Hmmm. Interesting article in Forbes Magazine about economic prosperity under various presidencies. #1 in the list? Bill Clinton. And I am pretty sure that Forbes Magazine does not have a liberal bias. #2? Lyndon Johnson. #3? JFK. We have to get to #4 to see Ronal Reagan's name in the list. Well since I think we are hungry for some prosperity, I guess we would get better odds by electing a Democrat. That would be John Forbes (no relation) Kerry.
Bob's reply: Repeat after me: Association is not causation. This is especially true when you're associating national prosperity with all the inherent lags in a complex economy and the sitting president.
It's amusing that the Forbes article used the reduction of inflation as one of its criteria. I'm afraid the blame and the credit for that goes largely to the Federal Reserve Board and its control of the money supply. Though the federal government, through taxes, spending, borrowing, and regulating, can affect output enough to have some affect on price levels over a longer period of time. Inflation, a rise in the general level of prices, results from too many dollars chasing too few goods and services. The Fed controls the supply of dollars while "we the people" produce the goods and services those dollars chase.
I've made the case before that a Kerry presidency with a Republican Congress may be the best thing for the economy. George W. Bush and the Republicans have increased spending at an alarming rate. Kerry may want to increase spending at an even more alarming rate, but an adversarial Congress probably wouldn't allow it. With a Republican president, there seems to be nothing to stop the increase in the spending.
Of course, the Bush Administration has done a good job of reducing the growth in the Federal Register, that awful list of federal regulations put out each year. Virginal Postrel has info on that here and here.
As long as Forbes decided to run the story and Rhoads decided to post about it here, I'll play along for kicks. My vote for the worst president of my lifetime (1962-present) when it comes to the economy goes to Richard M. Nixon, Republican. I'll also say that Bill Clinton, Democrat, fared surprisingly well. Surprisingly because he tried to socialize medicine early in his first term. He failed but had he succeeded it would have been a disaster for 1/7th of the national economy. After that failure and the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, Clinton moved more to the "right" and passed things like welfare reform and NAFTA to the benefit of the economy.
Ford, Republican, and Carter, Democrat, sucked as presidents, but as far as the economy goes they both get a bad rap. Forbes says the economy wasn't all that bad on their watches. I think Forbes is wrong on that score. But the blame for the state of the economy goes mainly to the incompetence of Nixon. Wage and price controls? Nuts. Ford was in office too short a time to really say much, but Carter gets high marks for starting us on the path to greater deregulation (airlines, etc).
Reagan, Republican, was good (deregulation of energy, pushing through significant marginal rate reductions that we benefit from still today) and Bush, Republican, 41 stunk.
Kennedy, Democrat, was an early supply-sider (reducing marginal income tax rates) and Johnson was a big spender. So Kennedy gets pretty high marks from me, while Johnson gets low marks.
Those are my ratings, but they don't nakedly measure prosperity while the man was in office. They are my judgment of the effects of the policies advocated and enacted by each man.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Thanks for the Cambodia links, Bob
That's exactly what I was looking for. For some reason, I wasn't coming up with anything but the anti-Kerry blogs when I googled for it. But your google skills are much better than mine, I think. So it appears that the situation boils down to this: John Kerry has claimed that he was sent on a covert mission across the border into Cambodia during Christmas of 1968 while President Nixon was telling the public that there were not troops in Cambodia. Now, with that in mind, at least one of the following must be false.
This makes sense, of course, because if nothing else, we know that Nixon was not yet president in December, 1968. He was president-elect, but not president. Of course, he could have said that while president-elect, and when John Kerry was talking about it later, he called him by the name he was known by at the time John Kerry said it, when technically he should have said "president-elect Nixon" but let's rule that possibility out as unlikely.
Now the Swift Boat Veterans against John Kerry would like us to believe that JK was never sent into Cambodia. And JK's team want us to believe that he was sent into Cambodia, but that it was sometime in early 1969 (presumably after Jan 20) and not Christmas of 1968.
Now JK has said that this event is "seared" into his memory. The SBVAJK make fun of this because it obviously didn't happen. Is that a fairly accurate assessment of the current broo-ha-ha?
OK, well I look forward to seeing how some more objective folks deal with this - like Spinsanity - because obviously this is spinning out of control. If it turns out that JK can prove that he was actually sent on a covert mission into Cambodia, then does that mean that this is a lie, or just hyperbole, or perhaps a false memory (because of the Christmas part). Maybe this actually happened during Spring Festival (a.k.a. Chinese New Year) 1969. I have no doubt that the US was executing covert operations into Cambodia about this time, since we were leading up to the invasion of Cambodia in April, 1970. Of course, if such OPS were Classified, and perhaps still are, it might be hard to prove...
Bob's reply: Glad to be of service. Virginia Postrel posts an email from a reader with a very interesting perspective. The guy says that Kerry may have confused Christmas with Tet. The Vietnamese would not have been celebrating Christmas, but would have been celebrating Tet by shooting guns into the air. The date for Tet? February 17, 1969.
Virginia also channels me in a post titled "Dear Campaing Journalists: Please do your jobs".
But at this very moment (6:30 PM, 8/18/04) I'm inclined to think Kerry mixed up the dates. I'd like to see some evidence, though, that he actually was in Cambodia in the spring of 1969.
- It was Christmas
- It was 1968
- Nixon said there were no troops in Cambodia
- John Kerry was in Cambodia
This makes sense, of course, because if nothing else, we know that Nixon was not yet president in December, 1968. He was president-elect, but not president. Of course, he could have said that while president-elect, and when John Kerry was talking about it later, he called him by the name he was known by at the time John Kerry said it, when technically he should have said "president-elect Nixon" but let's rule that possibility out as unlikely.
Now the Swift Boat Veterans against John Kerry would like us to believe that JK was never sent into Cambodia. And JK's team want us to believe that he was sent into Cambodia, but that it was sometime in early 1969 (presumably after Jan 20) and not Christmas of 1968.
Now JK has said that this event is "seared" into his memory. The SBVAJK make fun of this because it obviously didn't happen. Is that a fairly accurate assessment of the current broo-ha-ha?
OK, well I look forward to seeing how some more objective folks deal with this - like Spinsanity - because obviously this is spinning out of control. If it turns out that JK can prove that he was actually sent on a covert mission into Cambodia, then does that mean that this is a lie, or just hyperbole, or perhaps a false memory (because of the Christmas part). Maybe this actually happened during Spring Festival (a.k.a. Chinese New Year) 1969. I have no doubt that the US was executing covert operations into Cambodia about this time, since we were leading up to the invasion of Cambodia in April, 1970. Of course, if such OPS were Classified, and perhaps still are, it might be hard to prove...
Bob's reply: Glad to be of service. Virginia Postrel posts an email from a reader with a very interesting perspective. The guy says that Kerry may have confused Christmas with Tet. The Vietnamese would not have been celebrating Christmas, but would have been celebrating Tet by shooting guns into the air. The date for Tet? February 17, 1969.
Virginia also channels me in a post titled "Dear Campaing Journalists: Please do your jobs".
I don't have to do these things because I don't want to and because they are not my job. But there are a lot of fine journalists who do have the job of political reporting, they are not doing it when it comes to Kerry's past, and they are making our whole profession look bad. Come on, folks. If you can't find out any independent sources on Kerry's own story, at least report the "he says-he says" allegations. And help out your audience with some context: Dig up some more-or-less unbiased (or at least nonpartisan) sources to provide some historical context for the bizarre Cambodia story. Never mind John Kerry specifically, what were U.S. operations during that period? Are any of his various accounts plausible and, if so, which ones? Or give readers some background on the procedures for awarding medals during Vietnam. There was a lot of medal inflation and, presumably, some politics in how medals were awarded. What, if anything, does the broader context tell us about Kerry and his critics?If Kerry made up his Cambodian adventure it's a very big deal. It appears as if the Swift Vets are correct so far, that Kerry was not in Cambodia at the time he said he was. If it's just about the dates and Kerry was in Cambodia in the spring of 1969, then this is not a big deal. If it turns out that Kerry was never in Cambodia, given how he's used that event in the past and given that he (or his campaign on his behalf) has said very recently that the story is true, then it is a very big deal. We don't need people who make up stories about their war service, stories that specifically are meant to reflect badly on this country, becoming president.
But at this very moment (6:30 PM, 8/18/04) I'm inclined to think Kerry mixed up the dates. I'd like to see some evidence, though, that he actually was in Cambodia in the spring of 1969.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Government Spending I Support
Doug Kern tells a "Tale of Two Bicycles". It's a tale of two Americas (has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?): one safe from crime and one not. Kern's solution:
The crimes Kern describes, the crimes ravaging the lives of our country's poorest citizens, are not federal crimes. Therefore the money for the prosecutors, defenders, judges, investigators and jail cells must come from state and local sources. Don't beat up candidates for a federal office over local issues. The federal government has enough trouble doing what it is authorized by the US Constitution to do. I think it's unwise to add things it's not authorized to do.
If done on the state and local level, I'm all for the additional spending that Kern suggests. A tax hike targeted for those purposes is a tax hike I would support. You heard it hear first.
(As usual, thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link.)
Rhoads: I agree with you on that one, Bob. I would hope that those new taxes would also include money for education in the jails as well, as studies show that education reduces Recidivism rates. I would also hope that locally we would spend more money on Early Childhood Education and Child Care as this also has been shown to lead to less crime.
Bob's reply: Now those links are substantive. I'm not interested enough in the topic to examine the studies cited to see how good they are, but if state and local areas want to experiment with variations on the themes of early education and education in jails and prisons that seems like money well spent to me. Let's just have some goals and varifiable data to test the hypothesis that the programs work. If they work, roll 'em out to more areas. If they don't work, stop them. That sort of discipline is generally lacking in publicly funded programs. The market provides that discipline for private programs.
We need more: more prosecutors, more public defenders, more judges, more investigators, and more local jail space, to ensure that more criminals learn early and often that their crimes will be justly punished.I agree. However, Kern criticizes both Kerry and Bush for not addressing this issue. That's where Kern and I part ways.
The crimes Kern describes, the crimes ravaging the lives of our country's poorest citizens, are not federal crimes. Therefore the money for the prosecutors, defenders, judges, investigators and jail cells must come from state and local sources. Don't beat up candidates for a federal office over local issues. The federal government has enough trouble doing what it is authorized by the US Constitution to do. I think it's unwise to add things it's not authorized to do.
If done on the state and local level, I'm all for the additional spending that Kern suggests. A tax hike targeted for those purposes is a tax hike I would support. You heard it hear first.
(As usual, thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link.)
Rhoads: I agree with you on that one, Bob. I would hope that those new taxes would also include money for education in the jails as well, as studies show that education reduces Recidivism rates. I would also hope that locally we would spend more money on Early Childhood Education and Child Care as this also has been shown to lead to less crime.
Bob's reply: Now those links are substantive. I'm not interested enough in the topic to examine the studies cited to see how good they are, but if state and local areas want to experiment with variations on the themes of early education and education in jails and prisons that seems like money well spent to me. Let's just have some goals and varifiable data to test the hypothesis that the programs work. If they work, roll 'em out to more areas. If they don't work, stop them. That sort of discipline is generally lacking in publicly funded programs. The market provides that discipline for private programs.
Still looking for a reasonable post on the Cambodia thing
I am still trying to find a reasonable, somewhat objective post describing the Cambodia issue. Haven't found any recent quotes from the Kerry campaign or Kerry himself. Nothing on Spinsanity, which I think it still reasonably objective. I am sure Bob will let me know if he comes up with one. He so likes these Swift Boat guys.
Bob's reply: Try this piece from Knight Ridder in the Seattle Times. It describes what the swifties say and the reply from the Kerry campaign.
