22.8.04
because...
- he brought it up?
- it speaks to his fitness as a leader in combat?
- it speaks to his integrity and character? or
- more than one of the above?
Let's see...he has been virtually silent about every other part of his life, both before and after. Considering that (a) he married into money, (b) slandered - whether by repeating others' comments or expressing his own views - fellow Vietnam veterans, (c) has not had one major legislative accomplishment as a member of the U.S. Senate, and (d) has shown an intellectual and moral flexibility in dealing with certain issues ("I voted for the $87bn before I voted against it" comes to mind).
Certainly, being the leader of a 50 foot Swift boat - and commanding only a few sailors - is vastly different than being President, commanding not only the technological successor to that Swift boat but the rest of the American military. There are certain character traits that may lend themselves to succeeding in one role whilst failing in the other, but there are certainly other character traits - such as integrity and character - which will, if not lead to success in both roles, then at least give a vast head start to success over those who don't possess these traits.
Sen. Kerry's stories about various issues - the "Christmas in Cambodia" episode comes to mind - have shown that intellectual flexibility I mentioned earlier. First it was Christmas Eve '68, explicitly ordered over the Cambodian border whilst President(-elect) Nixon denied any American presence in that nation. Then maybe it was January '69. Or maybe he inadvertantly strayed. But, whatever happened, it was seared! into his memory. Or maybe (as his journals apparently indicate) he was 50 miles inside the Vietnamese border, at Sa Dec. Who knows. But, unless I've missed something, he was the only one. None of his crewmates - or his division-mates - have claimed that they (or he, or their boats) were in Cambodia.
This (and other related topics, such as the "ambush" which led to Kerry pulling 1/LT Rassman out of the water, or the Purple Heart fiasco) have been covered extensively elsewhere, such as here and here.
Let's Mess With Texas? Power Line brought my attention to this and this. And Trunk refers to this as well, prompting me to ask a few questions (and showing my historical ignorance):
- Did Virginia provide an "after-the-fact" consent in order to regain their place in the Union after Reconstruction?
- Were that consent provided, was (is) it constitutional, considering that it undoubtedly would have been coerced?
- Were it not provided, would an "after-the-fact" consent provided now be constitutional?
- One imagines that West Virginia wants to remain a state separate from the Commonwealth; that they have not begged for the government in Richmond to accept them speaks to that.
- Moreover, would Virginia want them back? Virginia Democrats might, because the power of the conservative Democratic establishment in West Virginia might hurt the powerful Republican Party here in Virginia. But would Virginia Republicans not issue a consent and hope that it met the consitutional requirements?
- Moving to the Texas issue, I have a couple of questions: Would contemporary Congressional Democrats allow, without a fight, eight more senators from the current State of Texas?
- Would the treaty negotiated between the Republic of Texas and the United States be treated like the Iraq war resolution, with Democrats seizing on the "pursuant to the constitution" clause, much as they claimed that the resolution favouring war with Iraq allowed the President to a show of force, and no more?
- Moreover, does the State of Texas' decision to secede from the Union for the duration of the Civil War render that treaty null and void?
Just a few thoughts.
No Zuletzt today.
More later (how much later I don't know...only time will tell),
Ryan
UPDATE (22.13EDT, 23Aug): I had said that there would be no Zuletzt, but I had tried to find a quote that stuck with me. I finally found it here. A commenter in this post had this to say about Senator Kerry:
Kerry is reminding me more and more of Hollywood braggarts like Michael Cimino (who claimed he served with the Green Berets when he was only attached to a small troop clinic stateside at Bragg) or John Milius (he of the swaggering militaristic movies and quotes who dodged the draft).
One thing that I find particularly offensive about Kerry, and I'm ashamed as an ex-officer to admit I only realized it last night: in the heroic action he arrogated to himself, the one in which Peck and Alston were wounded, the boat was actually saved by the actions of an enlisted man who took the helm and steered the boat out of the ambush.
Let's be very clear about this. John Forbes Kerry, a commissioned officer in the United States Navy who wants to be commander-in-chief, stole the credit for the heroism of an enlisted man.
That is lower than whale shit. The man should not be in public office, much less the White House.
Comments:
Post a Comment
