Redstate

Krempasky, where/who is your source on this one?

At 25, I can't say I'm too worried about Hanoi Jane and the actions that earned her that moniker, except in the most abstract sense. It happened during a period that I simply wasn't around for, and never received enough of an education about to connect to.

My father and mother, though, are still angry about it. I mentioned to my father a while back that Kerry had made this trip to Paris to meet with the VC. I kinda feel bad about that: it hadn't been my intention to poison the well, and I couldn't back up the assertion very well at the time.

If that's what they're up to, I suspect it's going to really resonate with a lot of folks who were of age during the Vietnam War.

;) Can't tell.

While I agree that the most significant emotional impact will be on people old enough to remember Vietnam, there is a rational side to this issue that might appeal to current day swing voters, also.

In a time of war, John Kerry met with avowed enemies of the United States to encourage their continued resistance (it wasn't Jane Fonda he was meeting with in Paris, it was actual North Vietnamese political leaders).  At the same time, he did his best in his testimony before the Senate to undermine support for the soldiers still fighting in Vietnam.  It was a pattern he repeated 14 years later while Reagan was fighting to keep Central America out of the hands of Soviet client states.

Millions died in Southeast Asia, partly because of Kerry's fatuous insistence that there was no Communist threat and glib promise that nothing bad would happen if the North Vietnamese took over.  If that doesn't call his judgement and credibility into question on matters of foreign policy, then I don't know what does.

Yeah, I know Kerry met with the VC and not with Jane Fonda. I brought up Jane Fonda because that's the sort of reaction and classification the revelation produced in my father. IME, Dad doesn't take too many firm stances on politics, and generally doesn't get too worked up over most of it. Thirty years down the line, he's still angry about Jane Fonda and her trip to Hanoi, and Kerry's now got roughly the same level of esteem as far as he's concerned.

Disclaimers: I am not a political analyst. I am a software guy, and low on the food chain even then.

I really hope you're right, inasmuch as I agree that it is a serious matter. All the same, I'm not sure how rational most voters are. I suspect that there's a fair number of voters, and especially younger voters, who probably will see it largely as water under the bridge. Now, partly this is my own difficulty in understanding the attitudes surrounding Vietnam, and partly it's that I've made up my mind already, so it's difficult for me to guage the effect on voters roughly my own age and level of education (i. e. almost, but not quite, historically illiterate). It certainly should matter that he's got a record of negotiating against U. S. interests in favor of his own political career. I'm just not totally confident that voters who weren't on the scene in the early seventies will see it that way. I'll be happy to proven wrong, though.

.."older voters" like me tend to vote in larger numbers than younger ones.

he he he

The pattern of direct subversion of US foreign policy begun in the early 1970's continues today, as the Kerry campaign makes direct attempts to undermine US alliances in the war on terror.

JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

The negative attacks endorsed, sponsored and made by Kerry and his campaign associates is one thing. The possibility of links to document forgeries provided to CBS as a means of damaging his opponent is another thing. Sending representatives to undermine diplomatic and military partnerships with a friendly foreign power in the middle of a war is far, far different. Maybe it isn't treason - I am not an expert on the nuances of that subject. But it seems to come awfully close to it.

this election ended up with Kerry in the dock for treason, for which there is no statute of limitations.  

I wonder what the Swifties have in the pipeline to top this one?

Just wondering:  What might be the statute of limitations for treason?

Also:  If a person commits treason as a military officer "a long time ago", is that a relatively safe indicator that he will do it again (and again, and again) as President?

[Reminding self of my decision to avoid commenting on RedState.org on overtly political matters until after the election; praying that the Republican party someday returns to its fiscally-restrained, socially moderate roots; taking comfort in the fact that there are party members -- Lugar foremost among them -- who still cleave to the old-fashioned notion that in the means by which one wins matters as much as whether one wins; and hoping for repose in the sure knowledge that one cannot simultaneously accuse Sen. Kerry of treason and have any conception whatsoever regarding the history of "treason" in the United States.]

Again, my apologies.  Back to lurking (and mostly enjoying what I'm reading.  Particular props to Pejman, Krempasky, and Trevino.)