Bob again: Here's the conclusion from a pro-Kerry opinion piece in the Boston Globe:
Bob yet again: I think you may have to submit to free registration to read this piece in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, but being a Minnesotan I long ago submitted to that. Here's how it starts:
Bob's reply: Try this piece from Knight Ridder in the Seattle Times. It describes what the swifties say and the reply from the Kerry campaign.
Bob again: Here's the conclusion from a pro-Kerry opinion piece in the Boston Globe:
Kerry's statements about Cambodia do have traction for opponents. He has referred to spending Christmas or Christmas Eve 1968 in Cambodia and coming under fire. At the time Cambodia was neutral and supposedly off-limits to US troops. "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia," Kerry said in 1986 at a Senate committee hearing on US policy toward Central America. "I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there, the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."Yep. He should. And he should release his military records like George W. Bush did. A war hero can't have more to hide than a guy who used political advantage to avoid Vietnam, can he?
The Kerry campaign now says Kerry's runs into Cambodia came in early 1969. "Swift boat crews regularly operated along the Cambodian border from Ha Tien on the Gulf of Thailand to the rivers of the Mekong south and west of Saigon," Michael Meehan, a Kerry adviser, said in a statement last week. "Many times he was on or near the Cambodian border and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia at the request of members of a special operations group."
Answers like that aren't good enough. Kerry put his Vietnam service before voters as the seminal character issue of his presidential campaign. He should answer every question voters have about it -- and he should answer them himself.
Bob yet again: I think you may have to submit to free registration to read this piece in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, but being a Minnesotan I long ago submitted to that. Here's how it starts:
On March 27, 1986, John Kerry took the floor of the U.S. Senate and delivered a dramatic oration indicting the foreign policy of the Reagan administration. As is his habit, Kerry drew on his Vietnam experience in explaining his opposition to the policy.
"I remember Christmas of 1968, sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and having the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there."
To emphasize the importance of this incident to his subsequent political development, Kerry asserted: "I have that memory which is seared --seared -- in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible to avoid that kind of conflict."
The story of his 1968 Christmas in Cambodia is one that Kerry has told on many occasions over the years. He invoked the story in 1979 in the course of his review of the movie "Apocalypse Now" for the Boston Herald. Most recently, Kerry told the story -- with remarkable embellishments involving a CIA man who gave him his favorite hat -- last year on separate occasions to reporters Laura Blumenfeld of the Washington Post and Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe.
Certain elements of Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story were incredible on their face. Kerry attributed responsibility for his illegal 1968 mission to Richard Nixon, despite the fact that Lyndon Johnson was president at the time. The Khmer Rouge who allegedly shot at Kerry during his "secret" mission did not take the field until 1972.
Moreover, there is no record that Swift boats -- the kind of boat under Kerry's command -- were ever used for secret missions in Cambodia. Their size and noise make them unlikely candidates for such missions. Indeed, the authorized biographer of Kerry's Vietnam service -- historian Douglas Brinkley -- omits from his book, "Tour of Duty," any mention of a covert cross-border mission to Cambodia during Kerry's service.
Over the past few weeks, the Christmas in Cambodia tale, a keystone of John Kerry's Vietnam autobiography, has been revealed to be fraudulent. On Christmas 1968, Kerry was docked at Sa Dec, 50 miles from Cambodia, in an area from which the Cambodian border was inaccessible.
Last week, after the falsity of Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia account became public, the Kerry campaign issued a statement "correcting" the story. According to the Kerry campaign, the mission referred to took place in January 1969, when Kerry "inadvertently or responsibly" crossed the border into Cambodia. However, three of Kerry's Swift boat crewmates have denied entering Cambodia at any time, and no one has corroborated Kerry's claim.
The suggestion that Kerry may have "inadvertently" strayed into Cambodia -- leaving aside whether that was even possible -- constitutes a complete retreat from the point of Kerry's original story: that he lost his faith in government because the president lied about having sent American troops into Cambodia. And, of course, it contradicts his story about ferrying a CIA man to Cambodia.
The Cambodia Thing
I don't really understand what the whole Cambodia thing is about, but Bob brings it up in twleve or so posts per day, so he obviously thinks it is important. Apparently John Kerry wrote a letter the editor 25 years ago saying that he remembers being in Cambodia in 1968. He also mentions being shot at by allies in South Vietnam. I have no idea whether he was or not - it looks like not - but it also appears to me that the meat of the story was about being in a situation where American troops were being accidentally shot at by allies who were celebrating. Did that happen? Probably. Did it happen to John Kerry? Maybe. Maybe not. Not sure why it matters. He wasn't accusing the USA of anything. He was (possibly mis-)remembering something in a really ugly time period of America's foreign policy. But at least if we keep talking about it we can not talk about the fact that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney avoided going to Vietanam altogether.
Keep trying, Bob. The Swift Boat Vets are still going to go down in flames in the Battle of Public Opinion, because they are full of shit.
Bob's reply: Ignorance is bliss.
Yeah, a letter to the editor 25 years ago. That's what the Cambodia thing is about. "He wasn't accusing the USA of anything." Um, he was accusing the USA of sending him on an illegal mission into neutral Cambodia during Christmas of 1968. He mentioned this on the floor of the US Senate in 1986. If you search Coffee With Rhoads you can get the details.
Nice retort on the Swift Vets. So far I've heard that they're "shills", that the "truth" they're for isn't truth, that they're "full of shit". They make substantive charges, backed up by sworn affidavits and the reply is they're scumbags. Fine. They're scumbags. Now what of the charges they made? Well, so far the one charge I've seen investigated has been found to be true. Kerry claimed on numerous times including on the floor of the US Senate in 1968 to have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. He was not. The Kerry campaign has admitted that. Now the story is that he was on a super secret mission "some time in early 1969" dropping off CIA agents, SEALs or some other such clandestine outfit. Except there's no evicence for that. The Swift Vets, who are one-for-one on "truth", point out that no living member of the chain of command above Kerry says he was ever sent to Cambodia. No other swift boat commander or service man, none, says they were ever in Cambodia. So it appears that the Democratic Party's delusional nominee is still lying about the incident. Not 25 years ago. Not in a letter to the editor. On the floor of the US Senate, in a 2003 story in the Washington Post, and now in response to a claim by the Swift Vets that he (his campaign) has admitted was correct. He was not in Cambodia when he said he was. He was probably never there. Though he may still produce some evidence or testimony that he was. Until Kerry provides the evidence that NOW he's telling the truth, if anyone's full of it that would be Kerry.
Funny how truthfulness takes a backseat to service in Vietnam. Hey, Clinton failed on both counts--never served in Vietnam and was held in contempt of court for lying. Kerry's one step better, I suppose. The Democratic Party has low standards. Maybe the country shares those low standards. We'll see in November. If the country remains blissfully ignorant, anything's possible.
Keep trying, Bob. The Swift Boat Vets are still going to go down in flames in the Battle of Public Opinion, because they are full of shit.
Bob's reply: Ignorance is bliss.
Yeah, a letter to the editor 25 years ago. That's what the Cambodia thing is about. "He wasn't accusing the USA of anything." Um, he was accusing the USA of sending him on an illegal mission into neutral Cambodia during Christmas of 1968. He mentioned this on the floor of the US Senate in 1986. If you search Coffee With Rhoads you can get the details.
Nice retort on the Swift Vets. So far I've heard that they're "shills", that the "truth" they're for isn't truth, that they're "full of shit". They make substantive charges, backed up by sworn affidavits and the reply is they're scumbags. Fine. They're scumbags. Now what of the charges they made? Well, so far the one charge I've seen investigated has been found to be true. Kerry claimed on numerous times including on the floor of the US Senate in 1968 to have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. He was not. The Kerry campaign has admitted that. Now the story is that he was on a super secret mission "some time in early 1969" dropping off CIA agents, SEALs or some other such clandestine outfit. Except there's no evicence for that. The Swift Vets, who are one-for-one on "truth", point out that no living member of the chain of command above Kerry says he was ever sent to Cambodia. No other swift boat commander or service man, none, says they were ever in Cambodia. So it appears that the Democratic Party's delusional nominee is still lying about the incident. Not 25 years ago. Not in a letter to the editor. On the floor of the US Senate, in a 2003 story in the Washington Post, and now in response to a claim by the Swift Vets that he (his campaign) has admitted was correct. He was not in Cambodia when he said he was. He was probably never there. Though he may still produce some evidence or testimony that he was. Until Kerry provides the evidence that NOW he's telling the truth, if anyone's full of it that would be Kerry.
Funny how truthfulness takes a backseat to service in Vietnam. Hey, Clinton failed on both counts--never served in Vietnam and was held in contempt of court for lying. Kerry's one step better, I suppose. The Democratic Party has low standards. Maybe the country shares those low standards. We'll see in November. If the country remains blissfully ignorant, anything's possible.
Islamofascism
Google comes up with 8,270 hits in 0.2 sec.
Rhoads' response: Yes it does. Haven't seen one with any useful information, though.
Rhoads' response: Yes it does. Haven't seen one with any useful information, though.
Monday, August 16, 2004
On to Corvallis
Congratulations to Niwot-Boulder's Legion A baseball team. They beat Taylorsville, UT tonight 15-3 to advance to the American Legion World Series in Corvallis, Oregon. Sean Ratliff was the winning pitcher, and oh by the way he also had two homeruns and seven runs batted in.
Go Cougars (Panthers)!
Rhoads' response: All the way, Nibot!
Go Cougars (Panthers)!
Rhoads' response: All the way, Nibot!
What War is Like and Presidents
"Oh - and this is exactly why the candidates respective war records 30 years ago matter-- one guy understands what war is like, especially when it is wrong. The other guy doesn't know and doesn't care, as long as he gets to send people to it."
George H. W. Bush -- Navy aviator saw action in the Pacific during WWII.
Bill Clinton -- Draft "evader" to put it politely.
Rhoads' vote:
Robert Dole -- WWII veteran wounded in combat.
Bill Clinton -- see above
Rhoads' vote:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- no war service
Winston Churchill -- no war service
What really matters is John Kerry's positon on the war we're in with Islamofascism. What's his position on Iraq?
Rhoads' response: Glad you asked. Read about his position on the war as it applies to National Security here and as it applies to Homeland Security here. In the former I especially appreciate the section entitled "Launch and Lead A New Era of Alliances" which is something that Dick Cheney made fun of a couple of days ago. In the latter I especially like the section entitled "Guard Liberty" which is something I don't think the current administration is too keen on.
You see, Bob, the problem we face now is that we are not just at war with Islamofascism (and that is the first time I have ever heard it called that). Like it or not, we are at war with the people of Iraq. Not all of them, but a large number of them. We didn't want that, and they didn't want that, but it is what we have. Our war against one person (Saddam) turned into a war against a large number of people in a country. I don't think that George W. Bush has the wherewithall to figure out how to end that war, because I think he figured that once we got Saddam, the mission would be accomplished. I think John Kerry has a better chance of putting together the right team to get that job done. It will involve the cooperation of many other nations, and at this point I think that quite a number of them just don't want to work with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. And unfortunately, Colin Powel - who I would like to see John Kerry keep as Secretary of State - seems to have been put on the back burner.
Bob's reply: You know ink isn't cheap. I printed out those two links from Kerry's site. What a waste. Give me some substance will you. Kerry and Edwards believe in a stronger America. I get that. They won't go it alone. Right. They'll protect us while respecting our rights. Super. And to cap it all off they'll reduce our dependence on Mideast Oil (as if oil isn't oil) "by tapping American ingenuity." Now why didn't somebody else think of that before.
Rhoads wrote: "Like it or not, we are at war with the people of Iraq." Good one.
Listen, I think the Bush Administration misjudged the amount of fighting we would face once Saddam fell, but to pretend the liberation isn't wildly popular in Iraq is to live in a fantasy world. One where imaginary CIA agents hand out magic hats en route to Cambodia on Christmas Eve.
