Kerry's 1971 Senate Testimony Fisked

Vide.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 05/04/04 09:05:36 PM
Categorized as John Kerry.

"Loose Cannon" Kerry "Unfit for Office"

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCXC

Here's the news at CNS today of the press conference that had been announced yesterday:

John Kerry's former swift boat commanders and colleagues on Tuesday described the presumptive Democrat nominee as a self-absorbed and devious sailor during the Vietnam War who was there merely to advance a future political career.

A group of 18 veterans gathered in the nation's capital asking Kerry to authorize the Department of the Navy to independently release his military records, including medical information, about his service during the Vietnam War. Many said Kerry was unfit to be commander-in-chief of the U.S. military.

More than 200 veterans have signed a letter from the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth seeking the release of records. Retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann commanded the swift boat force during Kerry's tour of duty. Today he serves as chairman of the veterans' group....

John O'Neill writes at OpinionJournal today:

In 1971, I debated John Kerry, then a national spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, for 90 minutes on "The Dick Cavett Show." The key issue in that debate was Mr. Kerry's claim that American troops were committing war crimes in Vietnam "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Now, as Sen. Kerry emerges as the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've chosen to re-enter the fray.

Like John Kerry, I served in Vietnam as a Swift Boat commander. Ironically, John Kerry and I served much of our time, a full 12 months in my case and a controversial four months in his, commanding the exact same six-man boat, PCF-94, which I took over after he requested early departure. Despite our shared experience, I still believe what I believed 33 years ago — that John Kerry slandered America's military by inventing or repeating grossly exaggerated claims of atrocities and war crimes in order to advance his own political career as an antiwar activist. His misrepresentations played a significant role in creating the negative and false image of Vietnam vets that has persisted for over three decades....

Since 1971, I have refused many offers from John Kerry's political opponents to speak out against him. My reluctance to become involved once again in politics is outweighed now by my profound conviction that John Kerry is simply not fit to be America's commander in chief. Nobody has recruited me to come forward. My decision is the inevitable result of my own personal beliefs and life experience.

Today, America is engaged in a new war, against the militant Islamist terrorists who attacked us on our own soil. Reasonable people may differ about how best to proceed, but I'm sure of one thing — John Kerry is the wrong man to put in charge.

Mr. O'Neill served in Coastal Division 11 in 1969-70, winning two Bronze Stars and additional decorations for his service in Vietnam.

Also, SwiftVets added today a press release to their website:

Today, a group of Swift Boat veterans from the unit in which Senator John Kerry served announced the formation of an organization, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The organization has been formed in order to bring the truth about Kerry to the American people. The organization intends to discuss Kerry’s war crimes charges, Kerry’s record and to request that Kerry authorize the Department of Defense to release the originals and the complete files relating to his military service and medical military records.

The group released a historic letter expressing the overwhelming opposition of those who served with Kerry or in his unit to his misrepresentation of his record and the unit’s record. The letter is signed by Swift Boat veterans at all levels and from the entire political spectrum; the entire chain of command during the period Kerry served in Vietnam; veterans who participated in the engagements resulting in his medals; and the majority of officers who served with him in Coastal Division 11, the unit in which he spent most of his four month tour of duty. Public circulation of the letter began one week ago and collected hundreds of signatures. The signers already make up a majority of the Swift Vets whose addresses can be found. The complete record of signers and comments will be posted on Swiftvets.com.

Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (retired), Commander of Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam (Commander Task Force 115) and chair of the group said, “I signed this letter because I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust — all absolute tenets of command.”

“We don’t understand why Kerry would make the centerpiece of his campaign an exaggerated account of his four month service in Vietnam 33 years ago, but since he is, we believe the American public is entitled to the truth about his service and about his charges about war crimes and atrocities,” explained John O’Neill, a Swift Boat veteran who took charge of Kerry’s boat a few months after Kerry’s departure and who debated Kerry in 1971.

The Swift Boat Vets for Truth include the entire chain of command above Kerry: Lt. Commander Grant Hibbard, Lt. Commander Elliott, Captain Charles Plumly, Captain Adrian Lonsdale USCG (retired) and Rear Admiral Hoffmann (retired), as well as enlisted men, officers, men who served with Mr. Kerry, men who served in the same group of Swift boats and men intimately familiar with the operations and conduct of Swift boat operations during the war. The group also includes James Zumwalt, Lt. Colonel, U.S.M.C. (retired), representing his father, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, and brother, Lt. Elmo Zumwalt III, both deceased.

I have yet to find the text of the actual letter.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 05/04/04 08:02:11 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & John Kerry.

Bravo to Bishop Olmsted!

I have neglected, Faithful Reader, to call your attention to the reforming actions of Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix:

A rapid series of recent diocesan actions underscores that Olmsted is a loyal and ardently faithful servant to Pope John Paul Il, with whom the bishop once regularly worked during assignments with the Curia in the early 1980s.

The pope tapped the 31-year priest last fall to leave his bishop’s job in the Diocese of Wichita, Kan., to come to Arizona to rebuild a church rocked by sexual misconduct by priests with minors and the disgrace brought by longtime Bishop Thomas O’Brien’s felony case of leaving the scene of a fatal pedestrian accident.

