![]() |
The Weblog at The View from the Core - Friday, August 27, 2004
|
Appleby Slams Cheney Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 08/27/04 10:02:12 PM |
Novak & Schachte By Popular Demand And O'Neill tells the president to buzz off. Well, not exactly. In a first, two readers brought this article to our attention, in which a JAG admiral indicates John Kerry did not deserve his first Purple Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in his first on-the-record interview about the Swift boat veterans dispute that "I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident which led to his first Purple Heart.... 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 Mekong River so that the larger Swift boats could move in. At about 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.... A Purple Heart cannot be earned except in the heat of battle; that is, in the presence of enemy fire. Some folks are acting as if the wound having been accidentally self-inflicted is a bar to the award; but, AFAIK, so long as a self-inflicted wound was unintentional, and also not the result of culpable negligence, it may still qualify one for a Purple Heart. The key is There was no fire from the enemy. One of my correspondents points out something else: "This is important because if the admiral is telling the truth then the Kerry campaign has induced one of those two sailors into lying about being onboard, further evidence of the total dishonesty of this candidate." In a related matter, Swiftee John O'Neill says all ahead full: We formed Swift Boat Veterans For Truth for one purpose: to present to the American public our conclusion that John Kerry is not fit to be commander in chief. We are organized as a "527 group" with Adm. Roy Hoffmann at the helm, our leader today as he was some 35 years ago when we served under him in Coastal Squadron One in Vietnam. Our membership is transparent and shown on our Web site, www.swiftvets.com, currently including more than 250 Swiftees. We have 17 of the 23 officers who served with Mr. Kerry, most of his chain of command, and most sailors. We have more than 60 winners of real Purple Hearts. No one has a better right than we do to speak to the matters involving our unit. Are we controlled by the Bush-Cheney campaign? Absolutely not. The Swift boat veterans who joined our group come in all political flavors: independents, Republicans, Democrats and other more subtle variations. Had another person been the presidential candidate of the Democrats, our group never would have formed. Had Mr. Kerry been the Republican candidate, each of us would still be here. We do not take direction from the White House or the president's re-election committee, and our efforts would continue even if President Bush were to ask us directly to stop.... P.S. Admiral Schachte's full statement is here: .... The operation consisted of allowing the skimmer to drift silently along shorelines or riverbanks to look or listen for sounds of enemy activity. If activity was identified, we would open fire with our automatic weapons, and if we received fire, we would depart the area as quickly as possible, leaving it to air support or mortar fire from a Swift Boat standing off at a distance to carry out an attack. I commanded each of these Skimmer operations up to and including the one on the night in question involving Lt. (jg) Kerry. On each of these operations, I was in the skimmer manning the M-60 machine gun. I took with me one other officer and an enlisted man to operate the outboard motor. I wanted another officer because officers, when not on patrol, were briefed daily on the latest intelligence concerning our sector of operations and were therefore more familiar with the current intelligence. Additionally, at these daily briefings, officers debriefed on their patrol areas after returning to port. On the night of December 2-3, we conducted one of these operations, and Lt. (jg) Kerry accompanied me. Our call sign for that operation was "Batman." I have no independent recollection of the identity of the enlisted man, who was operating the outboard motor. Sometime during the early morning hours, I thought I detected some movement inland. At the time we were so close to land that we could hear water lapping on the shoreline. I fired a hand-held flare, and upon it bursting and illuminating the surrounding area, I thought I saw movement. I immediately opened fire with my M-60. It jammed after a brief burst. Lt. (jg) Kerry also opened fire with his M-16 on automatic, firing in the direction of my tracers. His weapon also jammed. As I was trying to clear my weapon, I heard the distinctive sound of the M-79 being fired and turned to see Lt. (jg) Kerry holding the M-79 from which he had just launched a round. We received no return fire of any kind nor were there any muzzle flashes from the beach. I directed the outboard motor operator to clear the area. Upon returning to base, I informed my commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, of the events, informing him of the details of the operation and that we had received no enemy fire. I did not file an "after action" report, as one was only required when there was hostile fire. Soon thereafter, Lt. (jg) Kerry requested that he be put in for a Purple Heart as a result of a small piece of shrapnel removed from his arm that he attributed to the just-completed mission. I advised Lt. Cmdr. Hibbard that I could not support the request because there was no hostile fire. The shrapnel must have been a fragment from the M-79 that struck Lt. (jg) Kerry, because he had fired the M-79 too close to our boat. Lt. Cmdr. Hibbard denied Lt. (jg) Kerry's request. Lt. (jg) Kerry detached our division a few days later to be reassigned to another division. I departed Vietnam approximately three weeks later, and Lt. Cmdr. Hibbard followed shortly thereafter. It was not until years later that I was surprised to learn that Lt. (jg) Kerry had been awarded a Purple Heart for this night.... See also "Criticism of Kerry's Purple Heart is Just". Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 08/27/04 10:00:13 PM |