Rhoads' response: You can deny all you want that we are not at war with the people in Iraq, but check the coffins coming home. Oh wait - you can't, because the Bush administration thinks that is bad PR. Well, anyway, my point is that even if the removal of Saddam is "wildly popular in Iraq" as you claim, that popularity is diminishing with each passing week as the violence continues. And I don't think the Bushies have any clue how to deal with that, and I think that the coalition is shrinking because we never found the WMDs, which was the whole rationale for the war in the first place.
And if you find no substance in John Kerry's web site, well, I guess that's politics, and that's you living in your own little fantasy world. Maybe when George gets re-elected and the national debt is 50 trillion dollars you will think that is substance.
George H. W. Bush -- Navy aviator saw action in the Pacific during WWII.
Bill Clinton -- Draft "evader" to put it politely.
Rhoads' vote:
Robert Dole -- WWII veteran wounded in combat.
Bill Clinton -- see above
Rhoads' vote:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- no war service
Winston Churchill -- no war service
What really matters is John Kerry's positon on the war we're in with Islamofascism. What's his position on Iraq?
Rhoads' response: Glad you asked. Read about his position on the war as it applies to National Security here and as it applies to Homeland Security here. In the former I especially appreciate the section entitled "Launch and Lead A New Era of Alliances" which is something that Dick Cheney made fun of a couple of days ago. In the latter I especially like the section entitled "Guard Liberty" which is something I don't think the current administration is too keen on.
You see, Bob, the problem we face now is that we are not just at war with Islamofascism (and that is the first time I have ever heard it called that). Like it or not, we are at war with the people of Iraq. Not all of them, but a large number of them. We didn't want that, and they didn't want that, but it is what we have. Our war against one person (Saddam) turned into a war against a large number of people in a country. I don't think that George W. Bush has the wherewithall to figure out how to end that war, because I think he figured that once we got Saddam, the mission would be accomplished. I think John Kerry has a better chance of putting together the right team to get that job done. It will involve the cooperation of many other nations, and at this point I think that quite a number of them just don't want to work with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. And unfortunately, Colin Powel - who I would like to see John Kerry keep as Secretary of State - seems to have been put on the back burner.
Bob's reply: You know ink isn't cheap. I printed out those two links from Kerry's site. What a waste. Give me some substance will you. Kerry and Edwards believe in a stronger America. I get that. They won't go it alone. Right. They'll protect us while respecting our rights. Super. And to cap it all off they'll reduce our dependence on Mideast Oil (as if oil isn't oil) "by tapping American ingenuity." Now why didn't somebody else think of that before.
Rhoads wrote: "Like it or not, we are at war with the people of Iraq." Good one.
Listen, I think the Bush Administration misjudged the amount of fighting we would face once Saddam fell, but to pretend the liberation isn't wildly popular in Iraq is to live in a fantasy world. One where imaginary CIA agents hand out magic hats en route to Cambodia on Christmas Eve.
Rhoads' response: You can deny all you want that we are not at war with the people in Iraq, but check the coffins coming home. Oh wait - you can't, because the Bush administration thinks that is bad PR. Well, anyway, my point is that even if the removal of Saddam is "wildly popular in Iraq" as you claim, that popularity is diminishing with each passing week as the violence continues. And I don't think the Bushies have any clue how to deal with that, and I think that the coalition is shrinking because we never found the WMDs, which was the whole rationale for the war in the first place.
And if you find no substance in John Kerry's web site, well, I guess that's politics, and that's you living in your own little fantasy world. Maybe when George gets re-elected and the national debt is 50 trillion dollars you will think that is substance.
"Kerry is a liar"
So says Froggy Ruminations about John Kerry's revision of his Christmas in Cambodia story. The revision includes Navy SEALs. Froggy was a SEAL in the 1990s and his father-in-law was a SEAL in Vietnam in 1970. According to them, Kerry's new explanation for his illegal (imaginary?) incursions into Cambodia doesn't pass the smell test.
It's time for Kerry to provide some evidence that he was ever in Cambodia or admit he made the whole thing up.
It's time for Kerry to provide some evidence that he was ever in Cambodia or admit he made the whole thing up.
General McPeak
Here is a transcript of a radio address given by retired Air Force General Tony McPeak explaining why we need to get rid of George Bush because he has done such a horrible job with foreign policy. Is this guy a shill of the Democratic Party, like the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth[sic]" are shills of the Republican Party? Probably. Does he have a long standing grudge against the President, like those other guys have against John Kerry? No. I mean, he actively campaigned for the guy 4 years ago. Does he have a grudge against the President now? I think so - he thinks he is unfit to lead the country, and he has good experience to back up his opinion. Good to see that miltary men like him are stepping forward to counter the shills like John O'Neill.
Oh - and this is exactly why the candidates respective war records 30 years ago matter-- one guy understands what war is like, especially when it is wrong. The other guy doesn't know and doesn't care, as long as he gets to send people to it.
Bob's reply: Bad link on the McPeak transcript. I'd be happy to read it if you provide another link.
I'll concede there are tons of reasons to criticize George W. Bush as president, even reasons to want him out. Where's the case for John Kerry? Democrats appear to be hoping to beat somebody with nobody. It may work, but I'd like to see a case for John Kerry rather than more reasons not to vote for Bush. Is it because of Kerry's respect for civil liberties?
Bob again: I read the McPeak transcript. The general makes a lot out of our needing to work with allies. He specifically mentioned Italy as a potential source of intelligence. Hey, Tony. Italy was on board for the liberation. Why do Kerry and his supporters think France and Germany are our only allies? We went it alone according to McPeak. He has his own, personal definition of alone, I guess. Oh, wait, it's the same definition that Kerry uses. Alone: without France.
The general expressed his support for Kerry, but provided no substance. He was a Dole guy, then a Bush guy, now a Kerry guy. Fair enough. I eagerly await hearing who McPeak supports in 2008. Should be entertaining.
Oh - and this is exactly why the candidates respective war records 30 years ago matter-- one guy understands what war is like, especially when it is wrong. The other guy doesn't know and doesn't care, as long as he gets to send people to it.
Bob's reply: Bad link on the McPeak transcript. I'd be happy to read it if you provide another link.
I'll concede there are tons of reasons to criticize George W. Bush as president, even reasons to want him out. Where's the case for John Kerry? Democrats appear to be hoping to beat somebody with nobody. It may work, but I'd like to see a case for John Kerry rather than more reasons not to vote for Bush. Is it because of Kerry's respect for civil liberties?
Bob again: I read the McPeak transcript. The general makes a lot out of our needing to work with allies. He specifically mentioned Italy as a potential source of intelligence. Hey, Tony. Italy was on board for the liberation. Why do Kerry and his supporters think France and Germany are our only allies? We went it alone according to McPeak. He has his own, personal definition of alone, I guess. Oh, wait, it's the same definition that Kerry uses. Alone: without France.
The general expressed his support for Kerry, but provided no substance. He was a Dole guy, then a Bush guy, now a Kerry guy. Fair enough. I eagerly await hearing who McPeak supports in 2008. Should be entertaining.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Tenacious Press
If you're looking for a tenacious, inquiring press corps you'll have to go back to February 2004 and this press briefing regarding George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. Politically motivated charges regarding something that happened over thirty years ago seemed to be very important to the press that day. So far they don't seem concerned about John Kerry's unlikely tale about being in Cambodia. Perhaps they're just doing background research and will start asking Kerry and his campaign these sorts of specific questions in due time. That is if they're not actively aiding his campaign.
Rhoads' response: Bob continues to give example after example after example after example of the "liberal media." Not quite sure why. If it is to convince me, then you can stop, because I have already admitted that many many journalists lean to the left. But then I thought about it some more, and maybe it is to try to convince yourself, because there are in fact just as many examples of the media having a "conservative" or "pro-Bush" bias. In fact, the example you list above could be an example of this that. I say that because even though the presidential spokesperson never actually answered the question asked the press eventually lost interest and gave up. I still want to know where the president was during the three months in question.
Bob's reply: Where was Bush? Cambodia with Kerry.
I'm sure that seems plausible in a world where "there are in fact just as many examples of the media having a 'conservative' or 'pro-Bush' bias."
Rhoads' response: Bob continues to give example after example after example after example of the "liberal media." Not quite sure why. If it is to convince me, then you can stop, because I have already admitted that many many journalists lean to the left. But then I thought about it some more, and maybe it is to try to convince yourself, because there are in fact just as many examples of the media having a "conservative" or "pro-Bush" bias. In fact, the example you list above could be an example of this that. I say that because even though the presidential spokesperson never actually answered the question asked the press eventually lost interest and gave up. I still want to know where the president was during the three months in question.
Bob's reply: Where was Bush? Cambodia with Kerry.
I'm sure that seems plausible in a world where "there are in fact just as many examples of the media having a 'conservative' or 'pro-Bush' bias."
Strengthen the Good
Please visit Strengthen the Good and see how you can help the victims of Hurricane Charley in Florida.
Roughly every other Sunday I will be posting a link to Strengthen the Good where you can read about worthy "micro" charities that you may choose to support.
Rhoads' reponseI couldn't agree more!
Roughly every other Sunday I will be posting a link to Strengthen the Good where you can read about worthy "micro" charities that you may choose to support.
Rhoads' reponseI couldn't agree more!
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Who's Number 1?
Come Monday morning Tiger Woods may no longer be the number one ranked golfer in the world. I'm not sure of the specific scenarios, but both Vijay Singh and Ernie Els could overtake Tiger for the number one spot. Tiger has held that number one ranking for several years, but is he still the best golfer in the world? I'm a huge fan of Tiger, but the answer is that no matter what happens tomorrow in the final round of the PGA Championship Tiger is not the best golfer in the world. Based upon the following stats courtesy of the PGA Tour, I'd say that Tiger is the fourth best player in the world.
Rank This Week | Rank Last Week | Player | Rounds | Avg. | Tot. Strks | Tot. Adj. |
1 | 1 | Phil Mickelson | 59 | 68.60 | 4,078 | -30.554 |
2 | 2 | Ernie Els | 42 | 68.65 | 2,920 | -36.779 |
3 | 3 | Vijay Singh | 78 | 69.09 | 5,420 | -31.331 |
4 | 4 | Tiger Woods | 52 | 69.19 | 3,636 | -38.041 |
A Rare Recommendation
Former MIT and now Princeton lefty economist Paul Krugman never writes anything I can recommend in his goofy column in the New York Times. Imagine my surprise when I read a wonderful, insightful essay called In Praise of Cheap Labor written by Krugman in March of 1997. The essay examines the moral outrage of the anti-globalization movement, a movement mostly of the left that counts among it's allies the noted right-winger Pat Buchanan.
A sample:
Thanks to Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek for directing me to the lost essay of Krugman. Says Boudreaux:
A sample:
Why does the image of an Indonesian sewing sneakers for 60 cents an hour evoke so much more feeling than the image of another Indonesian earning the equivalent of 30 cents an hour trying to feed his family on a tiny plot of land--or of a Filipino scavenging on a garbage heap?Not surprisingly to anyone with a basic economic education, the consequences are not good--not good for the workers, the multi-national manufacturers, nor the consumers. Krugman concludes:
The main answer, I think, is a sort of fastidiousness. Unlike the starving subsistence farmer, the women and children in the sneaker factory are working at slave wages for our benefit--and this makes us feel unclean. And so there are self-righteous demands for international labor standards: We should not, the opponents of globalization insist, be willing to buy those sneakers and shirts unless the people who make them receive decent wages and work under decent conditions.
This sounds only fair–but is it? Let's think through the consequences.
