Riehl World View

Kerry: A Clear and Present Danger

In Thursday's debate Sen. Kerry forcefully stated a position which will put America at significant risk, potentially resulting in the complete devastation of our way of life as we know it today. The facts to support this are available, as I'll document. And there can be no disputing them. You may read them and draw your own conclusions. I assure you, I am no alarmist.

HT to Beldar for his post Why the U.S.S. Zeilin prompts me to oppose Sen. Kerry's position on nuclear bunker busters. He includes an interesting military / family historical narrative bringing his opposition to a critical and dangerous Kerry position closer to home. It led me to HobbsOnline, which neatly details the history and need of our Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) program, which Kerry clearly stated he would "abandon immediately."

If you're like me, yours eyes and ears easily glaze over when people start talking weapon systems. At this point in our history, the RNEP system is of crucial significance. You might recall all the press attention given to Saddam's great underground capabilities when we were preparing to invade Iraq - the tunnels and expanses all linked in one huge configuration which American forces wound up discovering and exploring. They were and are real.

Plans for a Baghdad subway were used instead to build underground tunnels to hide Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, says one of the Iraqi dictator’s former top scientists. Dr. Hussein Shahristani, once Iraq’s top nuclear scientist ...

And just last year Russia announced it will

"increase the overall length of its underground systems by 60% by 2015." As a Rosbalt correspondent reports, this was announced by Chairman of the Russian State Construction Department Nikolai Koshman today.

The fact is there is a wealth of information available on subterranean construction going on around the globe. Some of it is new and some makes best use of large existing cavern structures. Additionally,

On April 16, 1996, the New York Times reported on a mysterious military base being constructed in Russia: "In a secret project reminiscent of the chilliest days of the Cold War, Russia is building a mammoth underground military complex in the Ural Mountains, Western officials and Russian witnesses say. Hidden inside Yamantau mountain in the Beloretsk area of the southern Urals, the project involved the creation of a huge complex, served by a railroad,a highway, and thousands of workers."

And yes the US has documented structures and facilities of this type.

Few Americans--indeed, few Congressional reps--are aware of the existence of Mount Weather, a mysterious underground military base carved deep inside a mountain near the sleepy rural town of Bluemont, Virginia, just 46 miles from Washington DC. Mount Weather --also known as the Western Virginia Office of Controlled Conflict Operations--is buried not just in hard granite, but in secrecy as well.

Mount Weather is virtually an underground city, according to former personnel interviewed by Pollock. Buried deep inside the earth, Mount Weather was equipped with such amenities as: - private apartments and dormitories - streets and sidewalks - cafeterias and hospitals - a water purification system, power plant and general office buildings - a small lake fed by fresh water from underground springs - a transit system - a TV communication system

And you may remember this curious item recently reported in the MSM:

Police in Paris have discovered a fully equipped cinema-cum-restaurant in a large and previously uncharted cavern underneath the capital's chic 16th arrondissement. ... Members of the force's sports squad, responsible - among other tasks - for policing the 170 miles of tunnels, caves, galleries and catacombs that underlie large parts of Paris, stumbled on the complex while on a training exercise beneath the Palais de Chaillot, across the Seine from the Eiffel Tower.

More on general underground development can be found here. So, what is the point? For starters, as Hobbs states:

"Iran and North Korea continue their programs to develop nuclear weapons - and do so in facilities intelligence experts and defense analysts routinely describe as "hardened" against an airstrike. Without such weapons (RNEP), the United States will have no way to preemptively destroy an enemy's nuclear weapons or other WMD or WMD production facilities stored below ground in such hardened bunkers."

We know Iraq had this underground capability. Is there any real reason to believe the same is not true for Pakistan, Iran and others?

All one need do is combine this information with other facts we also know. Pakistan has nuclear capabilities and an unstable population closely linked to Islamofascism. Libya, various Russian Republics, the list goes on and on. Imagine a revolution that brought an Islamofascist regime to power in any one of several potential flashpoints. Would an ideology committed to global domination and capable of televised beheadings, suicide bombings, 9/11 and the burning of the bodies of dead American service men hesitate to use a nuclear capability if they came to control it? Would they care if only a handful or so of their most ardent diehard followers survived in hardened bunkers deep below the surface?

The fact is there are madmen with large followings in the world and they are far from the funny evil to be seen in an old James Bond flick. And in more and more locations throughout the globe they are actively pulling at the strings of power struggling to control entire nations. How long before they might succeed? If it happens just once we could find ourselves completely open to an attack of a catastrophic nature we have not imagined since the end of the cold war.