Many parishioners, angered by the scandals, have welcomed Olmsted’s no-nonsense crackdown on seeming waywardness in the priesthood, his shake-up in chancery leadership and such initiatives as bringing back the traditional Latin Mass on a limited basis.

Others are critical of his conservative actions....

(Thanks, Patrick.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 05/04/04 07:51:55 PM
Categorized as Religious.

1942 All Over Again?

John Moser writes an editorial at Ashbrook Center, May 2004:

.... A spate of propaganda over the past ten years about the "greatest generation" has contributed to a widely-held belief that during World War II Americans accepted such developments stoically, without complaint, and that bad news only intensified their resolve to see the fight through to a successful finish. In fact, the reverse was true; Americans were stunned by these reversals, and were quick to look for someone to blame. For a while the British appeared to be a convenient target; one poll taken after the fall of the North African fortress of Tobruk elicited responses suggesting that there was "too much tea-drinking and not enough fighting." The editors of The New Republic, meanwhile, complained that the British army was underperforming due to a "social rigidity which has kept the best British military ability from coming to the top."

Nor was the administration immune to criticism, particularly for its commitment to defeating Germany first. Given that it had been the Japanese who had attacked Pearl Harbor, Americans found it difficult to understand why in the first months of the war more U.S. troops were being sent to the United Kingdom than to, say, the Philippines, where they might help Gen. Douglas MacArthur to stop the invading Japanese forces. A Gallup poll showed that a substantial majority of the population believed that Japan was the nation’s "chief enemy," and therefore that most of the country’s resources should be committed to the Pacific. In fact, as late as mid-1943 a bipartisan group of senators — all of whom, it should be noted, had a history of opposition to the president’s policies — were accusing the administration of an almost criminal neglect of the war against Japan.

Such attacks convinced Roosevelt that he had to give the American people a victory; if possible, before the midterm congressional elections in 1942. However, Operation Torch — the Anglo-American invasion of North Africa — had to be pushed back until after Election Day, and the result was a debacle for the Democratic Party. The Republicans picked up no less than 44 seats in the House of Representatives and nine in the Senate. Only in the so-called "solid South" did Democrats manage to survive reelection challenges.

But even if Operation Torch had taken place before Election Day it is unlikely that the result would have been much different. American troops coming ashore in French-held North Africa soon encountered stiff resistance from French troops, who arguably fought harder in this campaign than they had against the invading Germans in 1940. The fighting only ceased when an agreement was negotiated with Admiral Jean Francois Darlan, the Vichy French commander. This, however, led to howls of protests from liberals—Darlan was a fascist, and to negotiate with him was a betrayal of what the war was supposed to be about. "A deal with the devil," was how radio commentator Walter Winchell put it. In the words of historian Thomas Fleming, hostility to the Darlan deal reflected the struggle "between the New Dealers’ approach to the war and those who rated realism above moral purity."

If these events have largely faded from public memory, it is no doubt because we know that ultimately what mattered was the outcome of the war — the Allies won, Nazism and fascism were crushed, and the former Axis Powers would become constitutional republics. The defeats of 1942, and the resulting criticism of the war effort, today appear to be of merely academic interest. However, it is important to remember them during these trying days. Modern communications have developed to the point that every bit of information coming in from Fallujah and elsewhere is eagerly pored over, and a host of reporters, columnists, radio personalities and internet bloggers are under pressure to offer instant analysis, desperately trying to make sense of a complicated situation based on highly limited information. In such a situation, is it any wonder that the overall picture we receive tends to be one of imminent disaster?...

(Thanks, Peter.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 05/04/04 05:46:33 PM
Categorized as Political.

"Liberalism Dissolves the Person"

An article by Dr. Keith Burgess-Jackson at TCS, Apr. 27:

Why are liberals such as Paul Krugman, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean so angry and aggressive? I like to think that I have insight into this matter, since I was a liberal for a long time. If you haven't been a liberal, you may be puzzled by what you hear and read from them. They may seem — dare I say it? — insane, or at least discombobulated....

Most of us believe that responsibility and desert should play a role in the distribution of benefits and burdens. Liberals disagree. Deep down, liberals deny that anyone is responsible for anything. What we are, in terms of personal character, is a function of circumstances beyond our control. How we behave depends solely on our environment. Our very choices are determined, not free. Liberalism dissolves the person. To the liberal, we are loci of movement rather than initiators of action, patients rather than agents, heteronomous rather than autonomous beings. Liberals will deny this, of course, but look at their beliefs and policy prescriptions....

Keith also has a weblog.

See also "My Journey to Conservatism" and "Why Liberals Think Conservatives Are Stoopid".

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 05/04/04 05:19:41 PM
Categorized as Social/Cultural.

Culture of Death on Catholic Campuses

A report from the Cardinal Newman Society:

Cardinal Newman Society has issued a shocking new report on scandals at U.S. Catholic colleges and universities that is certain to reignite concerns about the colleges’ religious character.