You may say that the wretched of the earth should not be forced to serve as hewers of wood, drawers of water, and sewers of sneakers for the affluent. But what is the alternative? Should they be helped with foreign aid? Maybe--although the historical record of regions like southern Italy suggests that such aid has a tendency to promote perpetual dependence. Anyway, there isn't the slightest prospect of significant aid materializing. Should their own governments provide more social justice? Of course--but they won't, or at least not because we tell them to. And as long as you have no realistic alternative to industrialization based on low wages, to oppose it means that you are willing to deny desperately poor people the best chance they have of progress for the sake of what amounts to an aesthetic standard--that is, the fact that you don't like the idea of workers being paid a pittance to supply rich Westerners with fashion items.Shocked as I am to say it, I agree with Paul Krugman.
In short, my correspondents are not entitled to their self-righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty.
Thanks to Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek for directing me to the lost essay of Krugman. Says Boudreaux:
Reading this essay supplies a good reason for hoping that John Kerry wins the November election: With a Democrat in the White House, Paul Krugman might rediscover legitimate economics.Not exactly a positive case for John Kerry, but it's something.
Fraud and Coverup in the Kerry Vietnam Saga?
The Kerry in Cambodia narrative and his parading of his Band of Brothers at the Boston convention continues to unravel. One of the men who stood up and spoke on Kerry's behalf never served under Kerry in Vietnam [Not true: see UPDATE below]. Captain Ed posts that it's beginning to look like more than just a faulty memory on Kerry's part.
For about six months now I've been waiting to read a positive case made for John Kerry as president. Now it seems the more people get to know Kerry the less likely I am to find that case presented.
UPDATE: The man who stood up and spoke for Kerry in Boston DID serve under Kerry in Vietnam for a week or two. Here's the approximate timeline of service and tangled web of Kerry chronology from Byron York.
This isn't just a guy embellishing his war record -- this is a deliberate and longstanding attempt to mislead and defraud people by creating his own witnesses after the fact. That he could have done such a clumsy job should disqualify him for higher office on that basis alone.With the complicity of an adoring media, this probably won't turn into anything. Besides, for a significant minority of the voting public this election isn't about Kerry. They'd vote for anyone the Democratic Party nominated to oppose Bush.
For about six months now I've been waiting to read a positive case made for John Kerry as president. Now it seems the more people get to know Kerry the less likely I am to find that case presented.
UPDATE: The man who stood up and spoke for Kerry in Boston DID serve under Kerry in Vietnam for a week or two. Here's the approximate timeline of service and tangled web of Kerry chronology from Byron York.
Friday, August 13, 2004
Kerry, Kerry, he's our man
If he can't do it, nobody can!
Are the mainstream media cheerleaders for John Kerry? They are according to Evan Thomas, Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek:
(Thanks to InstaPundit for the link)
Are the mainstream media cheerleaders for John Kerry? They are according to Evan Thomas, Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek:
MR. THOMAS: There's one other base here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points.Worth maybe 15 points? That might be a bit arrogant of Mr. Thomas to assume he and his cohorts have that much influence. But at least he's honest about the goals of the mainstream, elite media.
(Thanks to InstaPundit for the link)
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
President Cowen
Tyler Cown offers up his vision for Bush's second term:
Here's my vision: Cowen for President 2008
The bandwagon is now open.
1. Eliminate all farm subsidies, tariffs, quotas and price supports.I suspect Tyler realizes these are not going to be part of any Bush presidency. They won't be part of any Kerry presidency, either.
2. Tell Western Europe it is paying for its own defense from now on.
3. Admit that the Medicare drug prescription bill was a mistake. Repeal it, and consider a revenue-neutral benefit that does not discriminate against prescription drugs. Introduce means-testing for Medicare to stop that program from bankrupting us. I would rather cut this benefit than repeal the tax cuts [tax shifts, correctly, though spending discipline could turn them into real tax cuts.] The long-run benefits of greater capital accumulation remain significant.
4. Negotiate bilateral free trade agreements as rapidly as possible. Start with Japan, the second largest economy in the world.
5. Strengthen America's commitment to science. This will have implications for educational policy, immigration policy, and regulatory policy. Don't restrict stem cell research. Hope that science comes up with affordable and politically sustainable solutions for global warming and clean energy independence. You might have libertarian objections to science subsidies, but the realistic alternative today is more government intervention.
6. Strengthen early warning systems against infectious diseases. Increase research into cures, vaccines, immunity, and the like. We don't want the world to lose fifty million people to avian flu or some other malady.
7. Take in more immigrants, but demand higher levels of skills and education. At the very least, take in any revenue-positive immigrant.
8. Abolish the Department of Education.
9. Abolish the Department of Energy.
10. Repeal all corporate welfare.
11. Repeal the corporate income tax. Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. Admittedly these are "ifs," depending on fiscal considerations.
12. Get on TV and tell the nation that a free economy is a critical source of our strength. Tell them you mean it, and then mean it. Economic growth is the greatest long-run gift we can give to the world.
Here's my vision: Cowen for President 2008
The bandwagon is now open.
Monday, August 09, 2004
You Go David
David Boaz writes that liberals and conservatives both use the same play book:
Both believe in government magic. And they want you to believe in it too. They want you to believe the president can be Superman, Santa Claus and Mother Teresa all rolled into one and that he can cure poverty and racism, keep kids off drugs and keep families together. Magical thinking is cute among children. But adults should know that the world is complicated and that legislative actions often fail, or backfire, or have unintended consequences or disappear into bureaucratic sinkholes.And this magical thinking manifests itself in "the number one way liberals and conservatives are alike according" to Boaz:
Both think they can run your life better than you can.That's been my experience, too. Both sides are elitist. The elitism just manifests itself differently.
Liberals want to raise taxes because they can spend your money better than you can. They don't believe in school choice because you're not capable of choosing a school for your children. They think they can handle your healthcare, your retirement and your charitable contributions better than you can.
Conservatives want to censor cable television because you're too dumb to decide what your family should watch. They want to ban drugs, pornography, gambling and gay marriage because you just don't know what's good for you.
My Problem, or My Students' Problem
Though I'm no good at chess, I'm afraid I think like a chess grand master. That seems like a good thing. Unless you take tennis lessons from me. Here's how that goes.
Like everyone else I started out my teaching career by teaching things that I'd been taught, teaching the way I'd been taught, saying the things I'd heard said. After a while, I began to question those old nostrums. So I started doing hypothesis testing on these conventional wisdoms. Naturally and not surprisingly some of the old ways didn't survive the testing. Unfortunately I'd been teaching these conventional wisdoms for years, so some of the students got a bit touchy when I announced that some of the things I'd been saying look to have been incorrect. Bummer.
Having discarded some of the old ways, and based upon what I learned in my falsifications of the old ways, I started teaching some new things and in new ways. Of course my new ways represented my own pet theories which I then set out to disprove, just as I'd set out to disprove the old conventional wisdoms. As you might expect, some of my pet theories also failed to hold up to analytical scrutiny. That led me to discard some of them and adopt, teach, and test new theories.
I've used the past tense so far, but as anyone familiar with the scientific method can attest, this process continues until you draw your last breath or quit trying to examine things scientifically. Since I'm alive and haven't quit, the process continues for me.
For students who want someone (me!) to give them THE ANSWERS, this can be disconcerting to say the least. Fortunately, more students than I have the time to teach seem interested in taking lessons. So I've got that going for me. Which is nice.
Like everyone else I started out my teaching career by teaching things that I'd been taught, teaching the way I'd been taught, saying the things I'd heard said. After a while, I began to question those old nostrums. So I started doing hypothesis testing on these conventional wisdoms. Naturally and not surprisingly some of the old ways didn't survive the testing. Unfortunately I'd been teaching these conventional wisdoms for years, so some of the students got a bit touchy when I announced that some of the things I'd been saying look to have been incorrect. Bummer.
Having discarded some of the old ways, and based upon what I learned in my falsifications of the old ways, I started teaching some new things and in new ways. Of course my new ways represented my own pet theories which I then set out to disprove, just as I'd set out to disprove the old conventional wisdoms. As you might expect, some of my pet theories also failed to hold up to analytical scrutiny. That led me to discard some of them and adopt, teach, and test new theories.
I've used the past tense so far, but as anyone familiar with the scientific method can attest, this process continues until you draw your last breath or quit trying to examine things scientifically. Since I'm alive and haven't quit, the process continues for me.
For students who want someone (me!) to give them THE ANSWERS, this can be disconcerting to say the least. Fortunately, more students than I have the time to teach seem interested in taking lessons. So I've got that going for me. Which is nice.
Novak Weighs In
Conservative columnist Robert Novak has read Unfit for Command and has written a column today on the book. Here's how Novak concludes the column:
The book's strength is the vehemence of testimony by swift boat veterans, alleging that Kerry ''gamed'' the system to win decorations and later betrayed comrades by charging war crimes. Typical is the quote by Bob Hildreth, commanding an accompanying boat: ''I would never want Kerry behind me. I wouldn't want him in front of me either. And I sure wouldn't want him commanding our kids in Iraq and Afghanistan.'' Some 200 ''Swiftees'' on May 4 signed a letter to Kerry demanding full release of his service records.Indeed. It seems like the Swift Vets are making pretty specific claims and backing them up with documentation and affidavits. It's time for the Kerry campaign to answer those claims with more than attacks on the men themselves. That won't get us anywhere. Let's see the records.
The book's weakness is support for Kerry's presidential campaign by his swift boat crewmates, presumably people who knew him best. O'Neill told me that these former sailors served with Kerry no more than five weeks. Jim Rassman, now part of the Kerry presidential campaign, was a Special Forces lieutenant spending a few days with Kerry when he fell or was knocked off the swift boat while under fire and was fished out of the Mekong River by the future candidate.
The ''band of brothers'' was organized by Kerry, according to this book. It tells of a 2003 telephone call to Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded swift boats in Vietnam, telling him he was running for president. Hoffmann, mistakenly thinking it was former Sen. Bob Kerrey, ''responded enthusiastically.'' Once the admiral realized it was John Kerry, ''he declined to give Kerry his support.''
Unfit for Command sends a devastating message, unless effectively refuted. Perhaps most disturbing are allegations that Kerry's combat decorations are unjustified. His first Purple Heart, the book alleges, was accidentally self-inflicted. His commander, Grant Hibbard, is quoted as saying: ''I didn't recommend him for a Purple Heart. Kerry probably wrote up the paperwork and recommended himself.'' Full release of documents demanded by his critics could settle this claim quickly if it is unwarranted.
Some Moral Compass
So I'm driving yesterday in Boulder and I see this bumper sticker:
I realize that some people think that the religious right is waging war against all kinds of civil rights in this country. I'm not up on the battles waged by the religious right, but for the sake of argument let's concede that George Bush and John Ashcroft are hell-bent (excuse my language!) on outlawing abortion everywhere and always, on rifling through every citizen's library records to see who's been reading naughty books, that they want to put the ten commandments in every public place and force every child to pray in school. Let's assume they want to eliminate all sex-education from the schools and they want to eliminate the first amendment entirely so they can shut down pornographers. Let's also condede that they want to outlaw homosexual marriage and keep gay and lesbian teachers and counselors away from children everywhere. That all sounds pretty bad.
Now let's see how that stacks up against North Korea, Iran, and Iraq (before the invasion). On second thought, it's insulting to the intelligence of whatever readers we have here at Coffee With Rhoads to even begin such a comparison.
What sort of a moral compass does the driver of that vehicle possess that could possibly equate even my caricature of the US religious right with life in those three countries? I can only hope that some nut-job put that bumper sticker on the car and the owner hasn't noticed it, yet. Knowing the people of Boulder, that's not too likely, I'm afraid.
The religious right is the real "axis of evil".Think about that for a minute. I'll wait.
I realize that some people think that the religious right is waging war against all kinds of civil rights in this country. I'm not up on the battles waged by the religious right, but for the sake of argument let's concede that George Bush and John Ashcroft are hell-bent (excuse my language!) on outlawing abortion everywhere and always, on rifling through every citizen's library records to see who's been reading naughty books, that they want to put the ten commandments in every public place and force every child to pray in school. Let's assume they want to eliminate all sex-education from the schools and they want to eliminate the first amendment entirely so they can shut down pornographers. Let's also condede that they want to outlaw homosexual marriage and keep gay and lesbian teachers and counselors away from children everywhere. That all sounds pretty bad.
