Some careful thoughts Bush vs. Kerry

I found the following in the forums of ABC This Week, August 22, 2004. It was written in reply to a woman who defended George Bush, saying:

"NOT ONCE has the public seen the President visits with the wounded soldiers or the families because the President will not allow these pictures to be used. He even stated on "Larry King Live" that these were private moments for the families. I have seen President Bush keeping a promise to a soldier who lost one of his legs in Afghanistan. President Bush promised to go running with him once he got back on his feet. The only reason I saw this was because a fellow soldier took the picture and sent it to other soldiers in an e-mail. Kerry uses the military based on the polls and his current political ambition."

This fellow's reply is eloquent and thoughtful, and worth sharing. It's interesting to note that the trolls on the forum demanded "proof" that he knew what he was talking about. It was their only responce. As a student of history, I can say he does.

~*~

Those who do not know our history…do not know us as a nation. Those who do not know our history… will never know us as a nation.

The answer lies in America's history. America needs a refresher course. Please bear with me.

Gettysburg - July 1,2,3 1863... Our casualties were 57,000 in three days of combat. It was the high tide of the Confederacy, the capture of Washington and the war hung in the balance. Those were casualties America had to endure for its survival as a nation. We had no choice. Before that war was over 600,000 Americans were lost. The common misconception our enemies make is America has no stomach for casualties. The Civil War and World War II disprove that theory.

Gilbert Islands Group, Central Pacific -Tarawa - November 20 -22, 1943… U.S. Marines attacked the Japanese garrison who defended the well-entrenched heavily fortified atoll of Betio in the Pacific. The Japanese commander, Rear Admiral Keiji Shibasaki, boasted "A million men cannot take Tarawa in a hundred years." On paper, he might have been right. This boast sounds eerily familiar to those made by Saddam.

Having seen it (the Japanese bunkers, pill boxes and interlocking zones of fire) with my own eyes from a landing craft off "Red Beach," I have to say I would have agreed with RADM Shibasaki. Yet, three days later, his command of some 4,500 crack Japanese Marines, the defenders of the island citadel, lay dead - There were only 17 Japanese survivors, those who surrendered. There were 1,056 Americans killed and 2300 Americans wounded.

The battle of Tarawa might well serve as a stark analog of the Iraq campaign. Tarawa was the first time American forces had met such a heavy concentration of fanatical warriors. Yes, Guadalcanal was no day at the beach, but it was not Tarawa. The battle was exceptionally well planned. American planners did a fine job of putting together a winning plan, yet due to logistical realities, almost from the beginning things went radically wrong for the Marines.

On Tarawa, as in Iraq, the American forces adapted, and despite protests from the American press about casualties, continued the attack and prevailed against a determined and numerically superior force.

The value of Betio, (Tarawa) was that we learned valuable lessons that served us well during the rest of the Pacific campaign. Yes, the casualties were high, but the hard-learned lessons of Tarawa actually helped reduce casualties in the future campaigns. Within hours of securing Tarawa, the island became a forward base of operation for air assaults on the Marshall Islands...and ultimately the attack on the Marshalls. From there, the Americans moved closer and closer to the island fortress of Japan, and ultimate victory in the Pacific.

Iraq serves a similar purpose. We have suffered hard-learned lessons. However, a democracy in the Middle East, separate and apart from the blessings it brings the people of Iraq, serves a larger purpose, just like Tarawa. That is the true value of our painful lessons in Iraq. Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia take note.

As I watched the Iraqi soccer team at the Olympics I could not help but think how they would not be there except for our brave forces that liberated them and their country.

Iraq was a brilliant military campaign, well executed despite difficulties. But Iraq was not Tarawa where the Press was concerned. The world press corps had a free hand to second-guess the American military high command and instantly call-up the bloody visage of Vietnam.

Vietnam, the unexorcised ghost and ultimate "boogey man" of America's military past seems as powerful an image today as it was some 31 years ago. In point of fact, however, Iraq is not Vietnam, was not Vietnam, nor can it ever become Vietnam. Yet, it is most certainly "Vietnam" to those who are, once again, not familiar with America's history. This is all the more laughable when comparisons about Vietnam are made by people who are generations removed from having actually experienced it, and more importantly, having a full comprehension of what Vietnam was, and was not.

As for John Kerry, his recollections of Vietnam are proving astonishingly inaccurate as of late. Kerry, often cites the time he “was in Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968, sent there by President Nixon, and suffered the heartache of wondering who would tell his family what became of him as he was being fired upon by NVA, Viet Cong and Khmer Rouge...because the Nixon Government disavowed knowing any US troops were in Cambodia.”