Communists for KERRY Nope. Not Democrats. P.S. I think that's a parody site. I think. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 08/27/04 06:52:00 PM |
John Kerry's Book The New Soldier It's available as PDF files for downloading here. It also has links to three chapters from Unfit for Command on line. See also these. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 08/27/04 06:38:31 PM |
"Protesters Risk Playing Into GOP Hands" Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCCLXI So says a Bush Hater at The Village Voice. (Ellipses in original.) + + + + + One of the most exhilarating moments in Lewis Koch's life came in the summer of 1968. He was a producer for NBC News, based in Chicago, specializing in the anti-war movement of which he was a sympathizer. Now, at the Democratic National Convention, he was an actor in what he thought was one of its glorious episodes. Cops were beating kids without provocation, and with the footage he was putting on the air, Middle America might finally realize that justice rested more with those protesting the war than those so violently defending it. "I remember my self-satisfaction," Koch recalls, "and saying to myself, 'Oh, did you do a terrific job!' " Then came the most traumatic moment in Lewis Koch's life. "The phones would ring off the hook. People were furious.... Nothing I had intended had gone through. Actually what they saw were clear pictures of these young kids rioting. Chaos in their city." Next thing he knew, Richard Nixon had swept to presidential victory on the wings of a commercial proclaiming above those selfsame pictures that "the first civil right of every American is to be free from domestic violence." Now Lew Koch senses dιjΰ vu all over again in the loose talk among protesters of staging similar scenes at next week's Republican convention talk that by putting the ugliness of the Bush regime on display, protesters thereby might end it. Koch's frustration is overwhelming. "What the protesters are saying is the same thing as the Weathermen: 'Bring the war home.' And you know what happens? You lose the war! They have guns. And they'll have the judges that Bush will appoint to the Supreme Court in the next four years." It recalls the old philosopher's conundrum: When a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If resistance against Bush actually plays into Bush's hands, is it really resistance? Then, as now, authorities are besotted with "less lethal" technology that's intended to prevent disorder (back then it was Mace), but actually increases disorder by lowering the threshold at which cops are willing to use force. Then, as now, police officials argued that the ACLU and the federal judges were putting them in danger by "tying their hands." When the cops lose some of these battles as they did this year, with rulings against four-sided pens for demonstrators and general searches of bags they get more afraid. That yields itchy fingers at the triggers of less-than-lethal implements. Then, as now: the strategic mobilization of "terrorists" a word Mayor Richard Daley in 1968 used to describe the Black Panthers, who, some residents of the Cook County jail reported, were planning assassinations. The ever reliable FBI sent 60 extra agents, though the jailbirds had made it all up which didn't prevent the city from announcing the "threat" to the press afterward as ex post facto rationalization for law enforcement's rampage. Then, as now: hovering, ruthless Republican presidential campaign operatives ready to seize on any advantage to win, who suspect that arrant attempts to frame the election as a choice between George W. Bush and "chaos in the streets" will be enough, for some small margin of voters, to inch themselves to victory. And, the most uncanny parallel of all: Events have seen to it perhaps by Republican intention, perhaps not, it hardly matters which that protesters this time, just like last time, have been rendered ready and eager to demonstrate, on the Sunday before the convention, in a physical location where the city has determined they may not demonstrate. Thus the stage may be set now as it was then for disaster. Chicago, like New York, has a backyard: the gorgeous series of parks stretching along Lake Michigan. The city assigned protesters one of these, Lincoln Park, far from the convention action, as the designated protest space. Then, as now, insurgents harbored a desire beyond what the city was willing to grant: They wanted to sleep in Lincoln Park, were determined to sleep in Lincoln Park just as folks are determined this year to demonstrate in Central Park. That was how the trouble started then. And that is how the trouble could start now. Then, as now, a city's idiotic "arguments" created two classes of citizens: desirable ones who attend concerts on Central Park's Great Lawn and undesirable ones who demonstrate on it; desirable ones like the Boy Scout troops that slept all the time in Lincoln Park and undesirable ones who were told it was illegal to sleep there. But might made right. Come curfew time, the night before the Chicago convention's opening gavel, Chicago cops showed