Kerry told the truth about Vietnam.

We didn't know what we were doing and we did it badly. We didn't have a proper goal in mind and we didn't recognize that Ho Chi Minh was a Vietnamese nationalist first and a Communist second. The Communists helped him fight the French and from their point of view, the US was just the colonial power that tried to take over after the French.

If we cannot learn from our mistakes in Vietnam, we will make ever worse ones, starting in Iraq.

There's no evidence that Kerry committed treason and you know it. Shall we talk about the failure of Bush to fulfill his commitment in the Guard? Shall we talk about why he was grounded?

that his own confessed activities violate the Logan Act (which carries a fine and or 3 years in prison) and the Uniform Code of Military Conduct for Aiding and Abetting the Enemy (which carries up to the death penalty). More detail on those two laws here. Not technically "treason" at this point (maybe it is, maybe it isn't), but certainly illegal on two fronts, both civil law and military law.

...you forgot that "truth"...

Shall we talk about the failure of Bush to fulfill his commitment in the Guard?

How do you spell fulfilled his commitment to the Guard? H-O-N-O-R-A-B-L-E   D-I-S-C-H-A-R-G-E

(which I acknowledge is a fairly elastic term on the left witness the latest outbreak of "Fake but Accurate" claims on the fraudulent NG memos) about Laos. And about the re-education camps in South Vietnam.

I guess Kerry was telling, again in the vernacular of the modern left, "his" truth, as if everyone is entitled to their own.

the "truth" about being at the VVAW meeting when assissination talks were tabled against 6 US Senators.



[I was just listing the one verified and obvious lie that even hardcore Kerry fans can't escape, i.e. the Cambodia story retraction]

Those "fiscally conservative, socially moderate roots" were always expressed as, What the Democrats said, just not so much...

Better reactionaries than weak as water.

or another, hopefully we can start a debate on what the Republican party is going to be.

I like being a member of the majority party, but I'm liking less and less having to stomach the perpetual mewlings of Lugar, Hagel, Chafee, and Specter among others.

But Lugar and Hagel are just so gosh-darned cute. Losing them would be like losing dopey teddy bears.

I'd actually be fond of both, where they not complete media-whores. A party -- especially a majority one -- needs a gadfly or two so that it doesn't turn into an echo chamber.

McCain doesn't count. He just says what the unrecognized 527s at The New York Times and The Washington Post want to hear.

You even beat me to the 527 crack. I give. You've got me tagged hands-down.

accomplishment of any of these guys. Lugar. An alleged foreign policy expert. What has he ever done? Managed a farm and food store. Mayor of Indianapolis. Senator. Okay. So he's a politician. But a foreign policy expert?

Chuck Hagel. Defense expert? What's he done? Newscaster. Talkshow host. Lobbyist for Firestone. I'll credit his three years in the VA as having some value on something, just not on defense.

They are media whores of the first rank.

I was referring to his meeting with the Viet Cong in Paris c. 1971 or so.

The meeting was a violation of the Logan Act, and can be interpreted as an act of treason, depending on what happened, and how one interprets it, in addition to being a violation of the UCMJ (Kerry was still on Navy rolls until c. 1978). At the very least, it was a really dumb idea, motivated by foolishly naive idealism (or, I suspect, politically-minded opportunism).

by 'older' I mean something closer to 'older than me' than 'older than dirt'. For the latter, I usually just say 'old'.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to egg some cars and TP my homeroom teacher's house. While blasting obnoxious hip-hop music at a few hundred decibels in my ugly, ugly riceburner with the 'performance' 'muffler'.

:]

I'm not suggesting that the charges aren't important. Only that there are people that probably aren't going to be moved by them. Assuming they understand what the actions imply.

And that's probably fine. I don't think the SBVT are really concerned with the "youth vote" anyway, or should be. I just felt it bore noting. Seeing as I'm already waaaay over my head here, I think I'll politely bow out at this juncture.

Tom DeLay was an exterminator, and he's one of my favoritest politicians in the whole wide world.

No, they're just media-whores. And kinda dense, but they're Senators, so that's the norm, not the exception. That's why I don't like them.