I can only imagine, Kerry, who relishes associating Mr. Nixon with the Vietnam War, must have been chagrined to learn Richard Nixon was not President of the United States on Christmas Day, 1968, but rather, was a private citizen on Christmas Day, 1968. So, 'Nixon" could not have sent him to Cambodia...that was Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was, in fact, President of the United States at that time.

More importantly, Mr. Kerry was wrong again. That order was never given. Not even LBJ sent him to Cambodia. Neither he, his swift boat, nor his division was ever in Cambodia.

As for John Kerry's thoughts about Iraq...I am reminded of Henry Ford who once said: "You can not build a reputation on what you would have done...or what you plan to do."

It is so easy for Kerry to “Monday morning quarterback” the war in Iraq. President Bush is the QB on the field, calling the plays in the heat of the moment. That is much more difficult than calling the game from the sidelines, like Kerry.

Unfortunately for John Kerry, reputations are made on what you have actually done. His reputation in the Senate is not a particularly stellar one. He does well to call attention away from what his reputation "actually" is in the Senate. This explains his penchant for calling attention to his Vietnam service. His missed votes and missed committee meetings speak volumes.The bills he voted for, and those he voted against, also speak volumes.

He voted against every major weapon system America used to win the war in Iraq. He voted for sending the troops to Iraq, but voted against funding the effort. He voted against funding Intelligence gathering capabilities.

Kerry's stratagem of pointing to his record in Vietnam is beginning to unravel like a cheap suit.I find it extremely curious that John Kerry spent four months in Vietnam and twenty years in the Senate, yet all we ever hear him talk about is his Vietnam service. God help John Kerry if the American people ever learn about his "reputation" in the Senate.

In short, if the allegations of the Vietnam Swift Boat veterans are correct (and there is voluminous evidence pointing in that direction), Kerry is most certainly unfit for command. How can one entrust our nation to such a man? How can one vote for such a man?

I support George Bush. Love him or hate him, George Bush is a man of his convictions. He does not come forth with a "New" stance every time the political weather vane points in another direction. George made the right call in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was, and is, the right man at the right time for the job.

Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, is incapable of giving a direct answer to a direct question.

As a cadet I was taught there are three answers: "Yes sir," "No Sir" and "No excuse Sir."

I guess John Kerry was absent that day.

God bless you for standing up for our President and our troops. I am sure your husband is proud of you!

Respectfully,
Michael Higgins

A crushed and squeezed middle class... Oh really?

One of the things that has always irritated me about politics is how certain parties use class warfare tactics to sway voters. They tell us how "evil" the wealthy are, and how they're getting richer and richer on the backs of the poor and middle class.

The wealthy are portrayed evil opportunists who given a chance will lie, cheat, and hurt to get more money. While certainally some of the wealthy are like this (as there are bad apples in every sort of people), the whole idea of the wealthy of some sort of evil group is silly and to be honest, completely disingenueus. Of course, we COULD decide to believe that the wealthy are awful evil poor-kickers... but then that would have to include John Kerry and John Edwards who are both worth millions. Oh wait, they're Democrats. They don't count.

The truth is, the wealthy are some of the greatest philanthropists in America. The Wealthy do more investing in the businesses of America than anyone else. They have the money to invest int he economy and make it grow. All in all, the wealthy are a vital part of America's economic strength.

Now we have John Kerry talking about that report from the IRS that says that incomes shrank over 5% in the past 2 years. He belabors the idea that Bush is at fault and the poor middle class is getting squeezed by it.

The truth is, it's not the middle class that saw their incomes shrink at all. In fact, the less money you made, the less likely it was for your income to shrink. The more money you made, the harder you were hit. In fact, if you made an income of less than 100,000 dollars a year, your income, on average, went up. Of course, John Kerry is glossing over that fact. It's an election year of course.

BVut this disingenuousness is the sort of thing that Kerry and others like him have used to scare people into voting for them for years. A thinking person who looks deeper can see that the story is a lot more complex than Wealthy= bad.

Donald Luskin has a great article on the National Review about the IRS report. It even has graphs.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200408191200.asp

Swiftvets for Truth: Are they really?

I listen to a lot of talk radio when I drive. I'd listen to music instead, but for the most part, music makes me drowsy in the car. Talk radio is the best alternative because it keeps me intellectually stimulated enough that I don't bang my head into my steering wheel and careen off into the other lane of traffic.