We must face the fact that while Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) helped stave off a confrontation with the Soviet Union, no such paradigm exists in a confrontation with an enemy that does not value life as the does the West. That enemy has already displayed the ability to sacrifice lives purely for the purpose of taking other lives.

True, we would regroup and respond. In all likelihood we would soon crush that opposition. But how many hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of American lives from just one well placed strike would we sacrifice in the balance? Now, with the Bush administration supporting development of the very weapon system we would need to pre-empt the threat of the wrong weapons falling into the wrong hands, we also have a far left liberal candidate preening himself in front of 65 Million Americans while declaring that he would immediately and unequivocally deny us of that very system. And as it would only be one more in a long line of critical defense systems the candidate has opposed throughout his career, there is absolutely no reason to trust his judgment in this case.

Is that the marking of a "war time" president who fully comprehends the dangers of Islamofascism and global terror? Or is it the prideful preening of an all too left leaning dove who can't wait to get his hands on the levers of power so as to render them weak and ineffective? If you put together John Kerry's consistent commitment to weaken American defense, his consistent deference to outside nations in legitimizing American policy and actions, and his obvious misunderstanding of the greatest threat from global terrorists - you have what can only be described as a clear and present danger to America's national security.

Kerry's International Folly

Instapundint posts the lead of a new development in the UN oil for food scam.

Congressional investigators say that France, Russia and China systematically sabotaged the former United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq by preventing the United States and Britain from investigating whether Saddam Hussein was diverting billions of dollars. . . .

Kerry's fetid stand on globalism faults President Bush for turning his back on old allies cum weak sisters with criminal intent who are uninterested in America's national security when it conflicts with their dubious economic realities. This cuts to the heart of the danger of a Kerry presidency.

Kerry is praising these so-called "allies" while they and various UN factions were stealing and conniving a cover up of behavior directly undermining America's foreign policy and putting American lives at risk everyday in the no fly zones.

The NYSlimes has more details:

The paper suggests that France, Russia and China blocked inquiries into Iraq's manipulation of the program because their companies "had much to gain from maintaining'' the status quo. ...

The (congressional) paper also accuses the United Nations office charged with overseeing the program of having "pressed" contractors not to rigorously inspect Iraqi oil being sold and the foreign goods being bought. The program office, headed by Benan Sevan, who is also under investigation by a committee appointed by the United Nations, turned a blind eye to corruption charges...

Contrast this "breaking" news of what everyone really already understands about our would be "allies" with Kerry's statements from Thursday's debate transcript:

Kerry: we just have a different set of convictions about how you make America safe. I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances. I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances. This president has left them in shatters across the globe ...

I have a better plan for homeland security. ... by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances

First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections.

we pushed our allies aside

I think we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we‘ve done... So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world.

Kerry would lay the blame for their lack of cooperation on the President and America. That liberal left "blame America first" mentality should have died with the Soviet Union and only short-sighted left wing Dems in congress and the press have kept it alive. Why in God's name should America need to pass a "global test" administered by a coalition of international criminals and wannabe superpowers far more interested in lining their pockets than spreading any sense of justice or freedom around the world?

But that's precisely the position that Kerry advocates. And his rhetoric is going to call him up way short when it comes to foreign policy. This from the man who proclaims himself the great and insightful internationalist ... more able than Bush to handle US foreign policy. His plan would have us kowtowing to crooks who are nothing more than backstabbers and protectionists of their own interests. And Kerry wants to go begging to THEM to ask, and I quote, "Just tell me what you want?"

Well, Senator Kerry, what they want is a weakened America so they can be free to exploit their own international financial interests and political agendas. And I have little doubt that under a Kerry watch we'd be giving them just that. Because, as Kerry said, American foreign affairs should be about what our allies want, not what is chiefly and clearly in America's own better interests.

Kerry Tackles "Opponent's Lies"

.
"My opponents are lying to you, " said Senator John Kerry at a campaign stop in central Florida today. And the lies don't add up. They're trying to spin it that I said I have a plan, but that I haven't shown it to you. That's not true. In fact, I never said I had a plan. I said plants. That's right. And I have plenty of robust, hardy plants.

We need to pull foreign leaders together for a new spirit of cooperation in the world to fight global terror, reduce hunger and fight aids. And my plants are going to do just that. Mum's, daisy's, even some mid-sized arborvitae for our more important allies, African Violets for Kofi Annan. They are going to love my plants and the world will be a better place for it.

Now, lemme tell you, people. George Bush has no plant. He's had four years to develop good strong plants for the problems America faces today. And he hasn't gotten the job done. Where are his plants for America? That's what I want to know. And when I'm elected, I'm not going to stop with our foreign allies, oh no, no sir. I have plenty of plants for America, too. There will be plants for hospitals, police stations, our schools and fire houses.

Just the other day I was watching the news and they were filming inside an Iraqi police station. I couldn't help but notice a stunning creeping ivy in a hanging basket, wicker, I think. George Bush is spending billions of dollars in Iraq, there are plants in Iraq right now. Well, Mr. President, where are your plants for America? Americans deserve better than that. And I call on you, Sir, to immediately show us any plants you have for America. Because, frankly Sir, I just don't think you have them."

Kerry/Edwards Score Big with Crossover Voters

Claiming that he's feeling "fresh as a daisy all over" after the debate and armed with an almost full tube of lip gloss, Senator John Kerry and running mate Senator Edwards are launching a new salvo in the campaign by reaching out to cross-over voters. "We've come through a very difficult period," said Kerry, "but John and I feel that we have stopped the bleeding and with only thirty days left to the election, we think we'll be find."

"Campaigns run in cycles," added Edwards. "And John and I both agree that the timing for us is going to work out just fine.

The candidates plan on going down for the day at New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy's mansion before high-stepping it through the swing states of Pennsylvania and then on to Ohio tomorrow. "We love the swing states," said Kerry. "That's just the kind of guys we are, I suppose."

Post Debate Debate

UPDATE: Look for a significant breaking event, situation or information to hurt Kerry within the next week. And don't think for a minute that some third party veterans weren't pissed at Kerry having the nerve to invoke his behavior after returning from Vietnam as a positive. He rubbed salt in that wound.

Kerry won on points and style. Bush won on passion and comittment. Bush could have taken Kerry out tonight at several points, he failed to do so. President Bush was not on top of his game, off action views were not good. Bush looked frustrated, almost disgusted. I understand his disgust, will the "great middle?" I don't know. If the media hits him with this, and they will - it could hurt a little.

A lot of damned missed opportunities to drive the stake home - on Allawi, on Kerry's post-Vietnam positions (questionable tactic) should have gone stronger on how long we danced with the United Nations and inspections and no fly zones with out pilots being shot at. He should have made the point about serious questions about food for oil program showing lack of credibility to the very place (UN) with which Kerry is so enamored.

When Lehrer asked question about 1,000 dead (Christ he said 10,000 first) why in the hell didn't Bush point out that over 3,000 died on 9/11? That was a perfect chance to put some perspective on this.

We're in a dog fight til the end now. Moderate Dems will rally for Kerry based on this performance. Kerry did not enamor himself to the far left on Iraq - but he knows he has them anyway. Bush did have some very strong moments and was much better at talking to the people.

I unabashedly believe the questioning played out to Kerry's advantage. Lehrer made Bush defend his positions. Questions to Kerry opened the door for Kerry to criticize Bush. How did he lie? What would you do differently? Where were the damn questions on Kerry's having stated different positions? About how his post war behavior would impact him as commander in chief? I need a transcript! Get me a transcript! Fuck, I am not going to look at Kerry for four years. Get my checkbook, where is that Swiftboat link.

Debates! Phtooie! Can I still Tivo the convention? Get Bin Laden out of the cave NOW!. It's time to go nuklar on this fucker. Someone page Rove. We'll win this thing. But I wanted to win big. However, we have been much better at the day to day ground game all along. Breath! Settle down, go outside. Beat up a liberal and relax. Bush is still the man. Let the spinners have their say and get back to work. We cannot afford a Kerry presidency.

UPDATE:Allah is hosting links to many bloggers debate reviews.

Bush Supporters Racist?

In a startling development The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has joined the Crayola Corporation in denouncing recent Republican slurs being hurled at Sen. John Kerry for his recently adopted orange tint. "It's now very clear," said Kweisi Mfume, President and CEO of the NAACP, Republicans have a serious problem with people of color in America and this kind of discrimination cannot stand.

Echoing those statements, Rand A. Price, Vice President, East Coast Marketing for the Crayola Corporation said, "There are many colors of Crayola Crowns in every box - 16, 32, 64 and even 128 ...it doesn't matter. We make room for every one of them." The Crayola Crown Corporation is one of the largest donors of crowns, felt tip markers, sketch pads and coloring books to both the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP's High Commission on Strategy.