up to roust demonstrators out of Lincoln Park. Instead, en masse, demonstrators moved out onto La Salle Drive, a busy thoroughfare feeding into a major freeway. Their sense of power, their sense of right, was overwhelming. "The streets belong to the people!" they chanted. The police, helpless, could only stand by. "I thought," remembers Lew Koch, "I don't care if it's Armpit, Arkansas, or Chicago, Illinois: You can only humiliate a cop once. Soon will come the vengeance." Protesters afforded cops a perfect scenario for revenge: the insurgents' most calculatedly defiant moment, scheduled for Wednesday night, when militants planned to march from a rally near the downtown hotels to the Amphitheater where the delegates assembled. "See you on the streets tonight," pronounced Jerry Rubin. On NBC's broadcast, a reporter conveyed the warning: "If police try to stop them, they'll sit down in the Chicago streets." Compare the plans of this year's A31 coalition, which promises, on Tuesday, August 31, to "converge on Madison Square Garden" to "risk the streets," which is where "real democracy begins.... If we are asked to move, we will sit down and refuse." In 1968, provoked by defiance on the weekend, afforded an excuse on a weekday, cops moved out in phalanxes and started clubbing at random. Demonstrators chanted, "The whole world is watching." The reason they chanted it: They thought they had won a public relations victory. Just like now? By Sunday, New York authorities will have felt provoked by the open defiance of their will by protests in Central Park. "A31" will arrive and cops will have read the affirmation, on A31.org, of "the right to disobey." It will saturate them with dread about what that vague promise could possibly mean and afford them an excuse to release all the paranoid energy that is produced, then and now, in an apocalyptic era. And then? Like many, Lew Koch suspects the spark might come from someone working for the Republicans. "One lie after another. I wouldn't applaud for that," someone unidentified said at the famous August 3 meeting at St. Marks church after an agonizingly effective argument that "unauthorized" demonstrations, no matter how morally compelling in theory, could ward off the one protest constituency whose presence is required for protests to actually be morally compelling: immigrants vulnerable to deportation. "Here," reflects Koch, reading a report of that meeting, "is what looks like a perfect agent provocateur type." So what are militants doing to prevent that possibility? If you e-mail the contact address for the Don't Just Vote Take Action (dontjustvote.com) protest contingent, you might get a call back, as I did, from Rae Valentine, who says she's been involved in activism for "several years," though she's only 19, and who dismisses the concern: "When you become overly paranoid you allow them to win, even without agent provocateurs." The site displays the kind of language whose vagueness might get hapless souls like Valentine put on 24-hour surveillance. It sounds innocent to write, "We must defend ourselves against possible attack like family and keep our spirits high." To Valentine, that means "just looking out for each other and taking care for each other." I point out that it might be interpreted differently by police intelligence and that the importance of protesters' intentions not being misconstrued by paranoid cops is one of the reasons, as morally compromising as it might seem, to consult with authorities before a demonstration. She responds with self-satisfied cleverness: "We should not have to ask permission from the very people we're trying to protest." There is a certain logic to the formulation. Here is a deeper logic: Politics is about communication. If you leave questions of what you are communicating to the cops, to the watching public entirely up in the air, you are not really doing politics at all. The willful denial of this fact does not infect only 19-year-olds. Ed Hedemann has been working for peace ever since he refused induction into the military in 1969. His group, the War Resisters League, has planned its action with exquisite care, and with a strategic dignity: Figures dressed in white to represent mourning will gather at the World Trade Center site; marching across the city as close to Madison Square Garden as practicable, they will hold a " 'die-in,' a way to graphically represent all those who have been killed by the government's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." But even an old hand like Hedemann simply turns off his brain when asked about a fundamental problem in political communications: that even the most passive protesters, when arrested, are often perceived by the public as they were in Chicago in 1968 as bringers of anarchy, and end up hurting the causes they profess to help. To ask this is not to reject protest; it is just an invitation to strategize to think about politics. Hedemann deflects it. "We need to do what we think is right to do, and not so much worry about, ah, 'Well, what if this? What if that?' I think we need to do what our conscience tells us is important to do, as long as it doesn't harm other people." The War Resisters League, like A31.org, cites a Martin Luther King Jr. quote that includes these words, offered as if a taunt: "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue." It would have taken all of King's powers of Christian love, I think, not to laugh in these people's faces. King would never ever simply say, "We need to do what our conscience tells us is important to do," and somehow leave it at that. King planned his insurgencies with the