Never stopped me. Don't let it stop you.

I don't want my President to get elected riding on the backs of slanderers.  Be it the swift boat vets or whoever forged the National Guard memos.  Both camps assertions about the others evil past have been disproved...repeatedly but we keep hearing about it.

Gen. Schwarzkopf and even Gen Franks have both stated they don't believe any of this Hoo-Hah and yearn for this election to actual be about issues and ideas.

They're just as qualified to speak about Kerry's war record having the same amount of experience with Kerry while in Vietnam... that is nil

You're messing with my man, here.  And you've got to be incredibly young (or disengaged) not to realize that Lugar earned his foreign policy props.

1.  Was among the first men in to revise the U.S. strategic partnership with the Philippines.  Altered Reagan's policy; instrumental in making the Philippines the democratic, pro-U.S. state that it is today.  (You'll note that the Philippines' electorate is one of the few electorates that favors a Bush win this election; you'll also note the support the Philippines has offered the U.S. in the WoT.  If the US had continued down its path of blind support for Marcos, pray tell where would we be today?)*
   
2.  Instrumental in aggressively expanding NATO.  You know the "coalition of the willing" that invaded Iraq?  It would not have happened without Lugar's leadership five-ten years ago.  (Poland, as you'll recall, has been one of the US's most stalwart European allies.)
   
3.  Nunn-Lugar.  Reactionaries of all political stripes hate it.  They're wrong.
   
4.  Pushed for the Anti-Apartheid Act in the mid-80s.  Did it end Apartheid?  Hard to say.  Was it the right thing to do?  Absolutely.
   
5.  START I.  START II.  And others.
   
6.  Introduced (and encouraged passage of) the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.  Instrumental in attempting to stablize Africa through that most Republican of means -- trade and economic exchange.  Kinda important, now, when you think about where al Queda operates; 'course, not everyone thought so in the late 1990s.
   
7.  Was an early leader (again, with Sen. Nunn) of domestic preparedness regarding the response to the use of WMD in the U.S..  Easy call, you say?  Not in 1996.  
   
8.  More recently, accurately predicted what was needed to combat the Iraqi insurgency.  
   
9.  Oh, and has been a consistent advocate for free trade throughout his long career in the Senate.  And a man of unimpeachable integrity.

Lugar has always been a long-range thinker, a careful international player, and a leader when he needs to be.  You disregard Lugar because he doesn't seem to make sense in the present day?  Maybe you should look up, and try to see what's on the horizon.  I'd bet the house -- the nation, even -- on his instincts.

von

*Lugar's work in the Philippines in the mid-80s, by the bye, is where he earned his well-deserved reputation as a keen foreign policy mind.

I don't know. I'm less concerned about the details of Kerry's time served in Vietnam as what he did after coming back. I think that's a legitimate concern, because any person seeking to be CinC should be counted upon to uphold the dignity of our soldiers.

To that extent, I think it will be extremely relevant to see how the Swifties link Kerry to the Communists in North Vietnam. Some might call that dissent, others treason. People have a right to know, and the mainstream media will speak nothing of it without their provocation.

It'd be nice to talk about issues more, but you still have to fight fire with fire.

Honorable discharges are often given to people who have not fulfilled their commitment properly. Don Imus tells us that he was offered an honorable discharge if he wouldn't reenlist. John Mohammed was also given one with an even more spotty record. Sorry, but an honorable discharge was a good way to get rid of a problem who had a lot of juice behind him.

The Logan act may have been violated, but I have heard of no confession that qualifies for 904. ART. 104. Aiding the Enemy. Could you be more explicit?

The North Vietnamese in Paris, and carrying their water back to the U.S. (for a press conference, no less!) counts in my book, especially as he was still a member of the military.

Honorable discharges are often given to people who have not fulfilled their commitment properly.



Like, say, to those meet with the Vietnamese without authorization from the government? Or to those who are wanted out so bad that they are allowed to escape through the three-purple-heart clause when no one else does?

I gave it to you already, with the complete text of the appropriate laws. Look at the link before you ask for the same information yet again...