Now let's see how that stacks up against North Korea, Iran, and Iraq (before the invasion). On second thought, it's insulting to the intelligence of whatever readers we have here at Coffee With Rhoads to even begin such a comparison.
What sort of a moral compass does the driver of that vehicle possess that could possibly equate even my caricature of the US religious right with life in those three countries? I can only hope that some nut-job put that bumper sticker on the car and the owner hasn't noticed it, yet. Knowing the people of Boulder, that's not too likely, I'm afraid.
Let's See Some Journalism Here
After reading an attack on the Swift Vets' ad by Phil Carter yesterday, and then another by the Boulder Daily Camera editorial staff it seems to me it's time for some of these all-star journalists we have in this country to start earning their pay. Are the Swift Vets telling the truth? Has Kerry been telling the truth? My guess is both are telling the truth, both are mistaken, and both are embellishing for their own purposes. Sort of like what goes on in a court room. We're seeing an adversarial process here where both sides are trying to make their best case, presenting the opposite side in its worst light, and leaving it up to the jury to decide who's right. I think this is as it should be, well except for the embellishments which are probably inevitable but regrettable. Politics is an adversarial process.
When John Kerry returned from Vietnam he testified before the US Senate. Under oath he made some serious allegations about war crimes committed by his fellow soldiers. Many years later on the floor of the US Senate, John Kerry retold a story about being in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968. John Kerry and his surrogates have made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his candidacy. As much as I think all this stuff should be water under the bridge (though I understand it's anything but to those maligned by Kerry's testimony before the US Senate) it isn't since Kerry is running on the contrast between his service and Bush's.
We know Bush did not serve in Vietnam. We know he was something of a screwup for most of his younger (and not so younger) years. He has not made his youthful decisions and actions the centerpiece of his campaign for election nor reelection. Nevertheless charges of Bush being AWOL or a deserter or other nonsense were trotted out. Those charges were looked into, Bush released his military records, and the matter faded away.
Now it's time for this Kerry matter to be investigated. It seems to me Michael Duff gets to the nuts and bolts of the matter:
When John Kerry returned from Vietnam he testified before the US Senate. Under oath he made some serious allegations about war crimes committed by his fellow soldiers. Many years later on the floor of the US Senate, John Kerry retold a story about being in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968. John Kerry and his surrogates have made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his candidacy. As much as I think all this stuff should be water under the bridge (though I understand it's anything but to those maligned by Kerry's testimony before the US Senate) it isn't since Kerry is running on the contrast between his service and Bush's.
We know Bush did not serve in Vietnam. We know he was something of a screwup for most of his younger (and not so younger) years. He has not made his youthful decisions and actions the centerpiece of his campaign for election nor reelection. Nevertheless charges of Bush being AWOL or a deserter or other nonsense were trotted out. Those charges were looked into, Bush released his military records, and the matter faded away.
Now it's time for this Kerry matter to be investigated. It seems to me Michael Duff gets to the nuts and bolts of the matter:
Strip away all the rumors and reputation @#%$ and get me some paperwork.The Boston Globe and the New York Times probably are not up for asking these questions. Surely some other enterprising journalist will step up.
Who signed for Kerry's first Purple Heart?
Who signed for Kerry's second Purple Heart?
Who signed for Kerry's third Purple Heart?
Who signed for his Bronze Star?
Who signed for his Silver Star?
Who provided the testimony for those medals?
What did their testimony say?
Do those people stand by their testimony today?
Were they lying then or are they lying now?
The review process for those medals includes signatures from officers and enlisted men who were there on the front lines with him, and they are considered legal documents. Show me the paper. Find the men who signed these papers, wave the documents under their noses and say, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" [naughty word edited out]
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Kerry: Braggart?
Roger Simon writes :
That's the Congressional Record from 1986 courtesy of Glenn Reynolds, who offers a link to a larger version . Here's more on the Cambodia story:
The easy part of this is that Nixon was not president in 1968. The issue of whether or not Kerry was in Camodia is tougher, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are presenting a strong case that Kerry, shall we say, embellished that part of his service. As any trial lawyer will tell you (John Edwards might be a good one to ask) if any part of a witness' testimony is false that puts all of his testimony in doubt.
The Swift Boat Vets for Truth have put the ball back into Senator Kerry's court. It will be interesting to see how he responds. So far the credibility problem looks like it resides with Senator Kerry, not the goofball Swift Boat Vets.
Capitano or "The Braggart Soldier" is one of the stock figures of ridicule in commedia dell 'arte. (I had to memorize them, alas, when John Kerry and I were at Yale.) Actually this figure goes back to Roman times, as does much of commedia, to Plautus and "the swaggering soldier." So there is nothing particularly new about Kerry in the history of military braggadocio, but it is unique, I imagine, that such a man is running for President of the United States. Do I exaggerate? Well, you decide. Apparently, Mr. Kerry did tell the US Senate he had fought in Cambodia, after all:
That's the Congressional Record from 1986 courtesy of Glenn Reynolds, who offers a link to a larger version . Here's more on the Cambodia story:
By way of further example, Kerry wrote an article for the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979:
"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."
See Exhibit 26.
The Christmas in Cambodia story of John Kerry was repeated as recently as July 7, 2004 by Michael Kranish, a principal biographer of Kerry from The Boston Globe. On the Hannity & Colmes television show, Kranish indicated that Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia was a critical turning point in Kerry's life.
The story is a total preposterous fabrication by Kerry. Exhibit 8 is an affidavit by the Commander of the Swift boats in Vietnam, Admiral Roy Hoffmann, stating that Kerry's claim to be in Cambodia for Christmas Eve and Christmas of 1968 is a total lie. If necessary, similar affidavits are available from the entire chain of command. In reality, Kerry was at Sa Dec -- easily locatable on any map more than fifty miles from Cambodia. Kerry himself inadvertently admits that he was in Sa Dec for Christmas Eve and Christmas and not in Cambodia, as he had stated for so many years on the Senate Floor, in the newspapers, and elsewhere. Exhibit 27, Tour, pp. 213-219. Sa Dec is hardly "close" to the Cambodian border. In reality, far from being ordered secretly to Cambodia, Kerry spent a pleasant night at Sa Dec with "visions of sugar plums" dancing in his head. Exhibit 27, p. 219. At Sa Dec where the Swift boat patrol area ended, there were many miles of other boats (PBR's) leading to the Cambodian border. There were also gunboats on the border to prevent any crossing. If Kerry tried to get through, he would have been arrested. Obviously, Kerry has hardly been honest about his service in Vietnam.
The easy part of this is that Nixon was not president in 1968. The issue of whether or not Kerry was in Camodia is tougher, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are presenting a strong case that Kerry, shall we say, embellished that part of his service. As any trial lawyer will tell you (John Edwards might be a good one to ask) if any part of a witness' testimony is false that puts all of his testimony in doubt.
The Swift Boat Vets for Truth have put the ball back into Senator Kerry's court. It will be interesting to see how he responds. So far the credibility problem looks like it resides with Senator Kerry, not the goofball Swift Boat Vets.
Saturday, August 07, 2004
I Hope Tacitus is Wrong
I'm on record as thinking it unlikely that John Kerry will win the election this November. However, the prospect of a Kerry victory didn't really disturb me all that much given his apparent commitment to stick it out in Iraq. I even wondered if it wouldn't be better for the War on Islamofascism if a Democrat were in the White House so the press would begin to report the good news from Iraq along with the bad. Even on the domestic policy front, I could make a case for gridlock being better from my perspective than the profligate combination of Bush and a Republican Congress.
That being said, Tacitus' analysis of Kerry's "secret plan" for Iraq does disturb me. It disturbs me because earlier today I read through the transcript of Kerry's debate with John O'Neill on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971. As Kerry and O'Neill were debating Richard Nixon's so-called "Vietnamization" program (that is gradual troop withdrawals as the South Vietnamese were armed to defend themselves), Kerry had this to say:
That being said, Tacitus' analysis of Kerry's "secret plan" for Iraq does disturb me. It disturbs me because earlier today I read through the transcript of Kerry's debate with John O'Neill on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971. As Kerry and O'Neill were debating Richard Nixon's so-called "Vietnamization" program (that is gradual troop withdrawals as the South Vietnamese were armed to defend themselves), Kerry had this to say:
The question really is this: Is the United States of America determined to leave Vietnam, and if we are determined to leave Vietnam – which I believe the president has shown some indications of because he has withdrawn troops. We don't deny that. What we say is the troops can be withdrawn faster. What we say is the killing can stop tomorrow, and it can stop if the president of the United States will set a date certain for the withdrawal for all United States combat and advisory troops from South Vietnam. And that's really the major issue. [emphasis added]Here is what Tacitus concludes Kerry plans to do in Iraq:
John Kerry avers that "diplomacy" can secure a peace or stability of sorts from groups and peoples with whom we are at war and whom we have yet to defeat. This, he asserts, will create the conditions for troop withdrawals. Oh, and if it doesn't? Because it won't: "[I]f it can't produce a different ingredient on the ground, lemme tell you something, that says something about what Iraqis want, and what the people in the region want." The rhetorical ground is prepared. The will-of-the-people rhetoric is deployed. The stage for the grim, resolute, yielding-to-reality (so unlike those neocons!) President John F. Kerry is set. Remember: if every best-case scenario for withdrawal doesn't work; if diplomacy(!) mysteriously fails to sway murderous fanatics to goodwill; if the French don't abruptly dispatch the Foreign Legion to Anbar Province; and if big-hearted Europeans don't immediately begin training thousands of Jeffersonian-minded Iraqis -- in short, if there's still a war to be won:Kerry plans to withdraw from Iraq.
He's going to withdraw anyway.
John Kerry vaulted into public life on the bloodied backs of the millions of slaughtered, enslaved and expelled Indochinese who suffered their fates -- and still suffer their fates -- because he and those like him achieved their policy victories back in those aforementioned bitter days. One might expect lessons learned from the experience: some measure of empathy or compassion for the victims deprived of the shield of American might and ideals. It was, after all, not merely the only thing keeping them somewhat free: it was the only thing keeping a few millions of them alive. But it seems he has learned precisely nothing. Now, three decades later, in Iraq and around the world there is another bitter fight -- and there is the same instinct to cut and run, dressed up in fantastical hypotheticals and dronings-on about priorities. What man wishes to be President of the United States, even as he wishes to not win its wars?Here's how Tacitus concludes his analysis:
I've had my profound problems with George W. Bush's handling of Iraq. His strategic management has been uneven; his assessment of his generals has been often lacking; and his direction of certain battles -- Fallujah most glaringly -- skirts catastrophe. But I rest assured that he will not countenance the greatest catastrophe of all: defeat. Whatever his flaws, the President will see the Iraq war through. We can ask no less of a leader entrusted with our nation's honor and future.Boy I hope Tacitus is wrong. I fear he is right.
John Kerry, by contrast, is planning to abandon that nation and its people. He is planning to allow, if he must, the enemies who massacred Americans in the clear fall skies of three years past to win in Iraq. He is planning to negate and nullify and heroic sacrifices of our Marines and our allies as they crush Islamism in Najaf. He is planning to blame it on events beyond his control: the international community; the current President; the will of the Iraqi people; the realities of resources, of finances, of logistics. Why, after all, close firehouses in Brooklyn yet open them in Baghdad? Callow rhetoric to prepare for callow defeat. The conclusion is that inescapable. And it's that simple.
He's going to withdraw anyway. And the price will be paid in blood.
John O'Neill and Credibility
Fellow lawyer, Beldar, provides some background on John O'Neill, former debate opponent of John Kerry and current Swift Boat Vet for Truth. Beldar also describes cross-examining Mr. O'Neill on the witness stand.
Some of these guys may be goofballs, but you'd be hardpressed to find someone who comes across less like a goofball than Mr. John O'Neill.
Some of these guys may be goofballs, but you'd be hardpressed to find someone who comes across less like a goofball than Mr. John O'Neill.
Friday, August 06, 2004
Of Goofballs, Kerry, and Poker
The Swift Boat Vets are looking less and less like a bunch of goofballs dredged up by Karl Rove as this story continues. PoliPundit once thought this was basically a non-story, but now he thinks differently. Rhoads may be right that Karl Rove dredged these guys up, but it's looking like this group of 250 veterans may haunt Kerry all the way to November.
John Kerry made a big mistake betting his campaign on the Vietnam card. The Democrats stayed in the game with this guy. It will be mighty frustrating for all the anti-Bushies to see the old Harvard Business School poker player, George W. Bush, with all the chips come November.
John Kerry made a big mistake betting his campaign on the Vietnam card. The Democrats stayed in the game with this guy. It will be mighty frustrating for all the anti-Bushies to see the old Harvard Business School poker player, George W. Bush, with all the chips come November.
John Kerry, Military Service, and the Truth
In his earlier post, Rhoads used "scare quotes" around the word "Truth" in his criticism of the Swift Vets for Truth. Maybe Rhoads can comment on what we now know of John Kerry's years of service in the Navy and the Naval Reserves compared to what Kerry and his campaign have said, or allowed to be said and written, about John Kerry's service. His official records show that John Kerry was in fact an officer in the Naval Reserves at the time he testified before the Senate and when he met with a North Vietnamese delegation in Europe and accused his fellow soldiers of war crimes.
The truth does come out eventually, doesn't it.
Rhoads says:
I am not sure what the relevance is. Is the question why an original press release contains a supposed gap? Could it have been a mistake? Was it bad to testify in front of the Senate while in the USNR? I don't get it. But my new allergy medication is making me a bit groggy today.
Bob's reply: If it were simply a question of one original press release, sure it could have been a mistake. But the Kerry service timeline has always included the Rosemary Wood gap from 1970-72 where now it turns out no such gap in service existed. You'll have to ask John Kerry why he thought it was bad to let on that he was a member of the USNR when he met with a delegation from the enemy, testified before the Senate, and accused his Band of Brothers of war crimes.
The embellishments and half truths remain on Kerry's bio page on his web site. No mention of his time in the reserves at all. Just that he was on active duty from 1966-70. The bio also says he "he volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat in the river deltas, one of the most dangerous assignments of the war." Ahh, but Kerry himself acknowledged back in 1986 that he did not volunteer for dangeorus duty. He volunteered for duty as far from the war as he could get and it turned dangerous two weeks before he reported. So while it is technically true to claim he volunteered for one of the most dangerous assignments of the war, it is not a fair representation of his state of mind nor of the duty at the time he volunteered.
As Roger Simon said, at Yale John Kerry was an anti-war activist, like Simon and Joe Lieberman and thousands of other college kids across the country. The war was unpopular. But unlike most protestors (and Simon and Lieberman) Kerry betrayed his ideals and went to fight a war he said was wrong, only to come back and denounce said war and warriors. That says something about the character of the guy. He was against the war, before he went and fought it, and then was against it again.
Listen, I don't think most people give a rats fanny what John Kerry did or said more than thirty years ago (or if he was or wasn't in the USNR at the time). Dude was in his 20s. People do all sorts of nutty things when they're young. What matters is his policy preferences, character, judgment, and decisiveness now. But Kerry seems mired in a 1960s mindset and seems incapable of not bringing up Vietnam. His incesssant pumping up of his Vietnam service is a major mistake that is coming back to bury him. Foolish. And foolish of the Democrats to nominate him. But there you go.
The truth does come out eventually, doesn't it.
Rhoads says:
I am not sure what the relevance is. Is the question why an original press release contains a supposed gap? Could it have been a mistake? Was it bad to testify in front of the Senate while in the USNR? I don't get it. But my new allergy medication is making me a bit groggy today.
Bob's reply: If it were simply a question of one original press release, sure it could have been a mistake. But the Kerry service timeline has always included the Rosemary Wood gap from 1970-72 where now it turns out no such gap in service existed. You'll have to ask John Kerry why he thought it was bad to let on that he was a member of the USNR when he met with a delegation from the enemy, testified before the Senate, and accused his Band of Brothers of war crimes.
The embellishments and half truths remain on Kerry's bio page on his web site. No mention of his time in the reserves at all. Just that he was on active duty from 1966-70. The bio also says he "he volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat in the river deltas, one of the most dangerous assignments of the war." Ahh, but Kerry himself acknowledged back in 1986 that he did not volunteer for dangeorus duty. He volunteered for duty as far from the war as he could get and it turned dangerous two weeks before he reported. So while it is technically true to claim he volunteered for one of the most dangerous assignments of the war, it is not a fair representation of his state of mind nor of the duty at the time he volunteered.
As Roger Simon said, at Yale John Kerry was an anti-war activist, like Simon and Joe Lieberman and thousands of other college kids across the country. The war was unpopular. But unlike most protestors (and Simon and Lieberman) Kerry betrayed his ideals and went to fight a war he said was wrong, only to come back and denounce said war and warriors. That says something about the character of the guy. He was against the war, before he went and fought it, and then was against it again.
Listen, I don't think most people give a rats fanny what John Kerry did or said more than thirty years ago (or if he was or wasn't in the USNR at the time). Dude was in his 20s. People do all sorts of nutty things when they're young. What matters is his policy preferences, character, judgment, and decisiveness now. But Kerry seems mired in a 1960s mindset and seems incapable of not bringing up Vietnam. His incesssant pumping up of his Vietnam service is a major mistake that is coming back to bury him. Foolish. And foolish of the Democrats to nominate him. But there you go.
Cease and Desist
Balloon Juice isn't surprised to see Democrats "lawyering up." He has the dtails and more on Kerry and swift boats over at his web site.
Solid Block for Bush
African-Americans may overwhelmingly support Democrats, but a similar proportion (nine out of ten) of Vietnamese-Americans say they will vote for George W. Bush, according to this report. Vietnamese in Vietnam say they would vote for Kerry if they had a vote.
More on Kerry and Nam
Roger Simon posts some thoughts on Kerry, Cambodia, Nam, and the Swift Boat Vets that are worth reading. One commenter offered this advice for Bush:
I hate to be a party pooper, but I think the better course of action here is for President Bush to take McCain's advice, and turn it into a Sister Soulja moment.I think that's good advice. Kerry's nuts to keep bringing up Vietnam and Bush should do what this guy says.
I agree with Roger several posts ago, and am still wondering how what somebody did 30 years ago matters right now. Yes, I know he "opened the door," but it is now time for Bush to close it, and bloody his nose while doing it (mixed metaphor alert...)
The President should call a press conference and distance himself from these attacks, remind the public that he has been accused of being AWOL by the DNC Chairman and therefore knows how this feels, and then clearly state to the public that the War on Terror is more important than a pissing match about what everybody did after they left Yale.
Mediators call this a conciliatory gesture, and it is a powerful tool for persuasion. Moreover, it would confirm Bush's image as a generous person, and Kerry's image as stingy and ungracious. Thereafter, every time Kerry brings up Viet Nam, something he is genetically incapable of avoiding, he will be the one responsible for the fallout.
We all know Kerry believes Viet Nam is the ace up his sleeve. Why not take it away from him?
One Down
Chalk one up for Rhoads. One of the Swift Boat Vets has retracted an earlier statement that John Kerry did not deserve his Silver Star. The story is here in the Boston Globe.
UPDATE: As Lee Corso says, "Not so fast, my friend." It turns out the Swift Boat Vet is sticking by his original story. The Boston Globe reporter, a Kerry supporter (imagine that) may have gotten the quote wrong. Quoting from Drudge:
UPDATE: As Lee Corso says, "Not so fast, my friend." It turns out the Swift Boat Vet is sticking by his original story. The Boston Globe reporter, a Kerry supporter (imagine that) may have gotten the quote wrong. Quoting from Drudge:
The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in morning edition of the BOSTON GLOBE, written by GLOBE reporter and author of the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book, Mike Kranish.Developing.
"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the BOSTON GLOBE by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played.
“Additional documentation will follow.
"The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish’s own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around."
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Free Speech?
Sigh. Here we go again. Nice tone to set for a wannabe Kerry Administration. And with a trial lawyer VP to boot.
Here We Go Again
Following his party's nominating convention John F. Kerry trails George W. Bush in the Iowa Electronic Markets. Rhoads desparately wants to believe that Kerry will pull out this election, but it's looking more and more like that won't happen. Let's do a little post/pre-mortem on the legacy of losers put forth by the Democratic Party starting with the 1968 election:
1968: Hubert Humphrey. Loser from a liberal northern state.
1972: George McGovern. Liberal loser from a northern state.
1976: Jimmy Carter. Winning governor from a southern state.
1984: Walter Mondale: Loser from a liberal northern state.
1988: Michael Dukakis: Liberal loser from a liberal northern state.
1992: Bill Clinton: Winning governor from a southern state.
2000: Al Gore: Loser from a southern state. (How'd he manage to lose again? Oh yeah. He failed to carry that state.)
2004: John Kerry: ____________ from a liberal northern state.
Fill in the blank.
I say "Liberal loser" but "Loser" works, too. Winner seems out of place, doesn't it?
Rhoads response
Not to me it doesn't.
Bob's response: Winner doesn't seem out of place to Rhoads, but then Rhoads has been known to pencil in the Princeton Tigers as NCAA Basketball Champs. Hope springs eternal. Maybe Kerry will win this fall. Maybe the Cubs will win the World Series. Anything's possible.
But not everything's probable. As my post-mortem above shows, in the past when the Democratic Party has nominated a fringe candidate, one pleasing to the list of Rhoads' Favorites over to the left, they have lost. This year Howard Dean sprung on the scene and made John Kerry, a liberal from Massachussets, appear moderate within the Democratic Party. The Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, pacifist, Bush-hating, Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft-fearing, conspiracy minded wing of the Democratic Party settled for Kerry when the Dean candidacy wilted in Iowa. Now the party is once again facing an electoral defeat like in 1968, 1972, 1984, and 1988. Oh well. Maybe this time it really will be different.
1968: Hubert Humphrey. Loser from a liberal northern state.
1972: George McGovern. Liberal loser from a northern state.
1976: Jimmy Carter. Winning governor from a southern state.
1984: Walter Mondale: Loser from a liberal northern state.
1988: Michael Dukakis: Liberal loser from a liberal northern state.
1992: Bill Clinton: Winning governor from a southern state.
2000: Al Gore: Loser from a southern state. (How'd he manage to lose again? Oh yeah. He failed to carry that state.)
2004: John Kerry: ____________ from a liberal northern state.
Fill in the blank.
I say "Liberal loser" but "Loser" works, too. Winner seems out of place, doesn't it?
Rhoads response
Not to me it doesn't.
Bob's response: Winner doesn't seem out of place to Rhoads, but then Rhoads has been known to pencil in the Princeton Tigers as NCAA Basketball Champs. Hope springs eternal. Maybe Kerry will win this fall. Maybe the Cubs will win the World Series. Anything's possible.
But not everything's probable. As my post-mortem above shows, in the past when the Democratic Party has nominated a fringe candidate, one pleasing to the list of Rhoads' Favorites over to the left, they have lost. This year Howard Dean sprung on the scene and made John Kerry, a liberal from Massachussets, appear moderate within the Democratic Party. The Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, pacifist, Bush-hating, Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft-fearing, conspiracy minded wing of the Democratic Party settled for Kerry when the Dean candidacy wilted in Iowa. Now the party is once again facing an electoral defeat like in 1968, 1972, 1984, and 1988. Oh well. Maybe this time it really will be different.