strategic care of a military general, and with the characteristic obsessions of a top-drawer publicist: no risk of arrest, of violence even when arrest or violence was welcomed, embraced for its communicative power was ever left to chance. (Today's protesters revel in their embrace of improvisation, as if it were a good in itself.) And he never left the field of battle satisfied with mere moral victory, that his side had demonstrated more righteousness than the other. He always had a concrete political goal, that concrete goal but a step toward his continually evolving transcendent goals. In Chicago in 1968, and in New York in 2004, these are lessons forgotten. People get caught up in their righteousness maybe you are which is easy to do: Demonstrators do no more "damage" to the Great Lawn than concertgoers. The conventioneers coming to New York are getting subsidized by tax dollars because they are seen as a boon to business, even though the protesters spat upon by the city carry money that is just as green. The city has become a censor. All of these things are true. Rae Valentine is even right, in a cosmic sense, when she says that "people understand that the so-called chaos of streets being shut down by protesters or even a window being broken is nothing compared to the day-to-day chaos and destruction of people being able to afford housing, or health care. That's where the real violence in the system lies." But she is not right in the sense that matters: the political sense. "I think people understand," she says. Linger on that formulation. It is only inane arrogance that gives someone the confidence to pronounce that, magically, "people will understand." They might not understand at all. Instead, what they might understand is: "Bush is better than anarchy in the streets." It ain't fair. But if it all goes down as unplanned, there'll be a whole lot more unfairness coming down the pike in the next four years. + + + + + The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes. See also Bigger Bounce. (Thanks, Susanna.) Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 08/27/04 05:55:30 PM |
So Long, Free Speech? An all-too-true article by Robert J. Samuelson at WaPo, Aug. 25 (quoted ellipses in original): The presidential campaign has confirmed that, under the guise of "campaign finance reform," Congress and the Supreme Court have repealed large parts of the First Amendment. They have simply discarded what were once considered constitutional rights of free speech and political association. It is not that these rights have vanished. But they are no longer constitutional guarantees. They're governed by limits and qualifications imposed by Congress, the courts, state legislatures, regulatory agencies and lawyers' interpretations of all of the above.... The First Amendment says that Congress "shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government" (that's "political association''). The campaign finance laws, the latest being McCain-Feingold, blatantly violate these prohibitions. The Supreme Court has tried to evade the contradiction. It has allowed limits on federal campaign contributions. It justifies the limits as preventing "corruption" or "the appearance of corruption." But the court has rejected limits on overall campaign spending by candidates, parties or groups. Limiting spending, the court says, would violate free speech. Spending enables candidates to reach voters through TV and other media. Unfortunately, this artful distinction doesn't work. If groups can spend any amount on campaigns, their spending can easily become unlimited contributions. All they need to do is ask the campaign how their money ought to be spent on what TV ads, for example. To prevent this, the FEC imposes restrictions on "coordination" between candidates, parties and groups making "independent expenditures." John Kerry alleges that the Swift Boat Veterans and the Bush campaign "coordinated" illegally. Republicans see similar ties between Kerry and Democratic 527s. But "coordination" is really "speech" and "political association." It's talking and planning among people who want to elect or defeat the same candidates. There's an indestructible inconsistency between the language of the First Amendment and campaign finance laws. Why shouldn't veterans coordinate with Bush? Why shouldn't Democratic 527s coordinate with Kerry? The Supreme Court upholds the campaign finance laws simply by ignoring the First Amendment's language.... The media poorly describe what's happening. Campaign finance reform is a respectable cause. It's inconvenient to say that the First Amendment is being scalped. Few do. The New York Times recently ran a story on two campaign lawyers one Democratic, one Republican who bring cases before the FEC to bend "the complex rules to their clients' maximum benefit." The story barely hinted that, once candidates need lawyers and rulings to say what they can do, their constitutional protections have disappeared.... See also Too Late Now. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 08/27/04 05:33:11 PM |
Never in Cambodia New ad from the Swiftees. Here's the script (emphasis in original): Never in Cambodia STEVE GARDNER: I spent more time on John Kerrys boat than any other crew member. John Kerry hasnt been honest, hes been deceitful. John Kerry claims that he spent Christmas in 1968 in Cambodia and that is categorically a lie. Not in December, not in January. We were never in Cambodia on a secret mission, ever. VO: Swift Boat Veterans for truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement. You can see the ad here. See also Sellout and Any Questions? Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 08/27/04 08:12:34 AM |