I was thinking of his comments after he returned from the war, but I know of no evidence that he lied about Cambodia, just assertions without documentation.

You can read what you want into the law, but it is not at all clear that it was intended as you try to interpret it. Certainly the military at the time didn't worry about it.

disavowing the Christmas in Cambodia story when asked about it on the campaign trail? He said the story he told eight times was a "mistake." Look it up in WaPo and Fox News and some other outlets that carried the story. It didn't happen in a closet. I've provided the links here on RedState too, so you should be able to find it very easily if you want.

The wording is very clear. But if you disagree, then perhaps you can share how the law is meant to be interpreted, particularly "without proper authority...communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly". It couldn't be more clear, but perhaps you can provide a more nuanced interpretation...

Just because I don't think that George W Bush has earned any respect, do not jump to the conclusion that I worship Kerry. I haven't voted for a Democrat for president for decades, but, even leading Republicans on the talk show circuit think that Bush has screwed the pooch in Iraq and Afghanistan and the clear evidence is that Bush was a screw up in the Guard.

you to express a certain amount of scrutiny towards Kerry's activities, like his foray in Paris, his [disavowed] Cambodia story, etc. Defending him on those accounts doesn't jive with your current statements, seeing as those two accounts are simply from his own statements.

The military was pretty prickly at the time. Kerry didn't hide what he did. If they really thought that he was committing a crime, why did they ignore it.

...yet it doesn't mean that he didn't break the law. Saying that he wasn't prosecuted is in no way supportive of your flimsy premise.

(1) Granted, mostly because I'm not that young, but I'm that ignorant.

(2) Yes, he and a bipartisan coalition in every relevant branch of government.

(3) They're right. Just because they disagree, though, doesn't make them "reactionaries." Take it from one.

(4) On the latter: Yes.

(5) Those are strikes against him.

(6) Granted, except that free trade is usually a good idea in its own right.

(7) Actually, after Oklahoma City, I remember a great deal of chatter about that. It petered out in 1997 or so, granted.

(8) Well, that's a rather pat assumption, isn't it?

(9) Yes, and a media whore.

On the last: I wouldn't. Decent enough fellow, on the whole; but not enough to stake a nation on.

An embattered military chooses not to prosecute a crime; this does not make the act licit.

Sure.  But don't say that he did nothing.  And don't disregard him lightly; for the Philippines alone, don't disregard him lightly.

If you could repost the link, I would appreciate it.

I agree. Please remind the Bush campaign as well.

I said I don't care what he did before (and I note that it doesn't matter); my problems with him are his media whoring and vague denseness. Those really extend the outer bounds of my problem with him. (And note that I said it's nice to have a gadfly.)

I suggest your argument is one comment up from mine.

Kerry's doing a fantastic job of offing himself politically.

WaPo, and two from Fox News:

"Kerry has since said that he was mistaken in his recollections..."

Thomas, you're way off base.  You don't care what he did before?  Twenty years of steadfast leadership?  Nothing?  Faced with tough choices -- impossible choices -- and getting it right again and again (or, at least, not disastrously wrong)?  

Really, now.  You think START I was a disaster?  Nunn-Lugar sucked?  Have you considered the alternatives?  Do you have an alternative?  Really, out with it.  Fix the world.  And then try to fit that scenario into this modern world, and if you don't find it horribly frightening, you're not thinking hard enough.  (Nuclear weapons rusted in Russian silos, guarded by troops who haven't been paid in six months.  You're right:  Lugar was a huge freakin' sofie to take the practical steps to prevent it.  Wimp.  {That's what you would've called him, I'm sure.})

And you think the expansion of NATO was a done deal?  Really?  Folks just like you -- your "intellectual" predecessors, I daresay -- were lining up to criticize folks like Senator Lugar when he was trying to get it passed.  (Buchannan was the same back then -- consistency may be his only vice -- save that he was more powerful.)  (Hindsight is so freakin' easy.)

There's no point in this.  We're at war, and everyone's in love with Nicias.  We're losing Iraq, it'll take ten years, but you'll know it.  I suspect we'll all know it.  And, yet, when someone stands up to give a funeral oration, they're a freakin' media hound.    

