The Swift Boat Saga, Part XIII

You know, updating this story is difficult when you take three days off to do regular work. Let's just run through some recent news without too many comments.

First, Kerry's campaign now admits that he may have fudged his story on the incident where he received his first Purple Heart... boy, those dishonorable Swift Boat Vets are sure a bunch of liars, right?

A primary claim against Mr. Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans is that Mr. Kerry's first Purple Heart — awarded for action on Dec. 2, 1968 — did not involve the enemy and that Mr. Kerry's wounds that day were unintentionally self-inflicted. They charge that in the confusion involving unarmed, fleeing Viet Cong, Mr. Kerry fired a grenade, which detonated nearby and splattered his arm with hot metal.

Mr. Kerry has claimed that he faced his "first intense combat" that day, returned fire, and received his "first combat related injury." A journal entry Mr. Kerry wrote Dec. 11, however, raises questions about what really happened nine days earlier.

"A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky," wrote Mr. Kerry, according the book "Tour of Duty" by friendly biographer Douglas Brinkley.

If enemy fire was not involved in that or any other incident, according to the Military Order of the Purple Heart, no medal should be awarded. ...According to regulations set by the Department of Defense, an enemy must be involved to warrant a Purple Heart. Altogether, Mr. Kerry earned three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star.

A Kerry campaign official, speaking on background, told The Washington Times yesterday that the "we" in the passage from Mr. Kerry's journal refers to "the crew on Kerry's first swift boat, operating as a crew" rather than Mr. Kerry himself. "John Kerry didn't yet have his own boat or crew on December 2," according to the aide. "Other members of the crew had been in Vietnam for some time and had been shot at and Kerry knew that at the time. However, the crew had not yet been fired on while they served together on PCF 44 under Lieutenant Kerry." Mr. Kerry's campaign could not say definitively whether he did receive enemy fire that day.

The newly exhumed passages were first reported by Fox News Channel in a televised interview with John Hurley, national leader of Veterans for Kerry. "Is it possible that Kerry's first Purple Heart was the result of an unintentionally self-inflicted wound?" asked reporter Major Garrett.

"Anything is possible," Mr. Hurley replied.

The backpedaling is hysterical. But not nearly as funny as Bob Dole's entry into the fray. Keep in mind, folks on the left questioned Bob Dole's war record in 1996, as pointed out by Jim Geraghty. Personally, this line from Dole on Scarborough Country made my week:

SCARBOROUGH: You ran for president. It’s easy for me to talk about media bias, but did you see media bias in 1996? And if so, how widespread is it?

DOLE: It’s widespread. I mean, you look at the number of stories written about or on the three big networks at night and “The New York Times,” “The L.A. Times,” “The Washington Post,” all the big newspapers. How many dozens of stories they’ve reported about George Bush and the National Guard, and now they had to rush to the defense of John Kerry.

“The New York Times” last Friday had a front-page story, trying to discredit all these other Vietnam veterans, some who’ve been wounded seriously, all of whom served honorably. And many were decorated. And they’re cast as a bunch of liars or paid off by the Bush people. And that’s the kind of coverage you would get from the so-called mainstream media.

President Bush is going to go out and rebut this, for the most part, with paid advertising. He doesn’t have “The New York Times” every day. If you added up the value of all “The New York Times” propaganda, it would probably be $3 or $4 million.

The folks at the left-wing dishrag must have winced when they heard that. All that writing for Kerry is only worth $3-4 million?

Getting back to the point, let's examine how the first statements about Purple Heart impact a story that came out today. Retired Rear Admiral William Schachte (perhaps we Simpsons fans finally have an answer to what the "dreaded Rear Admiral" is) has become a person of interest due to issues related to the December 2, 1968 incident for which Kerry received his first Purple Heart. Bob Novak's column today at the Chicago Sun-Times explains:

Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in his first on-the-record interview about the swift boat veterans dispute that "I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident that led to his first Purple Heart.

"Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 [grenade launcher]," Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart."

Schachte, a lieutenant, said he was in command of the small boat called a Boston whaler or skimmer, with Kerry aboard in his first combat mission in the Vietnam War. The third crew member was an enlisted man, whose name Schachte did not remember.

Two enlisted men who appeared at the podium with Kerry at the Democratic National Convention in Boston have asserted that they were alone in the small boat with Kerry, with no other officer present. Schachte said it "was not possible" for Kerry to have gone out alone so soon after joining the swift boat command in late November 1968.

Kerry supporters said no critics of the Democratic presidential nominee ever were aboard a boat with him in combat. Washington lawyer Lanny Davis has contended that Schachte was not aboard the Boston whaler and says the statement that Schachte was aboard in Unfit for Command undermines that critical book's credibility.

Schachte until now has refused to speak out publicly on this question and agreed to give only two interviews. One was a television interview with Lisa Meyers of NBC News, for broadcast Thursday night. The second was a print interview with me, for publication today.

Schachte described the use of the skimmer operating very close to shore as a technique that he personally designed to flush out enemy forces so that the larger swift boats could move in. Around 3 a.m. on Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer -- code-named "Batman" -- fired a hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, the new officer picked up the M-79 and, "I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire from the enemy," he said.

Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis are the two enlisted men who said they were aboard the skimmer and did not know Schachte. However, two other former officers interviewed Thursday confirmed that Schachte was the originator of the technique and always was aboard the Boston whaler for these missions.

Grant Hibbard, who as a lieutenant commander was Schachte's superior officer, confirmed that Schachte always went on these skimmer missions and said, "I don't think he [Kerry] was alone" on his first assignment. Hibbard said he had told Kerry to "forget it" when he asked for a Purple Heart.

Ted Peck, another swift boat commander, said, "I remember Bill [Schachte] telling me it didn't happen" -- that is, Kerry getting an enemy-inflicted wound. He said it would be "impossible" for Kerry to have been in the skimmer without Schachte.

Schachte's not a member of the Swift Boat Veterans, yet he's now come forward with a very credible explanation of the December 2nd incident -- and is now the second person to have served on one of Kerry's boats to dispute his accounts, joining Steven Gardner.

But it gets even better. The Kerry campaign stated, in response to the issue of Kerry's seemingly contradictory journal entry on December 11th, that "John Kerry didn't yet have his own boat or crew on December 2." As Ed Morrissey pointed out at the Captainsquartersblog, this effectively backs up Schachte:

To claim that Kerry used a rhetorical, reverse-royal "We" that specifically excluded Kerry shows the desperation and the remarkable consistency of the Democrats. They're back to debating two-letter words of plain English.

Taking this explanation a step further, however, the Kerry campaign just undermined its earlier argument that Kerry had been the only officer on board the Boston whaler at the 2 December incident. Earlier, when now-Admiral William Schachte insisted that he had been on the boat with Kerry and that no inbound fire of any kind occured that evening, Kerry produced two witnesses who insisted that they could not recall anyone else but the three of them being on board (Zaldonis and Runyon). However, if you accept Kerry's new explanation for his journal entry, then Kerry asserts (correctly) that he had no command assignment prior to PCF-44.

Then who was the OinC on the Boston Whaler?

People talk about the fog of war, but Kerry's effectively trapped himself by emphasizing his heroic service, thereby aggravating folks who remember his testimony before the Foriegn Relations Committee, not to mention this statement, from a 1971 appearance on Meet the Press:

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

Word has it Kerry might appear on a weekend news show to try and stem the bleeding. He might want to avoid Russert, who probably has that clip ready and waiting.

The Wedding Update

by the world's least dangerous man

This wedding update is brought to you by Maker's Mark. As if you need to ask why.

337 days to go...

You know, this countdown thing isn't nearly as much fun as it was when I was making fun other people. But we need to make sure it continues, I guess. But it would be helpful if certain big red-heads actually took the time to exact some real payback. It's not like he has real things to do, like raising a child. Yes, Johnny Goblin, that line's for you.

Anyway, Alli is busy this weekend looking at photographers, while I can't participate due to work commitments. I'm actually upset about this, since I don't get to provide a humorous post detailing the pictures from other weddings that I would have had the opportunity to review, with comments sure to annoy my future wife. Lines like, "Man, he is a good photographer. All these weddings of ugly people, and he made them look half-human. Even Ratboy over there."

Again, I'm not sure why she agreed to marry me, either.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

I finally watched the TiVo of John Kerry's appearance on The Daily Show last night. What's amazing is that John Kerry took someone that's usually hysterical -- Jon Stewart -- and made him unfunny. Many politicians lack a sense of comic timing, but Kerry's turned it into an art form. Bravo.

Lest people think it's only conservatives who feel this way, check out this review from Dana Stevens at Slate, who's a Kerry supporter...

From the moment the senator appeared and sat down on the gray sofa where, just last week, Bill Clinton basked in the audience's applause like a cat lapping up cream, Kerry's charisma was less than zero: It was negative. He was a charm vacuum, forced to actually borrow mojo from audience members. He was a dessicated husk, a tin man who really didn't have a heart. His lack of vibrancy, his utter dearth of sex appeal made Al Gore look like Charo.

... Watching Kerry strike out was especially heartbreaking given that Stewart was pitching not just softballs but marshmallows. Puffy interview marshmallows with rainbow sprinkles on them, and Kerry was letting them sail by as if he planned to get to first base on a walk. That may be how he hopes to win the presidency as well, but before he gets there, he'll have to jump through hoops a lot tougher than this exchange:

Stewart: […] As any good fake journalist should do, I watch only the 24-hour cable news. This is what I learned about you—

Kerry: All right.

Stewart: Through the cable news. Please refute if you will. Are you the number one most liberal senator in the Senate?

Kerry: No.

Stewart: Okay.

Kerry: You happy with that? (LAUGHTER)

Um, no, Senator. Should we be? Kerry seemed unclear on the concept that he was there precisely to poke fun at the recirculated sound bites of the talking-head circuit, that this was his chance to take terms like "liberal" and "flip-flop" and split them wide open. All he had to do was shoulder his rocket launcher (he's good at that, right?) and take aim at the received wisdom that has kept the focus of this campaign exactly where the Bush camp wants it to be: on who did what in a war we lost 30 years ago, rather than what to do next in the war we're losing right now. Instead, Kerry ignored every opening Stewart gave him, preferring to dust off rhetoric that's become familiar even to casual followers of his campaign: "You don't go to war because you want to. You go to war because you have to." That was a good line at the convention, but baby, the convention was a month ago! This is Jon Stewart, the king of politically savvy late-night television. You need new A-list material. Get someone on it.

The current controversy about Kerry's war service got only a glancing mention, when Stewart leaned in to murmur, "So I understand that apparently you were never in Vietnam." But Kerry's repeated vows to stay "laser-beam focused" on the "real issues" didn't keep him from milking his war record at every possible opportunity. Asked whether the Swift boat ads had affected him personally, Kerry replied pointedly, "Yeah, it's a little bit disappointing. But believe it or not, I've been through worse." And then, when the interview was over and Kerry rose to leave, he caused audible groans in my household by saluting the audience (just as he did at the opening of his convention speech: "John Kerry reporting for duty." Lieutenant Kerry, your first order is to stop saluting the audience. It makes you look like a total tool).

Maybe the Democrats are just a humor-challenged group, but that's unfair, since there's Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman and.... well.... Al Sharpton. Maybe Barack Obama has one, too, but I'm sure they'll try to turn him into a humorless drone, too. It's hysterical, because the Dems have again nominated a candidate who needs his wife to tell people, "No, really, he's very funny! I swear!"

By the way, Stevens is now convinced we're losing the war in Iraq. Guess it makes sense -- she's supporting a candidate who gave up on Vietnam as soon as he could.

This Land is My Land...

Woo-hoo! Jib-Jab, the wondrous makers of the hysterical "This Land" parody of the Presidential election, have reached a settlement with the publishers of Woody Guthrie's music, thereby allowing the return of the funniest parody around:

With nary a jab thrown, Ludlow Music, the song's publisher, agreed in a settlement Tuesday to allow the cartoon — one of the biggest Internet draws of the summer — to keep using the song.

In return, JibJab dropped a lawsuit against Ludlow that sought an order saying its use of the song was protected because it was a parody and "This Land" was in the public domain.

The creators also agreed to provide a link on their Web site to the song's original lyrics and to donate 20 percent of any profits to the Woody Guthrie Foundation.

"The settlement accomplished Ludlow's goals, which was to bring people back to the immediate message of Woody Guthrie," said Paul LiCalsi, an attorney for the firm.

LiCalsi said JibJab's version of the song wasn't protected under copyright law because it targeted the election rather than the song itself. Protection under the fair use clause of the law requires that copyrighted material be the subject of the parody, he said.

JibJab's lawyers said Ludlow was misinterpreting the law and that the song in the cartoon clearly was a parody.

"'This Land' is known as an iconic song about national unity, and the JibJab parody is predominantly about the lack of national unity at this time," said Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represented JibJab.

Since its July 9 debut on the JibJab Web site, the cartoon has been viewed by about 20 million people, according to Santa Monica-based JibJab.

In other words, humor triumphs over anal-retentive lawyers. Now that's the American spirit!

Max Cleland Works for... George W. Bush?

Rich Lowry has the shocking details of the collaboration of President Bush with a veteran who's intimately involved with... helping John Kerry get elected:

Max Cleland, who made a staged appearance at the Bush ranch Wednesday, was appointed by President George W. Bush to the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank in 2003. The same Max Cleland who is spending nearly all of his time attacking President Bush is, amazingly enough, a Bush political appointee.

According to a bank spokesman, Cleland makes $136,000 a year off this very cushy job. A couple of questions come to mind here: If Cleland had any decency, wouldn't he resign? Why would he accept a political appointment from a man he so loathes and thinks represents the very worst in American politics? Max Cleland's extremely partisan activities are being subsidized by the American taxpayer.

But, wait, it gets more sinister. There is now a definitive link between President Bush and the attacks against him. This link is as direct as most of the links that have been highlighted between Bush and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Bush gave a $136,000 job to one of his attackers and a key member of Kerry's "band of brothers." By the logic of most of the press corps, this means George W. Bush must be responsible for the activities of Kerry campaign's band of brothers (see this chart). Who knows what deep game is being played here, but somebody should call the New York Times.

Okay, Lowry's being tongue-in-cheek. But he's got a point -- Cleland works on behalf of Kerry during the campaign, but he won't give up a six-figure income handed to him by Bush. Not all that surprising, since Senator Ketchup and his running mate are still drawing Senate paychecks, and they rarely show up on Capitol Hill. Also, the Kerry campaign insists Bush has something to do with the Swift Boat Veterans because we can play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon with Bush supporters and Swift Boat supporters. Yet it appears Bush has an equally strong tie to a man who's consistently criticized Bush on his National Guard service.

I would say more, but I don't want Cleland to think I'm questioning his patriotism.

The Germans Solve the Mystery of... Women?

The German love of efficiency, which is only surpassed by their love for David Hasselhoff, will now seek to conquer the enigma that has confounded men for centuries, according to Reuters...

A leading German dictionary publisher plans to launch a guide it says will help men translate the subtext of female conversation.

The Langenscheidt publishing group, best known for its well-respected yellow foreign language dictionaries, will launch sales of a 128-page book to translate such baffling female banter as: "Let's just cuddle" into "No sex tonight please!."

"Each themed chapter offers men behavioral tips and exposes hidden messages transmitted by women in everyday situations, such as on holiday or during shopping trips," said Silke Exius, chief editor at Langenscheidt.

Other examples in the "German-Woman/Woman-German" edition due out in October include explaining why a woman asks a man to take interest in the pair of shoes she may be trying on.

She wants him to look because he's about to pay for them.

The name of the chief editor is almost as unrealistic as Misty May. Or Wolf Blitzer, for that matter.

Now, I think I speak for all men when I say we'll take any help we can get. But there's two problems here. First, such a treatise threatens to expose the fact that we do understand what they're saying some of the time... and choose to ignore it anyway. Second, is this really an area of German expertise? I mean, don't they conquer the French twice a century just to learn good pick-up lines?

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

You know, it's hard work keeping track of Kerry's flip-flopping. Especially when he says stuff like this:

The candidates' fitness to be commander in chief erupted again even as Kerry headed to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to tell voters he could produce better, higher-paying jobs from the White House than President Bush has and improve the lives of the middle class.

"The truth, which is what elections are all about, is that the tax burden of the middle class has gone up while the tax burden of the middle class has gone down," he said.

Maybe this has something to do with John Edwards' Two Americas -- there are two middle classes as well? Okay, so he probably misspoke. But if Bush said this, do you think the media would be all over it?

Note: A hat-tip to James Taranto's Best of the Web, which dug up the quote.

The Cup of Coffee Test

The L.A. Times printed this story a couple days ago, which was surprising since the paper usually does its best to emulate the left-wing dishrag. But this time, the paper put forth a tale about Bush's campaigning in Ohio, and his discussion with 10 steelworkers aboard his campaign bus, in an unusually personal campaign effort...

As President Bush's campaign bus barreled down Interstate 77 toward this Rust Belt city on a recent Saturday morning, an unusual focus group with 10 local steelworkers convened inside the vehicle. Conducting the session was Bush himself.

Even in an election year, Bush's direct encounters with the public have been infrequent, fleeting and almost always choreographed. In the free-flowing give-and-take aboard his private bus, however, the president got a polite but candid earful about the uneasy feeling many such workers have about the economy.

...The Ohio workers he met with — employed by Timken Co., an old-line manufacturer of ball bearings and other steel products — live under the threat of plant closings. Details of their free-flowing session of July 31 were provided by seven of the 10 participants in interviews, and generally confirmed by aides from the White House and the president's campaign.

The group included Democrats and Republicans, white-collar workers and union members. The participants all cited Bush's personal charm, and his ability to put them at ease and encourage candor.

There wasn't room for everyone to sit, for example, so a few had to stand. Bush offered his recliner to Betsy Burns, a products inspector. Taken aback, she demurred. "This is an executive order. Sit down!" the president barked. Amid much laughter, Burns saluted and settled into the president's cushy chair while he remained standing throughout the session.

"That really broke the ice," said Jeff Clark, director of advanced product technology.

Timken has been in the news in this campaign because Bush visited one of its facilities here in 2003 and said his tax cuts would create jobs. But this year, the company announced plans to close three Canton-area ball-bearing plants that employed 1,300 workers. Sen. John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, has pointed to Timken's problems as symptomatic of what he says are Bush's flawed economic policies.

Employment concerns were definitely on the minds of the workers Bush met with, and they said he shared their anxieties." The job security issue was the single item that was bad, from his perspective," said Susan Palomba, Timken's manager of healthcare benefits.

"Every time someone else chimed in [about job worries], others nodded their heads in agreement," added Sharon Jordan, a quality analyst at one of the targeted ball-bearing plants. In response to the participants' economic concerns, Palomba, Jordan and others said, Bush talked up the benefits of his tax cuts, as well as potential economic gains from his pending initiatives, such as a national energy plan. When Jordan, a mother of three, fretted about the cost of college, Bush responded, "Sometimes we have to do things we don't like to do," referring to taking out loans. He also brought up the role of community colleges as "one of the best things going," Jordan said.

Miller told the president that he would not be getting many votes from steelworkers. Miller, a Bush supporter, drove home his point by describing the grief he caught from co-workers when he wore a "Steelworkers for Bush" T-shirt to the plant."You're a brave soul," Bush replied, touching off a round of laughter.

At the end of the meeting, Bush turned to his reelection prospects. Although he expressed his belief that he would win on Nov. 2, Bush said he would be at peace with himself "if people elect to send me home."

"He said he wanted to be remembered as being effective and he was not worried about trying to be popular," said Chancelor Wyatt, a marketing manager at Timken.

John Grogg, a furnace operator who put on the dress blues of his Pennsylvania Air National Guard unit for the occasion, quoted the president as saying: "You know, if I should lose this reelection for president of the United States, I know that I've done as good a job as I can do. And God would say, 'Good servant, take a break.' "

... At one point during the Ohio session, Bush lauded the sacrifices of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. "There were tears in just about everybody's eyes," recalled Martino.

At another point, Bush turned to Grogg, the Air National Guardsman, and asked, "Sergeant, have you been to Iraq yet?""Not yet, sir," Grogg replied."Do you want to go?" Bush asked."In a heartbeat," the reservist said."God bless you, son," the president told him.

"I'm only four years younger," Grogg said later. "But I kind of liked that, him calling me 'son.'"As they parted company, the men exchanged salutes.

The idea for the meeting came from the Bush campaign, and Timken's senior human resources officials assembled the group — a cross-section of the company, a spokesman said. Neither the campaign nor the company issued the seven men and three women any do's or don'ts, according to Martino and Jason Saragian, a Timken spokesman.

Bush is likely to continue meeting with voters, advisors said. Indeed, he held a similar session, lasting about 40 minutes, with 19 employees of Boeing Commercial Airplanes during a visit to the Seattle area late last week. The tenor of that meeting was more upbeat, perhaps because Boeing — rebounding from a slump in aircraft sales — recently announced plans to hire 3,000 more workers by year's end.

That was a long excerpt, but I think it's worth reading. Someone once told me that every Presidential election since Roosevelt's win over Hoover has gone to the candidate who strikes people as the sort of guy they'd rather meet for a cup of coffee. I'd disagree, since Nixon beat this twice, although I don't think I'd want either Nixon or McGovern over for dinner (Spiro Agnew would have been entertaining, though). But it's generally true. I doubt Dole had much of a chance against Clinton in 1996, but it would have been easier if he had broken out more of the self-deprecating Kansas wit prior to the election.

There are sophisticated elites from the Northeast who'd like to have John Kerry over for a cup of coffee -- but if they were honest, they'd admit that he's a boor. Plus, Kerry would probably ask for an espresso. Bush, on the other hand, has the ability to connect with people. This is not to say that Kerry's a bad guy because of this, but he's not an ideal candidate. He doesn't connect with people the way Bush does -- Bush would probably be facing a more significant challenge if John Edwards was his opponent. But even then, Edwards isn't in the same class as Bill Clinton, the master of fake sincerity. That's not really fair to Clinton, though, since most politicians are good at exuding fake sincerity.

But that's what's striking about Bush. The sincerity is real. People call him stupid, and he's not, but he'd have to be a political genius of Clintonian proportions to pull off faking sincerity at this level. I think that's why people generally trust him to do what he says he will do. And I also think that's why he will end up winning, and winning big.

Abercrombie & Fitch v. West Virginia

I have no sense of style, so it's not shocking that I've never spent ten minutes inside an Abercrombie & Fitch store. But I don't feel like I've missed anything -- even the pornographic marketing campaign they conducted. But I really have to wonder if the Governor of West Virginia doesn't have anything better to do...

Abercrombie & Fitch is poking fun at West Virginia with a T-shirt again, this one reading: "West Virginia: No Lifeguard at the Gene Pool."

Gov. Bob Wise called the slogan cruel and said he would fight back.

In March, Wise sent a letter demanding that the chain of collegiate-style clothing stores dump a shirt that read, "It's All Relative in West Virginia."

"It is unfortunate that Abercrombie & Fitch continues to perpetuate stereotypes rather than positive things like the number of residents serving in the military or the state's PROMISE scholarship program," Wise spokeswoman Jodi Omear said Wednesday.

Other Abercrombie & Fitch T-shirts lampoon Kentucky ("Electricity in Almost Every Town") and Wisconsin ("Wisconsin Cuts the Cheese").

Man, Americans need to keep a sense of humor, or we'll turn into Canadians, for crying out loud. Why not suggest slogans for other states instead? I'd suggest one, but I'm afraid of being labelled insensitive to the feelings of the freaks who live in California.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

This is the bonus post, designed to make up for the travesty of last Friday, when I chose to watch the Eagles prep for the season by suffering another season-ending injury to a starter.

It turns out Kerry may have called one of the Swift Boat Vets to ask them to stop running their ads, according to Drudge...

Kerry reached out to Robert "Friar Tuck" Brant Cdr., USN (RET) Sunday night, just hours after former Sen. Bob Dole publicly challenged Kerry to apologize to veterans.

Brant was skipper of the #96 and # 36 boat and spent time with Kerry in An Thoi. Kerry and Brant slept in the same quarters, and Brant used to put Kerry back to bed at night when Kerry was sleepwalking.

Brant received a call from Kerry at his home in Virginia while he was watching the Olympics on TV. The call lasted 10 minutes, sources tell DRUDGE.

KERRY: "Why are all these swift boat guys opposed to me?"

BRANT: "You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there." [Brant had two men killed in battle.]

KERRY: "When we dedicated swift boat one in '92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn't talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans."

If this is true, it shows just how clueless Kerry is. He's now seeking to patch up his relationships with the Swift Boat Vets by excluding them from the group of veterans he accused of atrocities in 1971... but he still won't retract the statement for any other soldiers!

Kerry should have seen this coming (or at least, his campaign staff should have seen it coming). Their inability to anticipate that many veterans would be angry about Kerry's wrapping himself in his service records 33 years after denigrating the service of others provides unflattering testimony about how a potential Kerry White House would tackle a crisis. But let's forget that for a second.

Kerry testified before Congress to the following:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Now, 33 years later, Kerry has spoken of his heroism in combat, with his campaign blatantly mentioning his many decorations as proof of his character. Don't these statements also provide us with insight into his chracter? Yet the Kerry campaign wants these statements silenced. What the Senator should be doing, as Rich Lowry points out, is explaining why he lied in 1971, and why he won't retract those statements today...

Recounting the work of the so-called Winter Soldier Investigation — a since-discredited project that gathered first-person accounts of alleged atrocities from American vets — Kerry spoke of "war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." In his telling, the American war was simply a criminal undertaking. Kerry said the men "relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do."

Now, of course, Kerry implicitly portrays Vietnam as a noble undertaking, featuring only great acts of bravery by great American men. In his convention speech, Kerry bragged of defending America as a soldier — forgetting that it once was his deeply held conviction that the Vietnam War had nothing to do with defending America. Apparently someone in the Kerry camp thinks that having John Edwards testify to Kerry's gung-ho war exploits has more resonance than celebrating him in this way: "If you want to know John Kerry, spend three minutes with the men who were with him when he threw away his medals and called U.S. soldiers criminals."

Kerry's defenders argue that in 1971 he was only repeating stories told by other veterans. These stories should have been incredible to anyone with the least bit of respect for American soldiers, especially someone who had just served with them. But Kerry repeated the stories anyway in order to cast the war in the worst possible light. Even now he won't disavow them. Pressed on Meet the Press about the testimony, Kerry said, "I'm not going to quibble, you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more artfully at times." Phrased more artfully?

Kerry refuses to admit that he burst onto the national scene by telling a shameful falsehood about American servicemen. In his testimony, he even traded on the notion that the vets had been made into war-damaged freaks — the country has created "a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence." Kerry is perfectly happy to stand with members of this monstrous body of war criminals, victims and misfits now that they suit his political purposes. As for those vets who don't, they are "liars." The Swift Boat veterans seem unfazed by the charge, since they, after all, have been called worse by John Kerry.

The fact that Kerry won't disavow those statements says one of two things: either (1) he believes they were true, in which case his conduct in Vietnam should be called into question, because he served with so many war criminals, or (2) he's hoping to wait until it's politically expedient to do so, and only if he's forced to do so by continued media coverage. Thomas Mackubin Owens offered this interesting parallel:

[E]ach episode of the HBO series Band of Brothers, begins with a voiceover in which the narrator says of the World War II soldiers portrayed in the program: "I was not a hero, but I was surrounded by heroes." In contrast, what John Kerry is saying in essence about his "band of brothers" is that "in Vietnam, I was a hero, but I was surrounded by war criminals."

Kerry's insistence on emphasizing his heroism may be one more factor that turns off veterans. Ralph Peters, a fomrer military officer who isn't particularly enamored with Bush, noted the unseemly nature of Kerry's overt use of his war service during his campaign in a column in the New York Post...

As far as the swift-boat controversy goes, it's likely to remain a he-said-she-said issue through Election Day. The red flag to military men and women is that so many swift-boat veterans have come out against John Kerry. Not just one. Not 10. Dozens upon dozens.

This is as rare as humility in the Hamptons. Vets stick together. Kerry likes to play up his "band of brothers" image, but if he's got a band, his opponents have a symphony. And even if the first violinist turns out to be a "Republican stooge," it's nonetheless stunning for so many vets to denounce a former comrade publicly. It just doesn't happen unless something's really wrong.

As for Kerry's support from his own crew, that's normal military psychology. You get the most objective view of a junior leader from his peers — the other swift-boat commanders (and their crews) who had to fear a weak link in the chain.

...Kerry's lies — and they were nothing but lies — about "routine" atrocities committed by average American soldiers and sanctioned by the chain of command were sheer political opportunism. Kerry knew that none of the charges were true.

He'd been there. He may have done some stupid things himself, but atrocities were statistically very rare. Contrary to the myths cherished by film-makers, American troops behaved remarkably well under dreadful conditions.

John Kerry lied. Without remorse. To advance his budding political career. He tarnished the reputation of his comrades when the military was out of vogue.

...Kerry might have won support had he apologized frankly for what he said in the early 1970s. But he no more disavowed his lies than he disclaimed the lies of Michael Moore.

Which brings us to problems two and three.

John Kerry doesn't show a trace of integrity. Those constant flip-flops to suit the prevailing political winds are more troubling to military folks than many of the issues themselves.

Integrity matters to those in uniform. You have to be able to depend on the guy in the next foxhole — or swift boat. Trust is more important than any technology. And John Kerry just doesn't seem trustworthy.

Finally — and this is the one the pundits have trouble grasping, given the self-promoting nature of today's culture — real heroes don't call themselves heroes. Honorable soldiers or sailors don't brag. They let their deeds speak for themselves. Some of the most off-putting words any veteran can utter are "I'm a war hero."

Real heroes (and I've been honored to know some) never portray their service in grandiose terms, telling TV cameras that they're reporting for duty. Real heroes may be proud of the sacrifices they offered, but they don't shout for attention. This is so profoundly a part of the military code of behavior that it cannot be over-emphasized.

The rule is that those who brag about being heroes usually aren't heroes at all. Bragging is for drunks at the end of the bar, not for real vets. And certainly not for anyone who wishes to trade on his service to become our commander-in-chief.

I wish Kerry were better. The truth is that I'm appalled by Bush's domestic policies. I believe that the Cheney-Halliburton connection stinks to high heaven. And I'm convinced that Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld & Co. have done colossal damage to our military and to our foreign policy.

But we're at war. And for all his faults, Bush has proven himself as a great wartime leader. Despite painful mistakes, he's served our security needs remarkably well. And security trumps all else in the age of terror.

Kerry says many of the right things. But I can't believe a word of it. I just can't trust John Kerry. I can't trust him to lead, I can't trust him to fight — and I can't trust him to make the right kind of peace.

I have reservations about voting for George W. Bush. But I have no reservations about voting against John Kerry. And I'm not alone.

Whatever the results of the Swift Boat Veterans controversy, I think it's safe to say Kerry can no longer count on the votes of veterans to put him into the White House.

Dave Matthews Hits The Crapper

You know, the headline, "Dave Matthews Band Blamed For Human Waste" has so many meanings...

Rock star Dave Matthews and his tour bus driver are facing a filthy lawsuit.

The Illinois Attorney General's office says they're responsible for dumping up to 100-gallons of raw human waste from a tour bus onto the Kinzie Street Bridge earlier this month.

The nasty mess rained down on passengers aboard a sightseeing boat two weeks ago.

The suit charges both the band and the bus driver with violating state water pollution laws, as well as common law public nuisance laws. A spokesman
for the band says all of its tour buses were parked at the time of the incident.

The spokesman doesn't say where the buses were parked. Of course, it's pretty clear this is just another instance of John Ashcroft trying to silence freedom of expression. If Dave Matthews can't dump 100 gallons of human waste on a passenger bus without threats of recrimination, then our civil liberties are truly in danger.

John Edwards... Does He Know He's a Lawyer?

Okay, I'm a lawyer, so maybe I'm reading too much into this. Last night, I watched media coverage of John Edwards stumping through Wisconsin, where he hammered the President for the Swift Boat Veterans' ads against John Kerry. Edwards challenged the President to say three words: "Stop these ads."

Now I can't find an article reflecting that quote, but here's the closest thing to it that I found, from an AP release...

"Finally (Monday), the president spoke for the first time himself about this, and he did not meet the test," Edwards said. "He did not step to the plate. He did not say stop these ads. Instead, what we heard from the president was a typical politician's answer."

There's also this version of his statement...

"The moment of truth came and went, and the President still couldn't bring himself to do the right thing. We need a president with the strength and integrity to say when something is wrong. Instead of hiding behind a front group, George Bush needs to take responsibility and demand that the ad come off the air. Its funded by his own supporters, and casts one of own campaign officials. President Bush, it's time to do the right thing."

Okay, no big deal, right? Except for one thing. Edwards has no proof that Bush worked with the Swift Boat Veterans, and Bush is in fact barred from doing so by federal law as per McCain-Feingold. Bush cannot coordinate with a 527 group. He has denied doing so, and there is no proof that he has done so.

But here, Senator Edwards explicitly encourages the President to break federal law, by ordering the Swift Boat Vets to stop their ads, thereby coordinating with them. It's a fine line, sure. But if Edwards is still a member of the bar, doesn't he have a responsibility not to encourage such lawless behavior?

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

I'll be doing much more on the Swift Boat Saga later tonight, but this article in the Wall Street Journal was sent to me by two of my few readers. Both RB and the Featured Instigator noted several key points, but take a look at the quote that opened the article first...

The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and
active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be. ... Just because
you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question.

--John Kerry, questioning President Bush's military-service record,
February 8, 2004.

As RB pointed out, take a look at the last phrase there. If someone read that quote to you, wouldn't you think it might be the Swift Boat Vets talking?

Kerry's campaign has spent the last few days accusing the Bush Adminsitration of coordinating the attacks by the Swift Boat Vets. Mind you, they have no proof, but the whining is officially tiresome. As the same article notes:

What did Mr. Kerry expect, anyway? That claiming to be a hero himself while accusing other veterans of "war crimes"--as he did back in 1971 and has refused to take back ever since--would somehow go unanswered? That when he raised the subject of one of America's most contentious modern events, no one would meet him at the barricades? Mr. Kerry brought the whole thing up; why is it Mr. Bush's obligation now to shut it down?

Simply because some rich Bush-backers are funding Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is hardly an adequate answer. Some rich Kerry-backers are spending far more to attack Mr. Bush's record, and the Senator was only too happy to slipstream behind Michael Moore's smear that Mr. Bush was a Vietnam-era "deserter."

In any case, anyone who spends five minutes reading the Swift Boat Veterans' book ("Unfit for Command") will quickly realize that their attack has nothing to do with Mr. Bush. This is all about Mr. Kerry and what the veterans believe was his blood libel against their service when he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the spring of 1971 that all American soldiers had committed war crimes as a matter of official policy. "Crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" were among his incendiary words.

Mr. Kerry has never offered proof of those charges, yet he has never retracted them either. At his recent coronation in Boston he managed the oxymoronic feat of celebrating both his own war-fighting valor and his antiwar activities when he returned home. This is why the Swifties are so incensed, and this is why no less than World War II veteran Bob Dole joined the fray on the weekend to ask that Mr. Kerry apologize for his unproven accusations.

As Bill Lannom of Grinnell, Iowa, one of the Swifties, told the Washington Post last week: "He's telling untruths about us and his character. He's talking about atrocities that didn't happen. And then he's using that same experience to promote himself. He can't have it both ways."

That last line defines Kerry in a nutshell: he wants to have it both ways. In his view, he's a hero, so don't you dare question his judgement. But he's free to question yours, as I noted last month...

Bush also took issue with Kerry's pronouncement this week that he and running mate John Edwards were proud of the fact that they opposed in the Senate the $87 billion aid package for Afghanistan and Iraq. Kerry said they had done so because "we knew the policy had to be changed."

"He's entitled to his view," Bush said. "But members of Congress should not vote to send troops into battle and then vote against funding them, and then brag about it."

Kerry's campaign responded that Kerry had served in the Vietnam War and questions linger about Bush's wartime service in the Texas Air National Guard.

"Considering that George Bush actively avoided combat duty and has pursued policies that have made the nation less secure, he is on very shaky ground when it comes to questioning the commitment that Vietnam vet John Kerry has to our national security," said former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., a Vietnam War veteran and frequent Kerry surrogate. "This is just more attack-dog politicking by an increasingly desperate, partisan White House."

Kerry allowed his surrogates Wesley Clark and Stansfield Turner to dot he same thing last week, and won't disown them, as noted on Meet The Press Sunday...

MR. RUSSERT: ..."Hours after that statement, the Kerry campaign organized a conference in which two high-profile ex-military supporters simply parroted the MoveOn commercial's line. Bush `scrambled and used his family's influence to get out of hearing a shot fired in anger,' said failed presidential candidate Wesley Clark. ...Added Stansfield Turner, retired admiral, Carter CIA director, `[Bush] used his family influence to get into the Air National Guard and avoid going to war.'" It's the same message.

MR. DEVINE: First, that's factually inaccurate. The press conference occurred in the morning. The statement was issued in the afternoon. So it wasn't--you know, one occurred after the other not before. And they did occur in the same day. That's absolutely true. Let me say this...

MR. RUSSERT: So senator--let's be clear. So Senator Kerry condemns the comments made by Wesley Clark and Stansfield Turner?

MR. DEVINE: No, he doesn't.

MR. RUSSERT: Are they inappropriate comments?

MR. DEVINE: The general and the admiral, who served, have the right to speak out on this issue. Senator Kerry wants to focus on the real issues of this campaign, but when he is attacked by lies, by people like the authors, for example, of this book, who have been demonstrated to be both liars and bigots, he will stand up and he will speak out. And that's what's going on right now.

Pathetic. Apparently, Cleland, Clark and Turner are entitled to spread lies, while the Swift Boat Vets, who have proved that Kerry lied about his Cambodian excursion, should be silenced. Are they really saying that only veterans who agree with John Kerry have earned the right to have their voices heard?

This is the crux of Kerry's campaign: he served in Vietnam, so he knows what to do in Iraq. We're not sure what's dumber -- choosing this theme for his campaign, or the fact that he thought this theme would work.

Great Journalism... in the New York Times!

No, the headline's not a joke. Of course, it took a U.S. Marine stationed in Najaf to write this article, which may be one of the best statements of why we're fighting that I've ever seen...

I'm an average American who grew up watching "Brady Bunch" reruns, playing dodge ball and listening to Van Halen. I love the Longhorns and the Eagles. I'm you; your neighbor; the kid you used to go sledding with but who took a different career path in college. Now, I'm a Marine helicopter pilot who has spent the last two weeks heavily engaged with enemy forces here. I'm writing this between missions, without much time or care to polish, so please look to the heart of these thoughts and not their structure.

I got in country a little more than a month ago, eager to do my part here for the global war on terror and still get home in one piece. I'm a mid-grade officer, so I probably have a better-than-average understanding of the complexity of the situation, but I make no claims to see the bigger picture or offer any strategic solutions. Two years of my military training were spent in Quantico, Va., classrooms. I've read Sun Tzu several times; I've flipped through Mao's Little Red Book and debated over Thucydides; I've analyzed Henry Kissinger's "Diplomacy" and Clausewitz's "On War"; and I've walked the battlefields of Antietam, Belleau Wood, Majuba and Isandlwana.

I've also studied a little about the culture I'm deep in the middle of, know a bit about the caliph, about the five pillars and about Allah, but know I don't know enough. I am also a believer in our cause - I put that up front just so there isn't any question of my motivation.

We marines are proudly apolitical, yet stereotypically right-wing conservative. I'm both. And I'd be here with my fellow devildogs, fighting just as hard, whether John Kerry or George W. Bush or Ralph Nader were our commander-in-chief, until we're told to go home.

The other day I attended a memorial service for an old acquaintance, Lt. Col. David (Rhino) Greene. He was killed July 28 while flying his AH-1W Cobra over the eastern edge of Ramadi. His squadron was composed of reservists: "old guys" like me who had been around a little while. But unlike me, these guys had gotten out of active duty to pursue other careers and spend more time with their families. Now, they were leading the charge against the Iraqi insurgency.

The night after the service, I sat around in an impromptu gathering of $10 beach chairs in the sand, watching the sunset and smoking some of Rhino's cigars with friends I hadn't seen in almost a decade. I listened in awe as they told me about their Falluja April, about how they had all cheated death, been shot down, again and again. We talked about the war, pretending to know all the answers, and we traded stories about home, bragged about our wives and kids.

We also talked about the magic bullet that ended Rhino's life. It could have been shot by a sniper who had slipped in over the Iranian border, or maybe it came from the AK-47 of a rebellious Iraqi teenager who viewed shooting at Yankee helicopters the same way mischievous American kids might view throwing rocks at cars. No matter, the single round pierced his neck, and within seconds a good man was dead, leaving his wife a widow and his two children fatherless. I won't soon forget that day, but it was quickly overshadowed by events to come, as I was thrust into the heat of battle in my own little slice of Mesopotamia.

...Now we are on the verge of victory or defeat in Iraq. Success depends not only on battlefield superiority, but also on the trust and confidence of the American people. I've read some articles recently that call for cutting back our military presence in Iraq and moving our troops to the peripheries of most cities. Such advice is well-intentioned but wrong - it would soon lead to a total withdrawal. Our goal needs to be a safe Iraq, free of militias and terrorists; if we simply pull back and run, then the region will pose an even greater threat than it did before the invasion. I also fear if we do not win this battle here and now, my 7-year-old son might find himself here in 10 or 11 years, fighting the same enemies and their sons.

When critics of the war say their advocacy is on behalf of those of us risking our lives here, it's a type of false patriotism. I believe that when Americans say they "support our troops," it should include supporting our mission, not just sending us care packages. They don't have to believe in the cause as I do; but they should not denigrate it. That only aids the enemy in defeating us strategically.

Michael Moore recently asked Bill O'Reilly if he would sacrifice his son for Falluja. A clever rhetorical device, but it's the wrong question: this war is about Des Moines, not Falluja. This country is breeding and attracting militants who are all eager to grab box cutters, dirty bombs, suicide vests or biological weapons, and then come fight us in Chicago, Santa Monica or Long Island. Falluja, in fact, was very close to becoming a city our forces could have controlled, and then given new schools and sewers and hospitals, before we pulled back in the spring. Now, essentially ignored, it has become a Taliban-like state of Islamic extremism, a terrorist safe haven. We must not let the same fate befall Najaf or Ramadi or the rest of Iraq.

No, I would not sacrifice myself, my parents would not sacrifice me, and President Bush would not sacrifice a single marine or soldier simply for Falluja. Rather, that symbolic city is but one step toward a free and democratic Iraq, which is one step closer to a more safe and secure America.

I miss my family, my friends and my country, but right now there is nowhere else I'd rather be. I am a United States Marine.

There's more to it, and I hope you read it. It's well worth your time, especially when he's sacrificing so much more than that.

Five More Thoughts Regarding the Olympics

As previously noted, the Olympics bore me. But out of respect for the over-commercialized monstrosity that continues to dominate the television ratings, here are my latest five points about the Olympics...

1. If I was Paul Hamm, I wouldn't give back my medal. Not until Korea gives back Roy Jones, Jr.'s gold medal from 1988, or the Olympic Committee reverses the 1972 basketball final screwjob and gives our basketball team their medals. It's about time some other country gets hosed.

2. Seriously, jokes aside, it's got to suck to be Hamm. You work your butt off, probably get teased as a kid because you're a gymnast, achieve the pinnacle of your sport, and then get told it's all wrong. Yet another argument for why gymnastics is an athletic exhibition, but not a sport. Same is true for figure skating. And cheerleading. Anything where judges completely determine the outcome through subjective scoring resembles American Idol more than sports, at least from my point of view.

3. Two of the women's Olympic beach volleyball players from the U.S. are named Misty May and Holly McPeak. I'm reasonably certain that these are their real names. I have no additional comment.

4. Kerri Strug is serving a columnist for Yahoo! during the Olympics. And she's a blonde. Better yet, she can actually write.

5. The U.S. women's softball team did what our basketball Dream Team should be capable of doing. How does a team give up only one run throughout the Olympics? Best of all, it gives me a chance to link to photos of Jennie Finch.

Why Hockey Rocks

The Featured Instigator lets us know that the Stanley Cup got lost again, this time in airport security. Personally, I prefer the old days, with stories like this, from a Free Republic message board:

• When the Edmonton Oilers took the championship in 1987, the cup ended up on the runway with an exotic dancer at the Forum Inn, just across from the Northland Coliseum.
  
• Talk about a great save: In 1996, Colorado Avalanche defenseman Sylvain Lefebvre had his daughter baptized in the cup.
  
• In 1980, New York Islander Clark Gillies allowed his dog to eat from it. Ranger Ed Olczyk did Stanley a little more honor when he let 1994 Kentucky Derby winner Go for Gin eat from it.
  
• In 1991, Stanley was found at the bottom of Pittsburgh Penguin Mario Lemieux's swimming pool, a feat later duplicated by Avalanche goalkeeper Patrick Roy.
  
• In 1905, some Ottawa Silver Seven players, reveling in their championship, decided they could punt the cup over the Rideau Canal on the Ottawa River. The water was frozen, and at the time the cup didn't have so many rings around the bottom, so it wasn't much larger than a football. The trophy was recovered the next day on the ice.

The Swift Boat Saga, Part XI: The Featured Instigator Checks In

As promised, I'm letting others weigh in. The Featured Instigator sends down his thoughts from South Jersey...

My 2 cents:

The only reason any of this is being discussed is because Kerry made his service the cornerstone of his qualifications for being President. So he made it fair game. The fact that so many of his former fellow officers have come forward to speak out about him, regardless of who financed the actual ad, says something about Kerry the man and leader. Now, there will always be people that don't agree with you or like you, especially in the military. But for this many people to care this much, 30 years after the fact says something to me.

I have never quite bought into the "left-wing" bias until this election cycle. I tend to think that the press focuses on stories they can hype and get ratings from (witness the "storm of controversy" surrounding Paul Hamm that the media keeps referring to. Hmmmm..the only storm is the one the media is creating.) However, last night watching the Swift Boat story on ABC News, I was amazed by the angle of the story. Basically it was "Kerrry is being attacked - is this right?" Not once was the idea suggested that we need to figure out whether the accusations have merit. It was all about how W hasn't denounced the attack itself.

Look, both W and Kerry were children of priveledge and I think they both benefitted from that during a time of national strife. To be honest, if I was alive at that time and had that opportunity, I can'r say I wouldn't have done the same thing. I'm very proud of my father's service in Vietnam, but I don't think he would have just volunteered to go there if he didn't have to. So while a majority of my brain faults Kerry for being a wimp, part of me says "Who wouldn't want to get the hell out of there?"

That being said, I do believe Kerry is being dishonest about his record. And I definitely feel that he's shamelessly using his (brief) military experience for political use. W never made his Guard experience the cornerstone, or even a small issue, in his campaign for President. I realize others have done this in the past (Ulysses Grant, Eisenhower, McCain). 2 out of those three were responsible for the decisive victories in major wars. The third one suffered for years and still came home believing in his country. It seems to me that Kerry views his veteran status as just another plaque on the wall that shows how great he is.

I do agree with Joe that neither candidate is qualified for the office which they seek (or currently hold). The sad thing in politics today is that this is no longer necessary. In my cynical opinion, major politicians are now almost actors in roles written for them by the major parties and their "advisors." There are very few politicians out there that really have educated opinions or that can make a decision based on their own experience, intelligence and morals, at least without polling first.

Strangely enough, Arnold Schwartz seems to be breaking that mold. Say what you will, but the dude has his beliefs and sells them to the people and to his friends and foes in governement alike.

Pai, print this or don't. I don't care.

The Swift Boat Saga, Part X: K-Mac Weighs In

As promised, I'm letting others weigh in. K-Mac, one of the bravest Yankee fans on the planet, weighs in from John Kerry's home state (please note that this should be viewed as a response to Johnny Goblin's post)...

Thanks John. My sentiments exactly, but don't forget they did the same thing to one of their own (McCain) in 2000: Imagine questioning THAT guy.

But in all fairness, here's the record:

Bush serve in the Air National Guard...in Alabama.

Cheney received numerous deferments because he had "more important things to do." Though he has no problem paying soldiers less money to protect his former employees at Halliburton who are making a killing as contractors (granted it is a dangerous job).

Ashcroft received numerous deferments (I believe somewhere in the neighborhood of 5?).

Anyone who thinks Kerry went to Vietnam to further his eventual political career is a complete and utter idiot in my humble opinion. And if he's overplaying his veteran status a bit too much now, I wonder if it's because every time he turns around the Bush camp attacks him as being unfit to run the war on terror? After all, they've done a real bang up job so far. We have people who want to kill us now who didn't even give a crap that we existed before...but don't worry because we'll know well ahead of time with a great alert system in place based on "credible information" and "increased chatter."

The Swift Boat Saga, Part IX: Johnny Goblin Weighs In

As promised, I'm letting others weigh in. Johnny Goblin from Newburgh, NY (home of John Kerry's favorite Wendy's) sends his thoughts:

Both sides are engaged in these supposed "third party" guerilla campaign tactics with nebulous links to their respective parties. The left has had MoveOn for over a year and now this swift boat thing from the right. Let's assume the worst about Kerry, that he schemed along time ago about a political career and only went to Vietnam purely for the political gain he might reap. And that he was only in Vietnam for a very short time, and that perhaps he stretched the truth about what he did and that he wont shut up about his service. HE STILL WENT!!!! And this is the main difference, when Bush, Cheney and the boys were getting exemptions or deferments thanks to well connected families he actually went over there and could have gotten dead fast.

Hey, perhaps you can't fault George Sr. for "protecting" his son and this is not meant to downplay W's own service either but I think Kerry gets at least a pass on some of his comments based on the fact that he was actually there.

This is not enough to get me to vote for the guy but to discredit his service is abominable. He was there.

The Swift Boat Saga, Part VIII: My Opinion

Later today, I'll be posting the reactions of several friends to the Swift Boat Veterans controversy, and several of them conflict with me. There will be no editorializing on my part of the opinions expressed.

But here's my opinion -- and since it's my blog, it goes first.

One: John Kerry's war record matters. Why? First, he chose to make it an issue. Throughout his Presidential campaign, Kerry has employed his Vietnam service as his be-all, end-all answer to just about any question. He discusses Vietnam incessantly, to the point where people on all sides of the political spectrum openly mock him for his failure to discuss anything else from his life. The man's been in public life for 30 + years since he left Vietnam, yet all he ever references for why Americans should trust him on national security issues and the war on terror are his service in Vietnam, rather than his service in the Senate or other posts. Hell, he references it on other issues. One can make the argument that Kerry dishonors his own Service record by invoking it so frequently. Did Bush Sr. do this? Or JFK?

In this context, it's fair for people to raise questions about Kerry's service. In particular, it's fair to question him on his borderline criminal statements before Congress 30 years ago (alleging atrocities committed by his fellow veterans during Vietnam) and his membership in anti-war veteran's organizations which were run by fake veterans (i.e., people who never served). In my opinion, it's also fair to question whether the facts of Kerry's service mesh with the public record he espouses. His tale of Christmas in Cambodia has been proven demonstrably false, and Kerry has used this apocryphal story on the floor of Congress when arguing policy positions on national defense. Kerry changes sides on public policy issues about as often as he changes his underwear (witness his two-week shift on whether it's a good idea to pull troops out of Korea and Germany). His inconsistent accounts of what happened to him in Vietnam can and should lead people to doubt his already-dubious credibility.

Put it this way. If someone ran for President at the age of fifty, and talked up his grades from college and high school as reasons to elect him rather than his career in public service, we'd all laugh at him. But if that person continued to stress his collegiate academic record as the basis for election, would it be out of line for others to demonstrate that he was cheating on tests, for professors to state that he was lobbying to have his grades changed and out-right falsifying that he wrote a paper?

Two: The mainstream press coverage of this issue has been shameful. No, worse, it's downright pathetic.

O'Neill and Co. released excerpts of their book weeks ago. They also released their first ad over two weeks ago. The group held a press conference in May to talk about their charges. The book is #1 on Amazon's best-seller list, #3 at the New York Times. Yet neither the Post nor the Times considered this a big story until the last few days... right when the Kerry campaign began its initiative to respond to the ad.

Now maybe I spend too much time trafficking in left-wing conspiracy theories. But the so-called mainstream press has basically focused on three aspects of this story -- (1) whether the Swift Boat Veterans are GOP-financed, (2) trying to disprove certain elements of their claims, and (3) whether all of this is fair to Kerry. And they waited until the Kerry campaign began responding before devoting any resources to the story.

The press has never spent much, if any, time focusing on who finances the liberal 527 groups, which far outnumber the conservative groups. They've rarely if ever focused on links between these groups and the Kerry campaign, even though the proof is more damning than the meager proof offered on the Swift Boat Vets. Yet now they make this a main focus of the coverage of this story, attacking the messenger rather than the message.

When Michael Moore's hitpiece movie came out, press outlets provided blanket coverage. The vast majority of those stories had a theme that said, "Well, some stuff may not be true, but it's worth seeing, because it makes you think." Not that those same outlets spent time debunking many of Moore's idiotic pet theories. In order to be consistent, shouldn't the same press outlets encourage people to read Unfit for Command?

Also, recall the press coverage of the claims about Bush's Guard service. With little proof (certainly less than the Swift Boat Vets have offered in support of their contentions regarding Kerry), the press publicized and eagerly jumped into the well to try and challenge Bush's Guard service. Unlike the coverage of the Swift Boat Vets, the press focused on investigating Bush, not those making the accustations. Why the inconsistency?

Three: McCain-Feingold has failed, miserably. You can't take money out of politics. And you can't limit free speech, much as some would like to try.

McCain-Feingold became a joke the minute the 527 groups formed and began running their own shadow campaigns. Bush should not have signed the law, and if the press wants to pillory him for something in this campaign, they've got an opening there. Why not ask the President why he chose to sign a law that allowed these groups onto the map, if he believes they're a bad idea? Bush condemned the ad again today. What Kerry-Edwards really wants is for Bush to somehow remove the ad from public circulation... which he can't do. It would violate McCain-Feingold, since Bush can't coordinate with the group. It's also called freedom of speech and is part of the First Amendment. Someone wake up Senator Edwards to this fact, since he's supposed to be a trial lawyer. if Kerry has a problem with the ad, sue the Swift Boat Vets. Edwards isn't doing much else right now -- he can handle the case.

And this is only the beginning of the fun. McCain-Feingold has an exemption in it for the press to be able to endorse candidates in the run-up to elections, one that groups like the NRA are already exploiting by starting their own news radio programs. Imagine what that will end up like.

Four: The Kerry campaign is running scared.

The Kerry camp has tried to tell TV stations not to run the ad. They've asked the publisher to pull the book. They've called for an FEC investigation.

The claims that Bush's campaign is coordinating the Swift Boat attack borders on the idiotic, and seems far too desperate. They can't prove it, and Bush can't do anything to stop the ads in any case. Citing flyers from a campaign outpost that may well have been made by Kerry volunteers at Kinko's is pretty lame. It's terribly weak, except in comparison to John Edwards' challenge to Bush to stop the ads, which was even weaker.

The solution's pretty simple. Send Kerry on TV with someone reasonably objective, like Russert, and have him answer these claims. Release his military records -- ALL the records. And try and put forth a coherent position on Iraq, which they haven't done to date, to demonstrate that their campaign is based on being something other than the guy who served in Vietnam. The Kerry camp basically tried to ignore the story, and the media followed suit. When enough pressure built up from the ads, the coverage on the blogs, Fox News, etc., the campaign was in trouble. They didn't counter the charges initially, which meant they had to play catch-up.

Here's what's truly funny, if you look at this from the GOP standpoint. The Media Fund, Moveon.org, Americans Coming Together, and other big 527 groups have been running hit pieces on Bush for over a year. To say there's a link between these groups and the Kerry campaign would basically be stating the obvious. Yet the press opted not to report it, then feigned shock and reported it as a big story that the Swift Boat Vets have contributors with links to the GOP.

What's ridiculous is that a veterans' group with approximately $500,000 in the bank has managed to impact the race in a way that the other groups can't. To be fair, much of this results from the incompetance of the Kerry campaign's response. I read at least one opinion which noted that a potential Kerry White House looks pretty pathetic if it can't handle the response to a small veteran's group with less than 1% of their resources.

Five: Why can't someone question Kerry's service? And if they were there, don't they have that right? The left dug up stories questioning both Bob Dole and George Bush Sr.'s military service (more on that later). Plenty questioned W's service in the Guard, and have questioned Cheney's deferment.

It's almost hysterical to claim that because Kerry served in Vietnam, his opinion will be beyond reproach. But it's well past hypocrisy to claim that Kerry's opinion is valid and that of others who served with him is not. These guys are veterans as well, and they want their voice to be heard. If you can prove their allegations are false, focus on that, rather than demeaning their connections to the GOP.

Face it, in the end, most of the disputes about Kerry's medals and claims will be written off to the "fog of war." But failing to respond on the facts for several weeks, and cloaking one's self behind the old "don't question my patriotism" bit has accomplished little.

Finally... this is where I blame the whole thing on the Baby Boomers.

In the end, these may be scurrilous charges, or they may be accurate, or they may be a mix. Are they relevant to whether someone votes for Kerry? That's up to each person. But in the end, the charges will be aired. The information will be on the public record, from both sides, if the Kerry camp ever figures out that attacking the facts of the stories from the Swift Boat Vets is the answer.

The election should be about more, but it's not, because of choices made on both sides and the press' failure to hit either campaign with questions on real issues. Maybe it's a symbol of the rift regarding Vietnam that we're still debating it 30+ years later in this manner -- my generation can't really recall a thing about the war, but we're stuck in a timewarp where this is the key issue in the campaign.

And in the end, maybe it's appropriate. This is the second campaign where both candidates are from the boomer generation (2000 being the first). To them, Vietnam is a defining moment in American history, because it accords additional importance to their self-promoting generation. Why is every war or military engagement we enter today automatically compared to Vietnam? Every once in a while, I'd love to see a comparison to the Spanish-American War, just for kicks.

In all seriousness, perhaps that's the ultimate lesson to Gen X. The Swing Generation, a.k.a. the Greatest Generation, didn't spend the next forty years putting every foreign policy conflict into the context of WWII. They adapted to the new reality and fought the Cold War. And they succeeded in the end. When we fight the War on Terror, it's not the Cold War, it's not Vietnam, it's not WWII, it's not the Civil War. We can draw from lessons learned from that history -- but the analogies are not ones which will ever be perfect, and our decisions cannot be made simply by looking to our past.

The 2004 Presidential election shouldn't be about Vietnam, but it is, because the generation that fought that war and battled each other over it still hasn't settled the issues from that war. Hopefully, in 30 years, our generation's not the same way.

And They Say We Don't Report on International News

The Featured Instigator sends us this story about a Malaysian woman who's very goal-oriented...

A Malaysian woman is trying to reclaim the world record for the longest stay in a room full of scorpions, news reports said Sunday.

Nur Malena Hassan, 27, moved Saturday into a locked glass box where she plans to live for 36 consecutive days with more than 6,000 of the poisonous arachnids in a shopping mall, the Malay-language Mingguan Malaysia newspaper reported.

Scores of people watched as Nur Malena stood fearlessly in a red sweater and jeans with scorpions crawling up her head, chest and legs in Kuantan, a city about 160 miles east of Kuala Lumpur, a photograph published by the newspaper showed.

Nur Malena set a world record in 2001 by living for 30 days with 2,700 scorpions. She was stung seven times, fell unconscious and almost gave up the attempt.

Her record was shattered a year later by Kanchana Ketkeaw, a woman in neighboring Thailand who lived in a similar glass room for 32 days with 3,400 scorpions.

Under self-imposed rules, Nur Malena is expected to leave the glass room just once a day for 15 minutes at a time. She will sleep, eat and perform Muslim prayers in the room.

In recent years, Malaysians have displayed a growing penchant for offbeat records — like the highest backward climb up a staircase, the largest number of old people at a circus and the greatest number of heads shampooed in one day at a shopping mall.

I keep thinking of the Simpsons' episode which ended with the "100-foot Magnifying Glass" and the unforgettable "Escaltor to Nowhere." If someone could show the Malaysians that scene, we might finally get these built.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

Sorry, I spent Friday night watching Terrell Owens fillet the Ravens' defense, just before Correll Buckhalter's good knee blew out, leading Eagles fans to start asking God, once again, why he can't stand us. More on that in next week's highly anticipated NFL Preview by yours truly.

Oh, yeah, Senator Vietnam. As the storm gathers, the logic starts to disappear. The Swift Boat Vets get attacked for attacking a fellow veteran's service record -- which means no one can ever question someone's service record, even if that someone confessed to atrocities before the United States Senate. And God forbid we question that Service record, especially when it's the only thing said candidate is running on.

But never let it be said that we don't have constructive criticism... or more appropriately, that we don't borrow constructive critiques from Instapundit. Here's his mythical version of how things had gone if the Kerry campaign would have made constructive proposals on what they would do in Iraq... and how they should have minimized Senator Vietnam's service...

EAST HAMPTON, NY (IP) -- Democratic Presidential nomineee John Kerry laughs when told that most voters don't realize that he served in Vietnam, winning three purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star.

"Why should they? That's several wars ago," Kerry laughs. "Old stuff. I'd much rather people be talking about my detailed plan to rebuild Iraq, using an oil trust mechanism that would give the Iraqi people a stake in reconstruction. That's why I focused on that in my acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention. What was I going to do, rehash events from 35 years ago?"

Kerry's friends say that, like other veterans, he's been known to tell a few tall tales about his service over beers with others who served, but that he seldom talks about his combat experience otherwise. "He's put that behind him," says his wife Teresa. "And he thinks it would be unbecoming to make a big deal about his service when others, like [Senator] John McCain or [former P.O.W.] Paul Galanti went through so much more."

"I would have invaded Iraq regardless of the WMD issue," Kerry observes. "Saddam Hussein was a threat, and a menace to his own people. And a free, democratic Iraq will be the first step toward addressing the 'root cause' of terrorism -- despotic Arab regimes that spew hatred to distract their people from their own tyranny. But as I said last year, the reconstruction needed more resources. That was why I voted for the $87 billion in reconstruction money, but urged the Bush Administration to ask for more, to do it right."

Kerry also takes a dim view of leftist filmmaker Michael Moore. "I think that his film 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was scurrilous and dangerous to the morale of our troops. That's why I asked that he be excluded from the Democratic Convention, despite Jimmy Carter's wishes. And that's why he wasn't seen there. In a time of war, we don't need guys like that. We can win this campaign based on our ideas, not propaganda films. That's also why I told Chris Matthews to 'stuff it' when he tried to make an issue out of President Bush's National Guard service."

Kerry's detailed plans for Iraq, and for carrying the war on terror to Al Qaeda and its backers elsewhere, seem to have left the Bush Administration floundering. Sources close to the Bush campaign say that some Bush operatives are considering an attack on Kerry's Vietnam record, but many are skeptical. "I don't think that'll work," says cyber-pundit Glenn Reynolds, who calls Kerry's Iraq plan promising. "Most voters have no idea Kerry was even in Vietnam. He never talks about it, so where's the traction? It's ancient history."

Others are even harsher. "They can't attack the message," says Matthew Yglesias of The American Prospect, a liberal publication. "So they're attacking the messenger. That's because they don't want to talk about Kerry's real accomplishments, the ones Kerry touted at the Convention, like his role in busting BCCI, the terrorists' money laundry. Kerry's talking about that, and his plans for Iraq, and they're talking about Vietnam? Who cares about that? Pathetic."

You know, I don't agree with Instapundit on everything. But as he notes, the Democrats would be a lot better off if they'd nominated Joe Lieberman. Of course, if they had, they wouldn't be the Democrats.