Since I'm doing a lot of job hunting these days, I listen to the radio quite a bit. It tends to be more conservative than otherwise, though the station I listen to all depends on my mood.

Lately on talk radio, there has been more and more coverage of a group of Vietnam Veterans who have come out against Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. They say they're non-partisan, and their beef with him is not political. Rather, it's that he has systematically lied about his tour of duty in Vietnam. They have called on him to release his full service records to the public to set the record straight.

Their allegations are documented on their website:

www.swiftvets.com

Their allegations include the following:

* Kerry's first purple heart was a scratch recieved due to his firing a rocket propelled grenade and it detonating to close to his boat and hitting him with schrapnel. The wound was essentually self inflicted. The resulting injury was a scratch according to the doctor who treated him and his commanding officer at the time, and neither would have even considered it worthy of a purple heart. Yet, somehow, he got a purple heart for it.

* Kerry's allegations that he and other Swift boat men engaged in war crimes were utter fabrications made by a man who wished to advance his political career. The alleged warcrimes he described in his famous congressional appearance never occured, and in fact, he made them up... tarnishing the reputations of all the men he served with and under for his own advancement.

* John Kerry lied about his secret mission in Cambodia, and has told conflicting stories about it over the years. In actuality, no such mission is on record as occuring, and in fact, had he actually gone into Cambodia, serious consequences for his career would have resulted.

* John Kerry was a marginal officer, who not only had trouble obeying orders, but was hard to work with, prone to doing anything he could to stay out of harms way, and not a team player in a job that required swift boats to work together. His released service reports are maginal at best.

The swiftvets believe that John Kerry has a history of lying about his service, that his awards were recieved based on either self inflicted wounds or exagerated and false accounts of really happended. They believe that because of this, John Kerry is ill suited to serve in a position of Commander in chief of American Armed Forces.

~*~

I sort of find it ironic that the man who's party has actively tried to shmear GW Bush for his incomplete records is now being taken to task for his own. And unlike Bush, who has released his complete records as requested (though some are missing, no fault of his, it seems), John Kerry has promised to do the same and has yet to fulfill his promise.

What I find interesting is that the swiftvets are made up of over 200 men who served along-side John Kerry on swift boats that worked in tandem with him, or served over him in his chain of command. These men contain fellows who are themselves decorated, some with Congressional Medals of Honor, silver stars and purple hearts of their own.

The Kerry campaing of course is livid about the allegations and supposedly is preparing to systematically attack the credibility and reputations of the men involved. This is to be expected. It's politics of course. But I find it hard to believe that 200 men, all who served along side Kerry, all veterans, some highly decorated with distinguished careers would all be lying through their teeth about what they saw John Kerry do and act in Vietnam.

Why should they? What have they to gain by it except to have the the Hammer of Thor fall on them in the press as the Kerry Campaign tries to spin the news? It just doesn't make sense to me that all these decorated men would be making it all up, what with how much they have to lose. Besides, if they really are lying, why doesn't Kerry just release his records and make it clear for all to see?

The real thing that gets me about this entire thing is that because of the Swiftvet ads, the Democrats in Congress and in liberal action groups are starting to get up in arms about the "527" loophole in the Campaign Finance Reform bill.

I find it disingenuous that they are having a fit about it NOW, when one of their own is subject to attack, but have had no problem while Moveon.org, a extremely liberal leaning organization, has been savaging GW Bush for the past 5 months. I've seen their ads. How are they any less partisan and candidate attacking than the Swift vets?

http://www.thehill.com/news/081004/kerry.aspx

Can we say double standard?

An introduction

It's always hard to start one of these things out. What does one say at the beginning of a blog?

"Yo! This blog will b so Kewl! U shld red it"

I'll try to do better than that.

I'd like to think that people will find my words interesting, but of course, it's easy to have a high or low opinion of oneself without any outside verification of whether your opinion is justified. So, I'll just let time tell.

I'm a young white male, age 27 at the time of this writing, currently unemployed unfortunately, a conservative Republican, and a conservative Christian. For now, that's enough to say. What I'll write about will be colored by the perspective colored by the above. That said, I pride myself for being open to contrary opinions... so long as they're backed up with facts. I even change my mind sometimes, something that in these times of bitter contention, seems to be a dying art.

What will I write about? Things that suit my fancy. And there's a lot out there to comment on.

So, let it all begin.