The 56-page report, “The Culture of Death on Catholic Campuses: A Five-Year Review,” documents inroads made by advocates of abortion, contraception, premarital sexual activity and physician-assisted suicide onto Catholic college campuses since 1999. It is the most extensive evidence of problems in Catholic higher education ever compiled in a single source — and yet it only scratches the surface, relying primarily on media reports and college websites.

“‘Pro-choice’ is no choice for a Catholic institution, which by its Catholic mission must be courageously pro-life,” said Erin Butcher, lead researcher and co-author of the report. “Cardinal Newman Society has responded to scandal after scandal on Catholic campuses, but many Catholics still fail to appreciate the scope of the problem.”

The report identifies the problems and suggests solutions to ensure that Catholic colleges uphold their Catholic, pro-life mission.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 05/04/04 07:30:36 AM
Categorized as Religious.

"Buyer's Remorse"?

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCLXXXIX

John Fund's diary yesterday. (Ellipses in original.)

It's six months until the election, and Democrats are already having buyer's remorse. The Bush campaign "is kicking Kerry's ass every damn day," one prominent Democratic operative told the Washington Post last week. "Kerry hasn't owned one day in the news yet. Not one day!"

Some liberals are so frantic that they want to pull the plug. Village Voice columnist James Ridgeway says prominent Democrats should "sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike" and withdraw. Call that the Torricelli option, after the former New Jersey senator who was muscled out of the race by party elders.

That's not going to happen. First, John Forbes Kerry has wanted to be president ever since he hung around the Kennedy family compound as a teenager. He's not going to let any of the same pooh-bahs who only last December wrote him off as a primary contender drive him from the race now. Second, Mr. Kerry's convention delegates are loyal to him and not easily transferable. There was similar grumbling about dumping Bill Clinton in the summer of 1992 when he was running third in polls behind both George Bush and Ross Perot. Nothing came of it.

But that doesn't mean that the worries about John Kerry's electability are going away. Time magazine columnist Joe Klein says Mr. Kerry is "engulfed by the sort of people Howard Dean railed against: timid congressional Democratic staff members and some of the old Clinton crowd.... Kerry's may be the most sclerotic presidential campaign since Bob Dole's." Ouch.

Complaints about Mr. Kerry extend beyond his staff. John Weaver, who was strategist for John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign before he became a Democrat, calls Mr. Kerry's TV skills "abysmal.... I don't know if it's a stream of consciousness or stream of unconsciousness." MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who has lavished airtime on Mr. Kerry, is nonetheless frustrated with his elliptical speech patterns. "There's no such thing as a trick question with Kerry, because he won't answer it," he sighs. "We'll be having conversations afterward, and it's hard to get to him even then."

The few times that Mr. Kerry decides to abandon his nuanced reserve and programmed responses he can become argumentative and hectoring. ABC's Charlie Gibson asked him last Monday on "Good Morning America" to reconcile his inconsistent stories about whether he had flung his medals or merely his combat ribbons over the White House fence during a 1971 antiwar protest. After Mr. Gibson pointed out that he had covered the demonstration and had personally seen Mr. Kerry throwing medals away, the candidate replied: "Charlie, Charlie, you're wrong! That is not what happened. I threw my ribbons across. And all you have to do is go back and find the file footage." He then lapsed into incoherence.

Vaughn Ververs, the editor of the political newsletter Hotline, says Mr. Kerry's weak performances have led to "a good deal of hand-wringing among Democrats over the perception that one of Kerry's biggest strengths — his military service — seems to have become a liability."

One reason is that he began his presidential race talking far too much about Vietnam. My colleague James Taranto points out that in a December 2002 interview with NBC's Tim Russert, Mr. Kerry managed to work Vietnam into an answer about the death penalty. Robert Sam Anson, a Kerry friend who first met him during that same antiwar protest at which Mr. Kerry burst onto the national scene in 1971, concludes that Mr. Kerry is suffering from a desire to "explain away, deny, revise, trim or flat-out lie about all past events, beliefs and statements that got you the Democratic nomination in the first place. It happened to another friend of mine in 1972. His name was George McGovern.... See what happens when you ignore what Mother said about fibbing? No one's saying that Mr. Kerry's cooked. But McGovern parallels give him a toasted look he didn't get skiing in Sun Valley."

Liberals know they are stuck with Mr. Kerry, but that's not preventing them from worrying about his tendency to appear to take both sides of an issue. The irony is that Mr. Kerry has wanted the White House so badly, and for so long, that he has become almost a caricature of an opportunistic, programmed candidate. The resulting image turns off many voters who sense that not much is motivating him beyond blind ambition. For example, many voters may not feel comfortable with Mr. Bush's religious impulses and motivations, but they highlight the image he conveys of a sincere, committed leader.

It is traditional for party activists to grumble about their prospective nominee between the time he wraps up the primaries and when he is actually nominated. But the doubts about Mr. Kerry go beyond campaign kvetching. At times, they seem to verge on quiet panic.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

(Thanks, Ryan.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 05/04/04 07:18:07 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode.