Day Two

It was refreshing to hear a speech from an immigrant who achieved. Like Barak Obama's speech at the DNC, Arnold Schwarzeneggers's speech at the RNC provided a perspective that natives are less apt to see, much less appreciate. As such, it was very effective and appropriate for an event of this type, even if it did not provide a vision for the next four years -- that's a job for speakers to follow. But it did remind the delegates of why they were there.

And let it be said that Arnold's was the first -- and probably the last -- speech in which you will ever hear the name of Richard Milhous Nixon invoked at a Republican National Convention. Ya gotta love it.

Air America's Candidate

I was listening to Air America yesterday, to the Randi Rhodes show. She was interviewing like-mindeds ("progressive Democrats") at her booth at the RNC. And the issues they were harping on made me wonder: do they really know their own party's position on these issues?

1. Iraq. Not a real country, an artificial one, made up of warring tribes and factions who hate each other, incapable of pluralistic self-rule, better off with an authoritarian dictator than an elected government. This kind of condescension toward other peoples is reminiscent of John Kerry's insult to the South Vietnamese in his Senate testimony in 1971. It is in stark contradiction to the left's professed solidarity with oppressed people around the world, and offers little hope to the struggling nascent governments of Afghanistan and Iraq who are counting on our continued support.

2. Abortion. Apparently, the two bills signed by the president, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, are attempts by the government to put its hands on "my uterus." Now, these two bills were passed with majority support from both parties in both houses, so they were bipartisan in the truest sense of the word. Yet these "progressives" are not happy unless judges can be appointed to strike down these laws and all future laws restricting abortion in any form. Could it be that it isn't really "Democrats" that they really like, but the judges they can be counted on to appoint?

3. Marriage. The current definition of marriage denies basic civil rights and equal protection to 10% of the population. (Their words. The absurdity is another issue.) Yet again, their own Democratic Party joined with Republicans to preserve the definition of marriage and protect it from being forcibly redefined by judges or other states. Demonstrating once again that their agenda is not legislative, but judicial.

So if these issues are "defining", why are their own candidates not phrasing them like their supporters are?

And so if the RNC is a charade or smokescreen, what was the DNC?

Much Ado About Valor

Too much is being made about the errors on John Kerry's DD-214, Report of Discharge, specifically the listing of decorations and medals, which included a "Silver Star with Combat V."

I noticed this error some time ago, when this document was added to the list of those already published (initially his web site only included his first DD-214, when he was discharged as an enlisted officer candidate to accept his commission in the Naval Reserve), but I dismissed it as a mere clerical error. Others are taking a more sinister view, which I believe is wholly unwarranted.

Some explanation: the Silver Star is a medal awarded only for valor in combat, so it permits no further decoration of Combat "V" since such would be redundant. Lesser medals, such as the Bronze Star, is a citation awarded for actions which do not require valor, so the "V" decoration is provided for in such cases. John Kerry was awarded such a medal with such a decoration also, for the rescue of the Green Beret from the river. (His Silver Star was awarded for shooting a VC with a grenade launcher.)

So why was his Silver Star recorded with the unauthorized "V" on the form? My guess is carelessness. The DD-214 is typed up by a Personnelman (enlisted personnel clerk) after a review of the serviceman's personnel record. PNs can, and do make mistakes (witness other typing corrections on the form). It then goes to the servicemember to review for accuracy and sign. John Kerry signed it. But did he really review all of it? Did he really care? It then goes to the Personnel Officer for signature. The Personnel Officer should have, but probably didn't, verify that every single entry was correct, if he even bothered to read the document at all.

My main point is that if any deception was planned, this was not one of them, because it achieves nothing for the deceiver.

On the other hand, what may be more interesting is not what is published, but what is not. The DD-214 in question was issued on the occasion of Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Kerry's release from active duty and transfer to the Naval Reserve (see block 11). Not many may be aware that John Kerry retained his commission until February 16, 1978, when he was discharged from the Naval Reserve as a full lieutenant. Yet, his published service record documents do not include the DD-214 that reports this discharge. Hmmm.

So from March, 1970, to to nearly eight years later, Kerry continued his Naval career, with no further documentation, no fitness reports, no active duty for training, not even a record of his promotion from O-2 (LTJG) to O-3 (LT). And definitely no DD-214. Interesting. Eight years. Of course, we know well what he did for the first part of those eight years.

Re-Fighting Vietnam

In an interview with USA Today, Sen. John McCain said that he was "sick and tired of re-fighting the Vietnam war." This statement, both ironically and ominously, comes from a senator who championed a campaign finance law that regulates what may be said, who may say it, who finances, whom is targeted, and how much is paid for political speech in the USA, as if the First
Amendment means, soviet-style, whatever the political elite say it means.

This statement also comes from a politician who gets all the free, favorable publicity he wants from a compliant press (such as USA Today) unregulated by his law.

Finally, this statement comes from a man who believes that the debate which he deplores is about him and the Vietnam war, and not about character, integrity, resume-padding, and exploitation.

As for me, I'm also "sick and tired" of lots of things I hear in the media, including the Peterson trial, Geraldo Rivera, Chris Matthews, and others, but who cares? This is America.

There are many veterans who kept silent for many years. Now, after that shameless, and narcissistic display at the Democratic convention, painful memories of John Kerry's post-Vietnam activities while still a lieutenant in the Navy Reserve have been refreshed by the Kerry campaign, and these veterans, who include former POWs and Medal of Honor recipients, have something to say in response. Kerry's first reaction to their reaction was "Bring It On!", but when they did, he promptly sent John Edwards out to demand that Bush "Stop These Ads!"

Now we hear again from Sen. McCain, who has made it known that he wants his fellow veterans to shut up. But will he tell them?

No, he wants Bush to tell them. Bizarre.

Troop Redeployment

During the last administration, defense experts were asking why we still have so many troops in Korea and Germany since the Cold War's end no longer required such an alignment.

During the 2000 election campaign, this question was brought up a number of times, with both sides agreeing that changing defense needs justified a major re-alignment of deployed forces.

After 2000, most experts knew that Donald Rumsfeld was planning such a realignment, and were wondering why it was taking so long to come about.

After 9/11, most critics of the Bush administration were questioning the need to station so many troops in Germany and Korea in light of the new threat from other axes.

As recently as August 1, John Kerry stated that he had a plan to reduce troop strength in Korea and Germany, as part of his objective to reduce troop deployments everywhere overseas.

On August 17, 2004, the Bush administration finally unveiled its plan to do exactly as the experts had been advising for years.

On August 18, 2004, John Kerry sharply criticized the Bush plan as being "sudden" and "unilateral." Some members of Congress and the media piled on, reversing their earlier positions to question timing and motivation.

What's going on?

Bombshell or Dud?

Jim Rassmann's column today in the Wall Street Journal looked to be a bombshell. But it turned out to be a dud, and the making is wholly his own.

(If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you are completely out of touch with the presidential campaign, and should think seriously about not voting.)

Like him, I too have problems with swift boat veterans coming out at this late date to express their reservations about John Kerry. First, events of thirty-five years past have litle relevance to today's issues, and candidates should be able to run on their most recent accomplishments with little attention paid to their activities as young adults. Second, if the swift boat vets had problems with Kerry's citations, they should have expressed them long ago.

But both of these reservations have been cancelled by persistent actions on behalf of the Kerry campaign.

Rassmann's account would have been weighty if he hadn't torpedoed it with personal attacks on the swift boat vets, stating absurdly that they "did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam" and that they are "people without decency" among other insults and then goes on to point out their sources of finance. Finally, to completely confuse the scenario, he decries the "strategy of attacking combat veterans."

Excuse me, Mr. Rassmann, but the swift boat vets are also highly-decorated combat veterans, except that they don't boast about (or throw away) their medals, their ranks range from petty officer to admiral, they served on average many months longer, and some sustained as many or more wounds in combat than Lt(j.g.) Kerry.

Mr. Rassmann doesn't like the tone of the arguments against Kerry. Me neither. So what is his position on Kerry's accusations of Bush not "showing up" for duty when he served several documented years in the ANG? And if he has such high standards for truth and campaign finances, what is his position on Michael Moore and George Soros?

While I too had problems with the vets waiting until now to make their case, I learn from none other than Rassmann that "some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971." Well, duh. Have you read the transcript of Kerry's testimony to Congress? If you do, you'll find out what attacks on veterans really sounds like. And if you look into that era you'll find that neither the Congress nor the media (except Dick Cavett) gave any of them a forum. A lot of good this pro-Nixon Republican sponsorship did them then, and I'm glad they have sponsorship now.

Off Limits

Sen. John McCain must be feeling awfully punch-drunk about now.

In 1992, and again in 1996, he insisted that candidates' Vietnam-era positions toward military service should be declared "off limits" so that the political debate could be focused on the "real issues" of the campaigns. These arguments carried an awful lot of weight, coming from an ex-POW who served honorably.

In 2000, he reminded us once again of this principled and consistent position, as he declared the Vietnam-era service of Al Gore and George Bush to be of little importance, as he himself sought nomination from his party. (When you're holding the high ground, you need expend little effort defending it.)

And finally, in 2004, he appears to be sticking to these principles, as he condemns the Swift Boat Veterans for going public with their versions of John Kerry's accounts.

In a vacuum, Sen. McCain would be right. But he seems to have missed the Democrat convention in Boston. Indeed, ever since the campaign began, Vietnam seems to be the central theme of Sen. Kerry's campaign. He made his bed. He'll sleep in it.

Maybe Sen. Kerry should have taken Sen. McCain's advice, and pretended that Vietnam (and his testimony about it) was long ago and far away. Fine. But that leaves his record as a senator to run on. Not good. Talk about rocks and hard places.