I give up.  I truly, seriously, give up.  Ignorance of history, disrespect for one's elders, snide comments about a lifetime of public service -- this I can stand from liberals.  From so-called conservatives.  Movement conservatives?  It sickens me.*  

[I'm shutting myself down here.  I cannot continue to post without descending into cursing and ad hominems.  My apologies, Thomas.  On another day, another subject, I'll be able to carry on a decent conversation.]

von

*I'm thirty, by the way -- not so old, but old enough to know that you don't discount a lifetime of experience because it doesn't fit your intellectual fashions.  Fashions come and go.  A record -- a reputation -- stays.

The point is that the Honorable Discharge is the END, FINIS, Terminé (in Kerryspeak) ...

The services often grant 'early outs' ... 'for the convenience of the government' ... for a variety of reasons.

The mind simply boggles at the search for something nefarious in the early release of a pilot type-qualified in an aircraft that is being removed from service, not intending to re-up, and with insufficient time remaining on his hitch to justify the hundreds of thousands of dollars of training expense to qualify him on a new type.

If it wasn't George Bush you'd be congratulating the government for saving a few taxpayer dollars.

The Vietnam War has been over, as in 'O-V-E-R', for 35 years. Let it go.

Though my last post was directed specifically to you, the early comment (as you'll see) was directed to both you and Streiff.  My apologies if that wasn't clear from the above.

And now I am shutting myself down.  I pride  myself* on being able to see the other side, but all I can see here is a caricature.  And I know it can't be quite your position  (or Streiff's for that matter).

*Yea, pride, the sin of angels.  To put it proudly.

... once told me that 'There are old pilots and there are bold pilots. There are no old, bold pilots.'

"...Bush was a screw up in the Guard."

Bush flew F-102s, a supersonic all-weather fighter interceptor. If Bush was a screw up in the Guard he'd have been dead or grounded.

Bush and the F-102 - Tim Worstall

The lousy damn coward. He went and hid in a unit, one which had active service members actually in Vietnam, one where the death rate in training and peacetime from accident alone was damn nearly the same as active service in Vietnam for all troops.

Yup...I was wondering and waiting for the right time to do a full assult with Winter Solider. I guess the swiffies have decided to launch now. I would reconmend that they wait at least one week, though. The reason? Simple. Let Rathergate play out first.

No more stories about stonewalling to air...

n/t

Seth...it is far from over, at least question wise. Time wise, you may be right. At the rate it is going, CBS should implode around Monday of next week.

I guess I wasn't thinking about the next barage of investigation of where the docs came from etc. Unless there is much progress made on that, it will begin fading from the headlines to the back pages.

The Swift boat vets have not been disproved! They have used Kerry's own words and even the gunner on his own boat to show that Kerry was planning his course for the Presidency, instead of his course in the water.

Being 56 miles close to Cambodia is rediculous. I was in Viet Nam in '68, (Ben Hoa), and the width of the Country near the Delta was only about 65 miles wide to the ocean and the Delta never parallels the Cambodian boarder.

So, how was it he was "mistaken" about "Being in Cambodia, and was 'only' 56 miles from Cambodia" and yet on many occasions, he said his Christmas in Cambodia was "seared" in his mind?

When I say "I don't care what he did before," or words to that effect, I was referring to his pre-politics jobs. Nothing more. Hence, the DeLay comparison.

As that appeared to set off the rest of your comment, and as I inadvertantly touched a nerve, I add this: I think you've mistaken both my beliefs and my intellectual predecessors; and I think you're wrong on most of the rest of it, too.

Finally: An oration does not a media-whore make.

Nothing. Nichts.

I never said that he wasn't a wonderful pontificator. That he didn't give great phone. He probably has even had a couple of good Foreign Policy Review articles ghostwritten for him.

Where was he ambassador? What treaty did he negotiate? Which agency did he run? What actual decision did he make?

You apparently choose to confuse process with accomplishment. That's fine if that's your beau ideal. The fact is that Lugar probably can't organize a two-car funeral or find his butt without a 10-man search party but he's an expert.

But when your stock in trade is kibbitzing while doing nothing yourself that doesn't matter.

If Lugar was willing to say "my experience is limited to running an high-end hardware store and being mayor of Indianapolis but I'm a good politician" I wouldn't have a problem with him. He doesn't say that. He claims to have some level of expertise on a lot of issues where he has been proven wrong. His fan club lists quite a few of those on this thread.

I haven't heard DeLay to profess to expert on anything other than delivering Republican victories in the House.

but more a defense of the Armed Forces against the egregious claim that because they didn't prosecute they didn't care. In 1971 it would have been impossible to make a legal case for Kerry violating the UCMJ.

It isn't enough that a member of the Armed Forces commit a crime, you have to demonstrate a "service connection." Every year lots of troops commit felonies. Unless you can show the felony is a direct result of their status in the military, or the offense occurs on a military installation, the case has to go to state or federal court. Since Solario v. US the concept of service connection has been broadened a bit. But I doubt that today you could get UCMJ charges with the same facts.

For instance, if Kerry had been on military authorized (by that I mean paid for) travel and had carried out this meeting he could have been charged. The charge of aiding the enemy, in the context of 1971, wouldn't have happened. He would have been slugged with "conduct unbecoming" or similar charge that would have gotten him dismissed from the service and a felony conviction to haunt him. It's just hard for me to imagine any JAG or GCM convening commander to stick his head into the "aiding the enemy" meatgrinder regardless of the strength of the case (which is excellent, IMHO).

As a non-drilling reservist, traveling on his own nickel, not representing himself as a representative of the Navy, not in uniform, and not being on federal or military real estate it would be impossible to find the service connection for a UCMJ prosecution.

Too bad no one is saying anything about John Kerry's ties to the mafia and red China. Stephen Bing is known for organized crime ties and he's donated $16 million to the Democrat party. Judicial Watch is investigating Kerry's ties to CHinese front firms in exchange for campaign money in 1996. You can read all the links and help expose Kerry here: http://donkerry.blogspot.com

I usually keep the long knives ready for Specter and the Ghost Crew. I've traditionally found Lugar and Hagel more irritating than anything else; accordingly, I never looked too closely.

In other words, once again, bravely plunging in with no significant knowledge at my side!

is my personal motto.

Great job on teh specifics of the ad.  Here's what we posted last week from our sources at www.crushkerry.com on Sept. 14, 2004:

CRUSHKERRRY.COM HAS A SCOOP ON PREVIOUSLY UNSEEN KERRY NAVY DOCUMENTS. ACCORDING TO AN INSIDE SOURCE, THE SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH OBTAINED A NUMBER OF PREVIOUSLY UNSEEN NAVAL RECORDS YESTERDAY. THESE NEW DOCUMENTS VALIDATE A NUMBER OF THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST JOHN KERRY. NOTE THAT THESE NEW RECORDS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE AFTER ACTION REPORTS RELEASED YESTERDAY AND POSTED BY DRUDGE. THESE BLOCKBUSTER DOCUMENTS ALL BUT ENSURE A CONTINUED ONSLAUGHT FROM THE SWIFTEES FOR THE DURATION OF THE CAMPAIGN. LOOK FOR THE NEW INFORMATION TO BE DISCLOSED IN UPCOMING SWIFT BOAT ADS

We really hope this one nails him.  

See above.

You did touch a nerve; I apologize for reacting as I did.  But get back to me when you've got a name of a Senator or Representative more accomplished than Lugar on national security issues.  

I think you're wrong on most of the rest of it, too.

And talk is cheap, too.  Which is all we're getting from this administration on Iraq.  Pity.  Soldiers would be more useful.

I'm violating my own rule, here, regarding non-comment on political matters prior to the election.  I'll read any response (as well as any answer to the question posed above), but not comment further on this thread.

I repeat: what treaties did he negotiate? (hint: none) what angencies did he run? (hint: none) what decisions did he make? (hint: none).