Negative Charisma in the Charm Vacuum Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCCLX "Puffy interview marshmallows with rainbow sprinkles on them, and Kerry was letting them sail by as if he planned to get to first base on a walk." And this is how his supporters see him. (Brackets, ellipses, and emphasis in original.) + + + + + When my boyfriend and I heard that John Kerry was slated to be the guest on last night's Daily Show, we all but raced to the TiVo to set it on record. (Not that we ever miss The Daily Show anyway, but this would be one worth keeping.) What a "get" for Jon Stewart, the court jester of the 2004 election! And finally Kerry would have the chance to step down from the campaign stump and show people who are desperate for a reason to vote for him what he's really made of: his passion, his conviction, his much-vaunted (at least by his wife) sense of humor. Except, as Jon Stewart has been known to say: Eh, not so much. From the moment the senator appeared and sat down on the gray sofa where, just last week, Bill Clinton basked in the audience's applause like a cat lapping up cream, Kerry's charisma was less than zero: It was negative. He was a charm vacuum, forced to actually borrow mojo from audience members. He was a dessicated husk, a tin man who really didn't have a heart. His lack of vibrancy, his utter dearth of sex appeal made Al Gore look like Charo. (I've always found Al Gore sort of hot, actually, like a stuffy high school principal just begging to be broken down. But I have some issues with authority.) Watching Kerry strike out was especially heartbreaking given that Stewart was pitching not just softballs but marshmallows. Puffy interview marshmallows with rainbow sprinkles on them, and Kerry was letting them sail by as if he planned to get to first base on a walk. That may be how he hopes to win the presidency as well, but before he gets there, he'll have to jump through hoops a lot tougher than this exchange: Stewart: [ ] As any good fake journalist should do, I watch only the 24-hour cable news. This is what I learned about you Kerry: All right. Stewart: Through the cable news. Please refute if you will. Are you the number one most liberal senator in the Senate? Kerry: No. Stewart: Okay. Kerry: You happy with that? (LAUGHTER) Um, no, Senator. Should we be? Kerry seemed unclear on the concept that he was there precisely to poke fun at the recirculated sound bites of the talking-head circuit, that this was his chance to take terms like "liberal" and "flip-flop" and split them wide open. All he had to do was shoulder his rocket launcher (he's good at that, right?) and take aim at the received wisdom that has kept the focus of this campaign exactly where the Bush camp wants it to be: on who did what in a war we lost 30 years ago, rather than what to do next in the war we're losing right now. Instead, Kerry ignored every opening Stewart gave him, preferring to dust off rhetoric that's become familiar even to casual followers of his campaign: "You don't go to war because you want to. You go to war because you have to." That was a good line at the convention, but baby, the convention was a month ago! This is Jon Stewart, the king of politically savvy late-night television. You need new A-list material. Get someone on it. The current controversy about Kerry's war service got only a glancing mention, when Stewart leaned in to murmur, "So I understand that apparently you were never in Vietnam." But Kerry's repeated vows to stay "laser-beam focused" on the "real issues" didn't keep him from milking his war record at every possible opportunity. Asked whether the Swift boat ads had affected him personally, Kerry replied pointedly, "Yeah, it's a little bit disappointing. But believe it or not, I've been through worse." And then, when the interview was over and Kerry rose to leave, he caused audible groans in my household by saluting the audience (just as he did at the opening of his convention speech: "John Kerry reporting for duty." Lieutenant Kerry, your first order is to stop saluting the audience. It makes you look like a total tool). Luckily for Kerry, the Daily Show audience is not a swing state. It's very likely that most of the demographic that watches this show will grit their teeth and vote for him anyway. But can we really trust our future to a man who fails to see the humor in the following exchange? Kerry: You'd be amazed the number of people who wanna introduce themselves to you in the men's room. (LAUGHTER) Stewart: Really? Kerry: God. Itit's the most bizarre part of this entire campaign. The struggle on Stewart's face was visible but, eager to put his distinguished (and less-than-flexible) guest at ease, he let this setup go by without so much as a dirty joke. When it comes time for the debates this fall, the Bush camp won't be so kind. Dana Stevens (aka Liz Penn) writes on television for Slate and on film and culture for the High Sign. + + + + + The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 08/27/04 07:52:04 AM |
Belated Second Blogiversary Congratulations To our friend I. Shawn McElhinney. At Rerum Novarum. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 08/27/04 07:18:44 AM |
Diary of a Suburban Priest A new weblog by Fr. Ethan McCarthy. (Thanks, Fr. Shane.) Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 08/27/04 07:06:07 AM |
What We Can Do For Terri V Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 08/27/04 06:42:24 AM |
The Blog from the Core © 2002-2008 E. L. Core. All rights reserved. |
Previous | Week | Next |