Reached for comment, newly appointed Kerry advisor and leader of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition Jessie Jackson made a committment to rename the orange swath in the groups logo in honor of Senator Kerry. Only twice previously has the group bestowed that honor. The swath formerly known as "yellow" is now called "yeeeeaaaallllow" in honor of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and the Green swath was renamed "Kermie" for Kermit the Frog some years ago when the Henson foundation donated a large sum of money to Jackson and Rainbow/PUSH.

The Rev. Al Sharpton said he was outraged at the blatant racism of Republicans and said "there can be no doubt about it. I saw that picture on Drudge and that sure is one colored motherfucker. Clinton was our first black president and John Kerry is going to be our first orange president, only in America, Sharpton said, "Only in America could an orange man hope to be president."

Reached at his retirement home in Florida where he now resides with his much younger third wife, alleged conservative and popular entertainment figure Garfield had a less surprised reaction. "I been orange all my life, yanno. It never stopped me from workin' in the biz, know what I mean, baby. I still remember when me, Sinatra and Sammy were breakin down doors in Vegas in the early sixties. This crap today ain't no big deal. Hell, I used to have to eat chopped beef off the floor in the kitchen when I toured, ever hear me complain? So I'm orange, if people don't like it, fuck 'em. Man it tore Frank up when they shot Kennedy in '63. did you know that? Sinatra, now there was a guy with class."

The Bush campaign was not available for comment as of this writing.

Edwards Disses Kerry

I don't have time to do an entire post on this. But if this isn't a would be VP saying he thinks he has more to offer than his boss, nothing is. There must be real trouble in the Kerry / Edwards huggy-kissy tour the country together club. No wonder they're keeping Edwards under wraps.

IMUS: I had a bunch of people on my staff—and who are all pretty incompetent, by the way—and the MSNBC staff, go through everything that you said during the primary process to see if we could find something horrible that you had said about Senator Kerry.

EDWARDS: Yes. I bet you did.

IMUS: And we couldn’t find anything. But at some point...

EDWARDS: You couldn’t find anything?

IMUS: Not really, no. Other than you came from a working-class thing and the implication was that he didn’t, which is fine. But at some point, there was a point where you thought you’d make a better president than he did. When did you decide that that was not the case, or have you?

EDWARDS: I think that John Kerry will make a great president.

IMUS: No, but that doesn’t answer the question.

EDWARDS: I know it doesn’t answer the question.

(LAUGHTER)

IMUS: Why wouldn’t you want to do that?

(LAUGHTER)

EDWARDS: What, are you like Russert now?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6131397

Is John Kerry A Leader?

One of the questions I have been asking myself is "Can Kerry lead?" Yes, I know he was a Swiftie. But that record is mixed and of extremely short duration. The POTUS is considered the "leader" of the free world and our next President must be a leader. So, where to go for answers?

I must say upfront I do not see him as a leader from his time in the Senate. As much as I disagree with people like Kennedy, Daschle, etc. they have distinguished themselves as leaders during their time in the Senate. Leaders of causes I don't agree with, but leaders nonetheless. I can think of no movement, no legislation, no precise position or even ideology for which I can assign Kerry status as a "leader," at least not a consistent one.

The notion that he was a leader with the VVAW gives me more pause for concern than it does answers. And, really, I can not even see what he did there as an organizer or manager. Stepping up to a microphone, or speaking before the Senate doesn't make someone a leader, as much as it might make them an individual who simply thrives on mass attention. Many references in his early career point to just such a personality. They called him "Quick Shot" as a young pol because of his ability to find his way in front of a camera. Again, more disturbing questions than answers.

Reading Volokh today led me to two somewhat recent stories in the Yale Daily News. I went to see what I could find and am using those as my source material. To quantify something of what I was looking to find I went here - Fred Greenstein: The Leadership Qualities of Effective Presidents: FDR to George W. Bush

Greenstein mentions, among other factors, three distinct areas for measuring the leadership ability of a President: communication, organization and political skill. The article states: "We will never have a perfect president, according to Greenstein, but if we had one, he or she would combine Eisenhower's organizational ability, Johnson's political skill, and FDR's mastery of public communication."

Having some sense of what I was looking for, one specific reference I found had to do with Kerry as athlete:

Although Kerry played three sports at Yale, he earned his only letter playing soccer his senior year. While he was not a star on the soccer team, he was a talented athlete, and he scored three goals against Harvard in his final game. As one of the fastest players on the team, Kerry's gawky running style occasionally earned him the nickname "The Camel" from his teammates, said David Thorne '66, one of Kerry's teammates and a fellow Bonesman. But in contrast to Kerry's other activities, he played more of a supporting role on the field, his teammate Landis said. "He was not really a leader on the team," Landis said. "Unless you were a really good player, it's hard to be a leader on the team.

I might accept the notion of his not being an effective leader due to a lack of athletic prowess. But there's more about that quote that troubles me. Thorne is a staunch Kerry friend and supporter. One might think that if there were more contributing factors - a team guy - a good motivator - even cheerleader, it would have been stated for the record. The article was obviously done in preparation for Kerry's present candidacy. No such positive reference is made. I did find a short personal story I'll relate.

Kerry also loved his parakeet, Dodi, whom he had taught to greet visitors in English, French and Italian. So when Dodi flew out Kerry's window and into a tree early one Sunday morning, Kerry was prepared for another adventure, his roommates said. Kerry found a ladder and climbed into the tree in pursuit of the bird.

Interesting story - touching even. But while some liberals might be impressed by the thought of foreign dignitaries being greeted at the Whitehouse by a tri-lingual bird, the story did little to advance my cause.

When I discovered that Kerry chaired the Yale Liberal Party (YLP) I thought I might be onto something. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. It would seem his "leadership" was not very effective.

"The Yale Liberal Party, of which I am a member and John Kerry used to be chairman, passes on many unpleasant stories about him. According to Liberal Party lore, Kerry was among the worst chairs in its history. Jorge Dominguez, currently a professor at Harvard and a member of Kerry's Liberal Party Executive Board, reports that under Kerry's leadership the party went on YPU probation. Probation means that the party's leader could not get enough of the party's members to sign a YPU attendance roster. Although getting people to sign in turns out to be a surprisingly arduous job, very few chairmen fail to do it in the end. Not getting enough signatures suggest one of two things: either the chairman faced some unfortunate circumstances or he has some personality problems. According to Dominguez, Kerry's leadership caused his probation."

While Kerry had friends at Yale, it does seem that he also had, if not enemies, plenty of people who were less than fond of him.

He clearly had nothing better to think about, such as de-bunking his bed or freshman English. Okay, fine, we all did some pretty silly stuff when we arrived at Yale. Kerry's problem was that he apparently never got better during his years at Yale. it seems that at Yale, he was generally disliked.

I'll concede that being "liked" is not the single best measure of a leader. Often times, and I am sure President Bush would agree, leadership can make you very "unlikable." Still, Kerry did chair the YLP and was later elected President of the Yale Political Union, or YPU. So, I read on.

In order to get back at Kerry, members of the Liberal Party formed the Dixwell Society. By now, the group is largely defunct, although it still officially meets during Liberal Party reunions and its story gets retold for everyone wishing to hear. The society's major point was to include every former chairmen except one who most people disliked. You can guess who.

And from Volokh's piece:

But wasn't Kerry later elected YPU president? It is true that he got elected. It proves much less then you think, however. First of all, the YPU presidency is a hard and often thankless job that very few people actually want. A person usually becomes political union president through some mixture of personal desire and Tammany Hall-like backroom deals. In my experience, very few political union officers get elected because they are liked or respected.

Then there is this from the conclusion of one Yale article:

Personally, I would not let Kerry circa 1966 run a public toilet, let alone a country. Hopefully, today's Kerry is a different man. Perhaps his service in Vietnam changed him for the better. Perhaps time has changed him. But maybe he has not changed. Recently Kerry mentioned that George Bush remains the same guy he was in college. If Bush didn't change, why would Kerry?

Every time I go to a political union debate, I shudder to think one of those YPU people I see in front of me may one day run the country. It may happen sooner than I expect. ... Still, Democrats ought to consider other options. Edwards anyone?

There are a few other bits of discovery I'll share before wrapping up with a conclusion. Kerry was clearly turning against the war prior to his graduation from Yale.

In March 1965, as the war in Vietnam continued to escalate, Kerry won the Ten Eyck prize as the best orator in the junior class for a speech that criticized U.S foreign policy as arrogant and unrealistic.

"It is the specter of Western imperialism that causes more fear among Africans and Asians than communism, and thus it is self-defeating," Kerry said in his speech. "We have grossly overextended ourselves in areas where we have no vital primary interest."

Kerry displayed the classic rhetoric of the liberal left even before it became codified around the anti-war movement. And I don't much abide his equating fighting for a people's liberation with imperialism, or the moral equivalency expressed as regards Democracy and Communism. Africa and Asia "feared" the West and should have been left to the communists? One need only look to portions of the planet where that happened to evaluate his position - talk about getting it wrong. So, why would a young man with such thoughts and feelings enlist?

"So when William Bundy -- assistant secretary of state and uncle of Harvey Bundy -- visited Kerry and his suitemates and said the country needed them to enlist in the officer corps, Kerry listened.

"I think that -- it would have been almost five times harder for him not to have gone than to go," Smith said. "The predilection of our class was much more old-school."

Given a chance to stand on principle, Kerry buckled. And I can only surmise he did it because of a combination of peer pressure and his being impressed with Bundy. I think I'd have preferred to discover that he stood on principle in this case.

The next year, Kerry discarded his original Class Day oration -- which had already been published in the Yale Banner -- for a new address echoing many of the sentiments of his prize-winning speech. In a speech that was unusually political for a Class Oration, he criticized the United States for intervening in Asian affairs and isolating itself from the world community.

But even before delivering his oration, Kerry had enlisted in the U.S. Navy. Despite his public misgivings about Vietnam, Kerry was preparing to enter the military soon after commencement. While Kerry criticized the war and its goals, he was committed in his decision to serve.

I've trouble reconciling these disparate positions. And he seemed a bit impulsive for someone already enlisted to join the Navy, someone who even then wanted to be President. His record seems to be as confused and confusing as the candidate I am seeing today. Even were I to conclude that Kerry is a leader, based on the Yale record, it might be impossible to genuinely ascertaining precisely what direction he would lead.

One of the Yale articles is misleading. It suggests that given all this he still volunteered for combat. The record proves that to not be true. He had actually volunteered for positions that would keep him from combat and the Swiftboats only became combat units after his assignment. Can one conclude that Kerry was anti-war while in the Navy and, upon finding himself in combat, looked for the first, fastest way out? It's speculative. But in this case it is the facts that lead to that speculation, not my own political bias.

Kerry was quoted as saying:

"I was very proud of my decision to go into the Navy and I still am," Kerry said. "But keep in mind, when I joined the Navy, the first draft card hadn't been burned. Vietnam was nebulous. It wasn't yet the war it would become."

It's almost as if he were saying that had the anti-war movement already taken hold he would have had an acceptable out that wouldn't have hurt him politically and would have taken it. That's speculation, of course. And then there is this:

"Anyone confronted by the actuality of combat is deeply changed forever," Thorne said. "It's terrifying -- people are hurt badly and killed. It makes you grow up, and most of us began to deeply question what we were doing."

I have no standing to question how the horrors of war might effect someone. And I have nothing but compassion for people who have endured that tremendous hardship. But this country is already in a war. And I worry about a Commander in Chief who, perhaps because of his personal experience, would not be able to prosecute a strategy involving military action, even if in the best interests of our nation. War is horrible, not romantic. But it, unfortunately, can also be necessary. Does Kerry believe that? I don't know.

To return to Greenstein's criteria: Kerry has not displayed Johnson's legislative prowess while in the Senate; his campaign operation displays anything but the organizational ability of an Eisenhower; and, while he may be a great speech maker in a classic sense, I've yet to see him communicate effectively with the American people about anything. It isn't a good score and if Greenstein's criteria were an SAT equivalent for the presidency - Senator Kerry might be best served thinking pell grants and public education.

Summing up - he was not overly well-liked at Yale. His leadership within an organization caused it to fragment. I saw nothing to suggest any real commitment to service, no volunteer work in causes social or otherwise, excepting those that ultimately would benefit John Kerry. Maybe other opinions are different. The links are there to read for yourself. What I am seeing is an empty suit - and like any empty suit - it is decidedly vulnerable to wind change. And I see someone who's views of America's position in the world differ drastically from mine. In fact, some, if not many sentiments he has expressed early on I find rather offensive. That is simply not want I want for a commander in Chief at this time in our nation's history.

Just an Email

This came in email. It looks like something I may have seen before. I'm not sure. I am posting it because it reminded me of the first blog entry I ever made on another blog before setting up shop here. I have reposted that first original blog entry of mine right before this one. The two go together somehow in my mind. - Dan

I didn’t write this piece but I salute the man who did. He has said exactly what so many veterans have been thinking for so long. When I returned from Nam, my roommate in the 82d Airborne was SSGT Charles B. Morris, awarded the Medal of Honor while serving with the 173rd Airborne in Vietnam. I know firsthand it’s true that warriors like Charley are tormented in their dreams and cry out in their sleep as they re-fight their battles; yes that I know from bunking with him. But one thing I never heard him do was boast. Not once, not ever.

May your troubled spirit forever rest in peace, Command Sergeant-Major Morris.

Russ

I Don't Know War

(author unknown)

I'm not worthy to question John Kerry's war record. Because I don't have one. I spent the Vietnam War in elementary school. And the four years I was in the Army were all behind a desk. My fort was unofficially known as "Uncle Ben's Rest Home." So I don't know anything about war. Though I do know a little bit about men who've been to war. I've been around plenty of those. Like my stepfather. He got bunged up pretty bad in France. I know that because I saw him in a swimming suit once. But he never talked about it. Not once.

If you asked him about the war he'd tell hilarious stories about basic training, or where the guys he served with were from, or how fun it was learning to fly the gliders, or the time they stole the ambulance to go into town and get drunk in France, or a few of the phrases in German he learned. But he'd never actually talk about the war. Unless he was really drunk. In which case he still wouldn't talk about it. He'd cry about it. He'd put his head in his arms in the wee hours of the morning and sob to himself about how the men around him were broken and torn when the gliders crash landed into the French countryside. But that was only once or twice, and that was never about him. And the little box of medals at the bottom of his footlocker never came out.

It was kind of the same way at the Legion and the VFW. Every day he'd check in at both places, to sign the book and to have a beer, and I would tag along. All those men had been in the service, and most had been in combat, but I never heard a war story. Lots of Army stories, and Navy stories, sure. About guys they knew and leaves they were on and officers they messed with. But nothing about the war.

It was the same way in the Army. In my day, it seemed like everybody above staff sergeant or captain had been in Vietnam. I went in 10 years after the war ended but the guys on the second half of their careers had all gone. You could tell when they wore their dress uniforms. But that was the only time. Men didn't talk about what they'd done in the war. They didn't boast of their accomplishments. They didn't brag about their medals. But if you chanced to see them in their dress uniforms, with the rows of service ribbons, you could read their history there, you could see that those who'd done the most spoke of it the least.

Like one of our drill sergeants in basic training. Buffing the floor in his office one day we saw the service ribbons pinned to his Class A uniform on the coat rack. Comparing them to the poster in the company day room we learned he'd gotten the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. We asked about them and he made us do push-ups for being nosey. The night before graduation, when he welcomed us as fellow soldiers, we asked him again, we almost pestered him. Finally he relented and gave us two sentences: "I was in a war. I got hurt." And that's all he'd say.

Kind of like a man I know, who received the Medal of Honor. One night he stood in a long line to shake hands with Colin Powell. The man, because of the nature of the event, wore his medal around his neck. As he came to Colin Powell the man said, "General, it's an honor to meet you." And Colin Powell responded, "No, sir - it's an honor to meet you." Anyway, I know this man, and he's often asked to tell his story, of how he earned the Medal of Honor. And he never does. Oh, he answers, and he talks, and he inspires, and he talks about the war. But he neglects the part about the lives he saved and the courage he showed, and instead talks about a young Vietnamese man who helped him to safety when his legs were too shot through to hold him anymore.

I don't know anything about war. But I do know a little bit about men who've gone to war. And none of them act the way John Kerry does. None of them brag about, boast of, talk about or otherwise try to benefit from their service. They don't prostitute their time in uniform for personal gain and ambition. They all modestly and insistently say that they "didn't do anything." They minimize their contributions and put them in the context of the similarly courageous and noble service provided by their comrades.

A true hero doesn't boast.

In fact, he kind of keeps his deeds to himself. Which is what makes John Kerry so different. Which is what makes John Kerry so unbelievable. I don't know war. But I do know war heroes. And John Kerry's damn sure not one of them.

Wars Aren't Fought for Veterans

The following post is the first blog entry I ever made on another blog I had started before setting up shop here. I am reposting it because of it's relation to an email I received and will post next.

I was twelve in 1969. My uncles and a much older brother had tattoos. They were admirable men who served from the Pacific to Korea and Vietnam and came home to drink beer and work as steel workers, plumbers and businessmen. They were my heroes, somewhat mystical, a cross between John Wayne and my Father and I loved and respected them for who they were and for what they had accomplished. But something went horribly wrong somewhere and I lost a part of them and, consequently, a part of me ... for a time.