You are free to hold in awe a bloviating suit. But the idea that virtually any of the things you give him credit for (especially the outcome in the Philippines where the dropping of Marcos had absolutely nothing to do with Lugar and everything to do with the NSC and State Departments) is just ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

(1) I'm not the one who attacked Lugar's credentials. Streiff seems to be doing that end. I simply said that he struck me as a media blowhard. In fact, waaaaay up this thread, I even suggested that, but for that, I'd appreciate his presence in the party. To that end, I don't see the point in debating "most foreign policy credentialed Senator," as I suspect that (a) every Senator thinks he is; (b) none of them are all that well-credentialed, in absolute terms; and (c) as my friends back in the Fatherland (Texas) are wont to say, that's like being the tallest midget in a [urinating] contest.

(2) If you know how to instantaneously generate extra soldiers without destroying the entire command structure, please contact the Pentagon as soon as possible. In the interim, I suspect what we have there now is sufficent. Time, as they say, will tell.

(3) I honestly appreciate your restraint. I am able to exercise the equivalent only sporadically.

But the idea that virtually any of the things you give him credit for (especially the outcome in the Philippines where the dropping of Marcos had absolutely nothing to do with Lugar and everything to do with the NSC and State Departments) is just ridiculous.

"[A]bsolutely nothing to do with Lugar"?  Well, that's an amazingly ignorant thing to say.  Do a Google search on Lugar+Philippines+Marcos.  

I only debate opponents who play straight with the facts.  If this is a matter of (stunning) ignorance on your part, fine.  But if you're having trouble discerning that, yes, facts exist and, yes, no matter what spin you give those facts that won't spin into your bald assertion, then you've got serious problems.  And a debate on RedState won't fix them.*

von

*You may also want to take a look at the '85 Senate bill that, contra Reagan's stated policy at the time, imposed significant conditions on Marcos and laid the groundwork for Lugar's trip to the Philippines to monitor the '86 election and, subsequently, Lugar's proclamation of vote fraud by Marcos (which led to Marcos' abrupt departure, as you apparently fail to recall).  It didn't pass 80-some to 10 in the face of opposition by a popular President because of the urgings of the NSC and State Departments -- which I feel compelled to mention are in the Executive branch, given that we're apparently playing a version of "if I'm ignorant of the facts how can I be wrong" game.  It passed because Lugar passionately argued for it.  He was right to do so, and today we enjoy a strong strategic partner in the Philippines.  

Continue your hagiography of Lugar if you wish but don't characterize this crap as fact.

And someone with your record of playing fast and loose with the English language certainly shouldn't chastise anyone else about facts.

Fact: it was John Murtha who called the fraud not Lugar.

Lugar on Philippine TV: "The only problems I saw were minor and technical." Look it up.

Lugar to Brokaw:  "It's a very, very suspicious count." Look it up.

Yep. A clarion call of warning.

It was Paul Laxalt who gave Marcos the backchannel bad news. It was John Negroponte who delivered the official message. It was George Schutlz who called in the Phillipine ambassador and told him Marcos had to go.

The point you are trying to defend is "especially the outcome in the Philippines where the dropping of Marcos had absolutely nothing to do with Lugar and everything to do with the NSC and State Departments".  Good luck with that.

It's the truth. Not A truth. Not MY truth. It is THE truth.

Marcos was given the heave-ho by the US foreign policy establishment, not by some mid-rank senator.

And someone with your record of playing fast and loose with the English language certainly shouldn't chastise anyone else about facts.

Let's pass for the moment that this ad hom makes no sense:  I think you mean to say "[my] record of playing fast and loose with the [facts]"; I find it highly unlikely that you're damning me for poor grammer (though perhaps I deserve that).  What "record" are you referencing?  

Since you proclaim it so, it must be so.

I find it curious, however, that you seem to believe that the "foreign policy establishment" of 1985-86 did not include the ranking Republican Senator on, and the Chairman of, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  

Clearly, though, that's simply "my" truth.  "THE" truth is that Lugar was completely outside the loop, a "mid-rank [S]enator."  Yeah.  You sure told me, Chief.  

I like him already and I didn't know much about him before.  But I've always been in the McCain pro-life but moderate corner of the party.  I must admit that Specter rubs me the wrong way, but I'd still rather have him on our side than theirs.