Swift Boat Vets for "Truth"
Keep hanging your hat on this group of goofballs, Bob. You will be disapointed in the end. This is obviously a group of people dragged up from the scum pond by Karl Rove and company who have a beef with John Kerry's behavior after the Vietnam War. And if John Kerry was NOT lying about his first purple heart, then I would say that this is indeed a libelous ad and should not be run.
This is not about who is and who is not fit to be commander-in-chief. This is about being pissed off that John Kerry came home from Vietnam and said that we behaved terribly over there - which we did in many many cases. Get real.
Bob's Response: Rhoads has his theories about these guys and he may be right.
But it may be that these guys are upset because John Kerry continues to pump his Vietnam service and they know the truth about that service. If you go to the John Kerry website's list of TV spots you'll find one called "Lifeline." In that TV spot you'll see this photo. Since the men in that photo don't support John Kerry (with two exceptions--Kerry and another guy) perhaps they want to set the record straight.
Here's what we know. John Kerry used a picture of himself in a political ad, a picture which included many others who don't support him. Some of them are taking issue with that and fighting back. John Kerry has embellished the circumstances of his swift boat service. He claims now that he volunteered for dangerous duty when he admitted in 1986 that the duty he volunteered for was as not dangerous as he could find.
This is not about who is and who is not fit to be commander-in-chief. This is about being pissed off that John Kerry came home from Vietnam and said that we behaved terribly over there - which we did in many many cases. Get real.
Bob's Response: Rhoads has his theories about these guys and he may be right.
But it may be that these guys are upset because John Kerry continues to pump his Vietnam service and they know the truth about that service. If you go to the John Kerry website's list of TV spots you'll find one called "Lifeline." In that TV spot you'll see this photo. Since the men in that photo don't support John Kerry (with two exceptions--Kerry and another guy) perhaps they want to set the record straight.
Here's what we know. John Kerry used a picture of himself in a political ad, a picture which included many others who don't support him. Some of them are taking issue with that and fighting back. John Kerry has embellished the circumstances of his swift boat service. He claims now that he volunteered for dangerous duty when he admitted in 1986 that the duty he volunteered for was as not dangerous as he could find.
Kerry and Freedom of Speech
Is this the sort of respect for free speech we could expect from a Kerry Administration? Lawyers representing John Kerry and the DNC have sent a letter to television stations them asking them not to run the Swift Boat Vets for Truth ad attacking Kerry's Vietnam claims.
Is Team Kerry right that the Swift Vets are phonies? I'm sure Kerry supporters will think so. But the claims that the people in the ad are lying look weak to me. Glenn Reynolds has more info and links. As Glenn and some of his readers comment, given Kerry's tacit approval of the lies of Michael Moore it seems disingenuous of Team Kerry to try to bully stations into not airing political ads.
Oh, and before we leave John Kerry's Vietnam experience we'd be remiss if we didn't have a look at what Spinsanity has to say about Kerry's swift boat service. According to Spinsanity, Kerry had this to say in 1986:
UPDATE: Here's a transcript from Judy Woodruff's show on CNN today including a "debate" between two men with different takes on the incident leading to John Kerry's Bronze Medal.
Is Team Kerry right that the Swift Vets are phonies? I'm sure Kerry supporters will think so. But the claims that the people in the ad are lying look weak to me. Glenn Reynolds has more info and links. As Glenn and some of his readers comment, given Kerry's tacit approval of the lies of Michael Moore it seems disingenuous of Team Kerry to try to bully stations into not airing political ads.
Oh, and before we leave John Kerry's Vietnam experience we'd be remiss if we didn't have a look at what Spinsanity has to say about Kerry's swift boat service. According to Spinsanity, Kerry had this to say in 1986:
"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."The missison of the swift boats changed after Kerry volunteered for that duty. It became much more dangerous, patrolling "the inlets and narrow rivers along the Mekong Delta" and drawing enemy fire. Now Kerry and his supporters are claiming that he bravely volunteered for some of the most dangerous duty possible. Here's how Bill Clinton mischaracterized Kerry's duty in what Rhoads described as a wonderful, if not particularly accurate in this case, speech by Clinton at the Democratic Convention last week:
"When they sent those swiftboats up the river in Vietnam and they told them their job was to draw hostile fire, to wave the American flag and bait the enemy to come out and fight, John Kerry said: Send me."Uh, "Send me somewhere that has 'very little to do with the war' please." That would be more like it.
UPDATE: Here's a transcript from Judy Woodruff's show on CNN today including a "debate" between two men with different takes on the incident leading to John Kerry's Bronze Medal.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Ouch
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is kicking John Kerry's fanny again, this time with a devastating new ad. While you're at it don't miss this mouse-over photo of Kerry and his Band of Brothers.
When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth first came up Rhoads suggested that their claim to being apolitical was a farce. I agreed that the group was political since, despite the group's emphasis on Kerry's fitness to command, the presidency is a political office and this group clearly had come together to prevent John Kerry from becoming president.
I don't know if this changed since Rhoads first raised the point, but to their credit Swift Boat Veterans for Truth acknowledges that they are an advocacy group, donations to which are not tax deductible. From their FAQ:
If you're hoping for a Kerry win, the Swift Boat Vets' judgment probably won't hurt as much as this post-convention graph. It is a graph reflecting the wisdom of a particular crowd, which appears to have taken a turn for the worse after people had a long, close look at John Kerry in Boston.
It looks bleak for the Senator from Massachusetts right now. I say Kerry will ultimately do better than either Mondale or Dukakis. Bush is just too unpopular with a significant minority of the population to win as big as Reagan and Bush 41 did in those two electoral romps. But if Bush somehow manages to win Minnesota I can't imagine many places Kerry will win. Massachussets? DC? New York? Sure. But he could lose California if Arnold is any help to GWB. That would be a painful beating indeed for Kerry.
When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth first came up Rhoads suggested that their claim to being apolitical was a farce. I agreed that the group was political since, despite the group's emphasis on Kerry's fitness to command, the presidency is a political office and this group clearly had come together to prevent John Kerry from becoming president.
I don't know if this changed since Rhoads first raised the point, but to their credit Swift Boat Veterans for Truth acknowledges that they are an advocacy group, donations to which are not tax deductible. From their FAQ:
Note: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Inc., is a 527 advocacy organization and contributions are not tax deductible.Fair enouth. They are a group of veterans, of both parties, who have come together to say that Kerry is unfit for command. Their judgment and their new ad will hurt Kerry a lot more than it might have had Kerry not made such a big deal of his service in Vietnam, both during the primary campaign and at the Democratic Convention in Boston.
If you're hoping for a Kerry win, the Swift Boat Vets' judgment probably won't hurt as much as this post-convention graph. It is a graph reflecting the wisdom of a particular crowd, which appears to have taken a turn for the worse after people had a long, close look at John Kerry in Boston.
It looks bleak for the Senator from Massachusetts right now. I say Kerry will ultimately do better than either Mondale or Dukakis. Bush is just too unpopular with a significant minority of the population to win as big as Reagan and Bush 41 did in those two electoral romps. But if Bush somehow manages to win Minnesota I can't imagine many places Kerry will win. Massachussets? DC? New York? Sure. But he could lose California if Arnold is any help to GWB. That would be a painful beating indeed for Kerry.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Susan Buffett Dies
Susan Buffett, wife of Warren Buffett, died of a stroke today at the age of 72. Our condolences to the entire Buffett family. [link]
Rhoads is Back
Now that baseball season is mostly over, I will have more time to spend having coffee with Bob. I read the article, and I think it makes some very good points. However, I think it is a little too simplistic. For example, a president can significantly change the water level in the swimming pool by borrowing buckets full of money, as President Reagan showed us and as President Bush has showed us as well. Of course, only Congress can borrow money, but when Congress does everything the president says, well, I would say that means the president does it. And althugh tax policies don't have very many immediate effects on the economy, they are a lot more than just moving water from one end of the pool to the other. They either pull water out altogether, or they pull it out hoping that when they come back in there is some added to them (which I believe is the theory behind trickle down economics). In either case, once again the president can affect the economy.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Stimulating the Economy
Russell Roberts explains why tax and spending policies don't stimulate the economy in the short run despite claims to the contrary by politicians. He offers up a story of a little boy filling a swimming pool with a bucket for illustrative purposes and brings in the great Bastiat for reinforcement. Here's how the essay gets started:
Oh and one more thing, Roberts comes close to adopting my garden analogy to refute the notion of building an economy (where I was refuting the notion of building a nation):
Needless to say I think the whole essay is well worth the short read. I wish more people sought out and received this sort of economic education.
A good place to start is Cafe Hayek were Russell Roberts and Don Boudreaux offer up this sort of fare on a regular basis.
John Kerry will focus on the mediocre performance of the economy, particularly the job market, in the first part of the Bush Administration. Bush will tout the performance of the economy over the last year or so as long as the job numbers continue to be rosy through the fall. Implicit in this discussion are two strange assumptions. The first is that the President “runs” the economy. The President hardly even runs the government. He certainly cannot direct the fortunes and failures of millions of workers, managers, investors and entrepreneurs. The second implicit assumption is that the success or failure of the President depends on his ability to “stimulate” the economy, as if the economy were an engine that simply needed a different setting for its carburetor or as if it were a lazy steer that needs prodding to speed its way on a cattle drive.Enter the little boy and his bucket:
Imagine coming across a young boy who is standing at the edge of the shallow end of a swimming pool. He holds a bucket in his hands and he looks crestfallen. What’s wrong, you ask. Well, he explains, I’m doing a science experiment and it’s not working. What’s wrong? For the last hour I’ve been emptying water into this pool with this bucket. But the water level hasn’t changed a bit. The pool hasn’t gotten any deeper. It’s a big pool, you explain. A few bucketfuls of water aren’t going to have much of a visible effect. The boy redoubles and retriples his efforts. A week goes by. You come back to the pool and he looks no happier than he did before. What’s wrong now, you ask. I’ve been doing the same thing eight hours a day for a week and I still don’t see any change. Is there a leak in the pool, you wonder. No, he says, no leak. I checked that out.If you haven't guessed the boy's problem, read the rest of the essay to find out.
Oh and one more thing, Roberts comes close to adopting my garden analogy to refute the notion of building an economy (where I was refuting the notion of building a nation):
A President can no more stimulate the economy in the short run than you can make a child grow a foot in a week. Genuine growth takes time. The most a President can do is to help create an environment for that growth to take place by unleashing the creativity inherent in a nation’s people and those they trade with in other countries.Helping to "create an environment for that growth" sounds an awful lot like gardening to me.
Needless to say I think the whole essay is well worth the short read. I wish more people sought out and received this sort of economic education.
A good place to start is Cafe Hayek were Russell Roberts and Don Boudreaux offer up this sort of fare on a regular basis.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
The New York Times is Liberal
If Rhoads ever gets time to visit Coffee With Rhoads he may want to follow this link to Ed Driscoll's web site. From there he can follow several more links to admissions of liberal bias in the major news media. The title of this post reflects not just my view, but more tellingly the viewpoint of Daniel Okrent, ombudsman for the New York Times itself. If you find yourself arguing that the major news media do not lean liberal, then you almost certainly have identified yourself as being to the left of the mainstream news media and well to the left of the rest of your fellow Americans. Which is fine.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Intelligence and Saddam
I know Rhoads insists that Bush lied, or Bush embellished, or something like that regarding the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Multiple reports to the contrary lately are unlikely to change his mind. But for those of you who still wonder about the role of intelligence in the decision to invade Iraq, here is an intersting piece from today's New York Times called "Saddam Failed the Yeltsin Test" by Stephen Sestanovich, Clinton-era ambassador. Here are the concluding paragraphs:
When America demanded that Iraq follow the example of countries like Ukraine and South Africa, which sought international help in dismantling their weapons of mass destruction, it set the bar extremely high, but not unreasonably so. The right test had to reflect Saddam Hussein's long record of acquiring, using and concealing such weapons. Just as important, it had to yield a clear enough result to satisfy doubters on both sides, either breaking the momentum for war or showing that it was justified.Indeed.
Some may object that this approach treated Saddam Hussein as guilty until proved innocent. They're right. But the Bush administration did not invent this logic. When Saddam Hussein forced out United Nations inspectors in 1998, President Clinton responded with days of bombings - not because he knew what weapons Iraq had, but because Iraq's actions kept us from finding out.
A decision on war is almost never based simply on what we know, or think we know. Intelligence is always disputed. Instead, we respond to what the other guy does. This is how we went to war in Iraq. The next time we face such a choice, whether our intelligence has improved or not, we'll almost surely decide in the very same way.
Monday, July 12, 2004
"Joe Wilson? Al Franken calling about some lies."
Not sure if Air America is still on the air, but even if it is perhaps Al Franken has some time to discuss noted liar Joe Wilson of the Iraq, Niger, and uranium lie.
I'll provide some additional links for Al to follow up on: Pejman I, Pejman II, and Taranto for starters.
I'll provide some additional links for Al to follow up on: Pejman I, Pejman II, and Taranto for starters.
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Edwards Interview
Did Iraq pose an imminent threat to the U.S.? Did President Bush mislead the American people about the threat posed by Iraq in order to get us into a war that was not necessary? Let's ask John Edwards, presumptive Democratic vice-presidential nominee.
BOB: Senator Edwards, President Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the "axis of evil." Is there one that you think is more dangerous than the others?
EDWARDS: I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. And I think they -- as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as we develop policies about how we're going to deal with each of these countries and what action, if any, we're going to take with respect to them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits.
And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.[link]
BOB: Some say we shouldn't go to war because we want to, only because we have to. You say Iraq poses the most imminent threat, but is war necessary?
EDWARDS: I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action.[link]
BOB: Well surely Senator Edwards you were misled by President Bush.
EDWARDS: [D]id I get misled? No. I didn't get misled. And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn't just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.[link]
BOB: Well goodness knows these intelligence failures got us to fight a war in Iraq that took us away from the important business of finding Osama bin Laden. We had to choose between fighting al Qaeda and fighting in Iraq, and going into Iraq was the wrong choice wasn't it?
EDWARDS: I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.[link]
BOB: But al Qaeda, not Iraq, attacked us on 9/11. Is Iraq really all that dangerous to us?
EDWARDS: Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.[link]
BOB: Well said, John. Anything else?
EDWARDS: Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.
By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.
We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments.[link]
BOB: Shoot that's what I was saying. I know you think we should build as large a coalition as possible in this war to oust Saddam, but should we do it without UN approval if necessary?
EDWARDS: [I]f the Security Council is prevented from supporting this new effort, then the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as possible to address this threat.[link]
BOB: I'm with you Senator. Any final words?
EDWARDS: [T]he decision we must make now is one a nation never seeks. Yet when confronted with a danger as great as Saddam Hussein, it is a decision we must make. America's security requires nothing less.[link]
BOB: Well said, Senator. However it now appears that Saddam wasn't as imminently dangerous as we and so many others thought. Was ousting him the right thing to do in hindsight? I mean we pissed off the French, Germans, Russians and leftists all around the world. Do you still believe going in "alone" was the right thing to do?
EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage. And I think Saddam Hussein being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people. I stand behind my support of that, yes.[link]
BOB: Thank you for clearing all that up for us Senator. Thank you for your time.
And thank you to Stephen Hayes for making this interview possible.
BOB: Senator Edwards, President Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the "axis of evil." Is there one that you think is more dangerous than the others?
EDWARDS: I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. And I think they -- as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as we develop policies about how we're going to deal with each of these countries and what action, if any, we're going to take with respect to them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits.
And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.[link]
BOB: Some say we shouldn't go to war because we want to, only because we have to. You say Iraq poses the most imminent threat, but is war necessary?
EDWARDS: I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action.[link]
BOB: Well surely Senator Edwards you were misled by President Bush.
EDWARDS: [D]id I get misled? No. I didn't get misled. And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn't just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.[link]
BOB: Well goodness knows these intelligence failures got us to fight a war in Iraq that took us away from the important business of finding Osama bin Laden. We had to choose between fighting al Qaeda and fighting in Iraq, and going into Iraq was the wrong choice wasn't it?
EDWARDS: I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.[link]
BOB: But al Qaeda, not Iraq, attacked us on 9/11. Is Iraq really all that dangerous to us?
EDWARDS: Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.[link]
BOB: Well said, John. Anything else?
EDWARDS: Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.
By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.
We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments.[link]
BOB: Shoot that's what I was saying. I know you think we should build as large a coalition as possible in this war to oust Saddam, but should we do it without UN approval if necessary?
EDWARDS: [I]f the Security Council is prevented from supporting this new effort, then the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as possible to address this threat.[link]
BOB: I'm with you Senator. Any final words?
EDWARDS: [T]he decision we must make now is one a nation never seeks. Yet when confronted with a danger as great as Saddam Hussein, it is a decision we must make. America's security requires nothing less.[link]
BOB: Well said, Senator. However it now appears that Saddam wasn't as imminently dangerous as we and so many others thought. Was ousting him the right thing to do in hindsight? I mean we pissed off the French, Germans, Russians and leftists all around the world. Do you still believe going in "alone" was the right thing to do?
EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage. And I think Saddam Hussein being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people. I stand behind my support of that, yes.[link]
BOB: Thank you for clearing all that up for us Senator. Thank you for your time.
And thank you to Stephen Hayes for making this interview possible.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Lileks Fisks Moore
Michael Moore wrote a commentary in the July 4th LA Times. James Lileks goes over it for us as only he can.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
More on Iraq and Uranium
From today's Financial Times:
I guess I'll have to brush up on things nuclear. It appears that Iraq had two tons of uranium and a nuclear program, yet sought to buy uranium from Niger. I guess it's possible that all this is innocent enough and that Iraq needed uranium or the "yellow cake" from Niger for energy generation purposes. But why would a country rich with oil be developing nuclear energy sources?
A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.Uranium from Niger, you say? Now where did I hear that before? Oh right, Bush lied about that in his State of the Union speech in 2003.
The inquiry by Lord Butler, which was delivered to the printers on Wednesday and is expected to be released on July 14, has examined the intelligence that underpinned the UK government's claims about the threat from Iraq.
I guess I'll have to brush up on things nuclear. It appears that Iraq had two tons of uranium and a nuclear program, yet sought to buy uranium from Niger. I guess it's possible that all this is innocent enough and that Iraq needed uranium or the "yellow cake" from Niger for energy generation purposes. But why would a country rich with oil be developing nuclear energy sources?
Radioactive News?
The AP reported:
In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.Nope, no WMD programs going on in Iraq.
The nuclear material was secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis, the department said in a statement.
Monday, July 05, 2004
Impressive
Randy Barnett is impressed with Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11. In his piece Barnett cites, among others, pieces by Dave Kopel and Christopher Hitchens that are much worth reading.
I'd add to the must reading list the analysis by Brendan Nyhan of Spinsanity as well as this amusing collection of Michael Moore's own words by Tacitus. It's hard to pick a favorite, but I guess I was most amused by this give and take between Moore and Bob Costas (from Tacitus):
I'd add to the must reading list the analysis by Brendan Nyhan of Spinsanity as well as this amusing collection of Michael Moore's own words by Tacitus. It's hard to pick a favorite, but I guess I was most amused by this give and take between Moore and Bob Costas (from Tacitus):
May 9 interview on HBO's On the Record with Bob CostasSounds like Art Bell or Oliver Stone.
During the pre-taped interview, Moore asked Costas: "What happened to the search for Osama bin Laden?"
Costas naively suggested: "Obviously they're pursuing Osama bin Laden as we speak."
Moore challenged the premise: "Really, you believe that?"
Costas: "Yes."
Moore: "You do believe that?"
Costas: "Sure. And if they could find him, and perhaps they eventually will, they'd be gratified by that."
Moore: "You don't think they know where he is?"
Costas, clearly astonished as Moore's paranoid thinking: "You think they know where Osama bin Laden is and it's hands off?"
Moore: "Absolutely, absolutely."
Costas: "Why?"
Moore: "Because he's funded by their friends in Saudi Arabia! He's back living with his sponsors, his benefactors. Do you think that Osama bin Laden planned 9-11 from a cave in Afghanistan? I can't get a cell signal from here to Queens, alright, I mean, come on. Let's get real about this. The guy has been on dialysis for two years. He's got failing kidneys. He wasn't in a cave in Afghanistan playing-"
Costas jumped in: "You think he's in Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan, not Pakistan."
Moore: "Well, could be Pakistan, but he's under watch of those who have said put a stop to this because-"
Costas tried to nail him down on culpability: "Including, at least by extension, the United States, he's under the protective watch of the United States?"
Moore confirmed: "I think the United States, I think our government knows where he is and I don't think we're going to be capturing him or killing him any time soon."
Saturday, July 03, 2004
More Evidence of Media Bias
I haven't read any more of Linda Seebach's opinion piece than Glenn Reynolds exerpts, nor have I gone and read the original study, but I can't say I'm surprised by the finding of yet another study that the news media display a bias toward the left, dramatically it appears.
The authors say they expected to find that the mainstream media leaned to the left, but they were "astounded by the degree."Of course if you're to the left of the Democratic Party this won't be so obvious. In fact, if you're far enough left the news media will seem biased to the right.
Friday, July 02, 2004
Geneva Conventions and Detainees
So do the recent Supreme Court rulings mean that the War on Terror detainees are entitled to their rights under the Geneva Conventions? Nope. Eugene Volokh has a detailed post covering the issue. Here's the start of it:
See also this followup post regarding the Geneva Conventions at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Rhoads response: I am not sure what your point is here, Bob, but keep trying. The administration is continuing to dig themselves into a bigger and bigger hole, which is fine with me. I mean, if the Supreme Court that decided it was in their power to decide that these guys should be in charge of the Executive Branch disagrees with them, then they are in trouble, which I think is great.
Bob: Huh? I understood your first two sentences, but I can't make out the last one. Maybe once I figure that out I can help you understand the point I was making.
Some people have said that the Supreme Court's Guantanamo detainee decision might have been influenced by the Administration's refusal to give the detainees the procedures to which they're entitled by the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions are a treaty that we signed, the argument goes, the government is bound to give this procedure, so we should interpret our habeas corpus statute as mandating at least something like what we've promised to provide in any case.Read the whole thing.
I'm not sure whether the Justices might indeed have been influenced by what they may see as Administration overreaching here. But, as best I can tell, the Geneva Conventions do not require the U.S. to give hearings to detainees who claim that they're actually civilians and should therefore be freed.[emphasis in original]
See also this followup post regarding the Geneva Conventions at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Rhoads response: I am not sure what your point is here, Bob, but keep trying. The administration is continuing to dig themselves into a bigger and bigger hole, which is fine with me. I mean, if the Supreme Court that decided it was in their power to decide that these guys should be in charge of the Executive Branch disagrees with them, then they are in trouble, which I think is great.
Bob: Huh? I understood your first two sentences, but I can't make out the last one. Maybe once I figure that out I can help you understand the point I was making.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
A Soldier's View of the Liberation of Iraq
This soldier says he and his brothers-in-arms knew why they were invading Iraq:
I can speak with authority on the opinions of both British and American infantry in that place and at that time. Let me make this clear: at no time did anyone say or imply to any of us that we were invading Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction, nor were we there to avenge 9/11. We knew we were there for one reason: to rid the world of a tyrant, and to give Iraq back to Iraqis.Read the whole thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)