A precocious child, I already watched the news at 10 yrs of age - 1967, for perspective. War stopped being about tattoos and far away islands. It took on the color of body bags and was discussed in the context of body counts, illegal incursions, massacres and atrocities. I could have dealt with that, in fact, I did. Looking back, I see nothing wrong with any of us coming to understand that war is not romantic, it is brutal; more than adventurous, it is deadly. But I do see harm in discovering such things without possessing the maturity and understanding to know that unfortunately war is also, at times, necessary. That said, for this first entry I want to leave the 60's and the war behind and talk about something currently more important: the 70's and veterans.

Looking back, I believe the left, and, yes, John Kerry abhorred war. That's an honorable position. But to invalidate war they did more than condemn war, they also condemned those who should be America's most beloved sons (and uncles and brothers btw) - our veterans. In doing so, they devastated a proud piece of American culture and history, justifying any means to affect an end to a war with which they disagreed. That was not and is not a defensible action. And it is why the SwiftVet controversy must stay in the limelight during this year's presidential campaign season.

I salute John McCain and am truly glad as I believe he has found his peace with Vietnam. Given his experience, I don't know as I could have. In my mind, that he has done that only adds to the nobility of character the man must possess for enduring so much. But it is not his province to assume that the nation has reached the same peace with Vietnam and its veterans as he. That simply isn't the case. The fact is because of what we came to think and believe in the 70's, in part at least because of John Kerry and his allies, the Vietnam Veteran still suffers irreparably in society today.

Can anyone in non-military sectors honestly say that they haven't seen or heard reference to a Vietnam vet or vets as wide-eyed baby killers, long-haired and slovenly, off living in a remote location as a result of their inability to mainstream back into society. It's a caricature, a stereotype, for sure, but denying its continued existence in our nation's subconscious doesn't make it untrue. The fact is the country has never really, with depth of heart, re-embraced our noble sons who carried the flag in Vietnam. And, ultimately, our now doing that is the one good and important thing that can come from the current Swiftvet controversy. I think it needs to happen. I think it would be just.

Were Kerry a true leader and not just a pocket full of ambition, he may be the one man, today, who could really make that happen in a true and expedient manner. Were there atrocities in Vietnam? Most certainly there were. With a now mature perspective, I doubt that there has ever been any war, nor will there ever be one wherein atrocities have not or will not be committed: Abu Ghraib only confirms that. Thank God the left has as yet not been able to get Abu Ghraib to fully characterize the current war, which they would surely do if they could. Thereby repeating the sins of the Vietnam anti-war movement.

War is, by nature, atrocious. But, as I said, it is also all too often necessary. We can mourn that, we can hate it, but if we once again omit its necessity in discussion of its costs and even crimes, we would doom ourselves to the weakness and inability to act in our national interests we experienced in the mid to late seventies.

What I mean to say is that Kerry needs to own the manipulation he was party to in the 70's and acknowledge that, as a whole, Vietnam Veterans were not baby killers and madmen - they were soldiers and they acted as nobly and honorably as any soldiers have in any war at any time in history. Until he does that he is not a leader but only a continual manipulator.

John Kerry and the left threw the babies out with the bath water in the early seventies to get us out of Vietnam. Those babies were America's children, her favorite sons. Because of his leading role in the anti-war movement and the cultural catastrophe his very words in testimony effected, the burden is on John Kerry’s shoulders to stand up and finally put things right. It is that one act that would elevate him to statesman. I fear it only because I don’t think he’s truly got that depth of character. I’d likely question his true motivations at this late point in time. Of course, his campaign advisors will never agree anyway. So, while it may well be the one thing he could do to get himself elected, it is likely the one thing he will never do - a bit Shakespearean is it not?

The left didn’t get it in the 70’s, they don’t get it now – and they won’t get the Presidency in November as a result. I’m just glad that I grew enough to come to fully understand what I saw on the nightly news every night as a child – its ugliness, as well as its necessity. It’s that perspective that ultimately gave me my heroes, my Uncles and my brother back. Yet, I still mourn the heroes, be they uncles, fathers, brothers, or children who everyday walk among us – too many as yet, I fear unclaimed and misunderstood.

Kerry went to Vietnam in the eighties, I believe, to “Bring Them Home.” We need to call on him today to stand up in America and, with a pure heart, do the very same by taking responsibility for his treasonous acts upon returning from Vietnam. Shame on him if he can’t or won’t. And “Unfit For Command,” would certainly apply.