catholics are pro-life. But I might consider putting pro-life judges in office, but I'm not sure. I do know I voted for a pro-life judge, but I stated that it was a mistake. I went to Vietnam. But I was against Vietnam. I testified against fellow US troops in Vietnam, threw my medals away and led others to do the same. But I am a war hero. Against the war. I stated I threw my medals away then I threw my ribbons away. I then revealed that I threw my ribbons away but not my medals, then lately I stated that I threw someone else's medals away and never threw anything of mine away. I believe ribbons and medals aren't the same thing. Medals come with ribbons, so now I believe that ribbons and medals are the same thing besides the fact that ribbons are cloth and medals are metal. I wrote a book that pictured the US flag upside-down on its cover. But now I fly and campaign in a plane with a large flag right-side up on it. But sometimes, we fly upside-down for fun. Yasser Arafat is a hero and a statesman. The Israelis shouldn't kill Palestinian terrorists, but they should stop terrorism. Yasser Arafat is a terrorist supporter. I support Mid East peace. I am for the common man, unlike Bush. I am against the rich. But my family is worth 300 million dollars has a jet and many SUVs. I am the common man. I am against sending jobs overseas. My wife is a Heinz heir. Heinz has most factories offshore. I am against rewarding companies for exporting jobs as long as it is not Heinz. I own $1 million in Wal-Mart stock. I believe Walmart is evil by driving small business owners out of town. I am a capitalist and I own part of Walmart but I am a good guy for small corporate America. I own SUVs when I talk to my followers in Detroit, MI, but Teresa owns SUVs and I don't, when I talk to tree hugging followers. I have a campaign jet that gets 1/3 mpg, which is great fuel efficiency. I am against making military service an issue in presidential elections. I defended a draft dodger Clinton and stated that all serve in their own capacity whether they draft dodge or not. Did I mention, I served in Vietnam and am a hero? Are you questioning my patriotism? I served in Vietnam. My opponent didn't. I have three purple hearts! I am a hero. I am qualified to run this country since I served.