John O'Neill was recorded talking to President Nixon about being in Cambodia with Kerry.

So was he lying then or is he lying now?

You really haven't followed this story have you? O'Neill said that at other times they both (not together) patrolled a series of canals called Bernique's Creek, which do run along the Cambodian border. However, in Christmas 1968 when Kerry claimed to be in Cambodia with knowledge of President Nixon, he was patroling the Mekong river delta, not Bernique's creek. His patrols of the Mekong in 1968 is the source of his Christmas in Cambodia story. And he has already said he was "mistaken" in his recollections of being in Cambodia at that time (even though he told the Christmas in Cambodia story 8 times before).

I can see your point as devil's advocate. You write: "For instance, if Kerry had been on military authorized (by that I mean paid for) travel and had carried out this meeting he could have been charged."  However, there is a general misconception concerning Reservists not on duty being totally exempt from the UCMJ.  Not always.  

For a hard hitting review of the law and its application to Kerry's case, check out Hank and Erika Holzer's September 17 Front Page Magazine column, John Kerry, Criminal.  I have also posted comments on this subject concerning a Fox News article on this thread I am no war hero.  The argument that Kerry did not fall under the UCMJ because he was in the Inactive Reserve is inaccurate.  First of all, at the time, according to "official Navy documents" on his web site, Kerry was in the Ready Reserve and, second, Meehan may have been told to base his argument on Article 2, conveniently ignoring the application of Article 104.

The misconception comes from looking only at U.S. Code Title 10, 802 (a) (3) [UCMJ Art. 2 (3)], which says that Reserve members fall under the UCMJ "while on inactive-duty training."  One would assume that Kerry did not visit with Madame Binh during active or inactive duty training. Art. 2 reads in part:

U.S. Code, Title 10, Sec. 802. - [UCMJ] Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

   (3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty  training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard  of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United  States only when in Federal service.

But here is  the thorny point for Kerry: U.S. Code, Title 10, 904 [UCMJ Art. 104] applies to "any person who..." No exception is made for Reservists not on active or inactive duty.  

Sec. 904. - [UCMJ] Art. 104. Aiding the enemy

Any person who -

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition,  supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or  gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or  holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or  indirectly;

shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or  military commission may direct

Whether or not the statute of limitations has expired, do Americans really want for president and commander in chief a man who. during a time of armed conflict, with American troops in the battlefield and prisoners of war in the Hanoi Hilton and other facilities, "without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly"?

I don't think so!

subrosa:

I have been saying the same thing for weeks now in many venues, siting the same UCMJ and U.S. Code Articles. I hope Fox or other media outlets finally follows up on this.

lewisge:

Glad to see you're pushing this one too.  There are too many distrations and decoys, and many in the press are lazy, accepting what is fed to them by the DNC's Talking Points. See my post at 3550th Student Squadron, USAF for a good example of a decoy flare.

Sean Hannity, Major Garrett and other Fox News programs would certainly pick up on this one were they aware of the details.

I am convinced that the din from the Democrat National Committee and their friends in the media concerning Lt Bush's ANG duty is to prevent bona fide questions about Kerry's murky 1970-1972 years.

lewisge:

Rush Limbaugh is talking about this right now.

Gosh, what am I doing here on the computer? I should go listen to Rush. (thanks for the reminder ;-)

Drat, he just changed over to Oprah and her car gifts to the audience.  I wish he'd get back on track.  He drives me nuts when he does that: jump from an important subject to a who-cares matter.

You're absolutely right.  In addition, in 1972, there was a glut of pilots in the USAF.  As the Vietnam War was winding down, pilots (rated) were being released in droves: no slots for them.  Many took advantage of this early release.  Others stayed in and, of those, many rated officers were assigned to the rated supplement: aircrews assigned to desk jobs.

I've sent e-mails to Sean Hannity and he continues to hammer away on the atrocity issue... which is bad, admittedly. But, I think the more basic issue is the fact that Kerry was still a Naval Officer at the time he was doing this and the media has just totally missed it. The media and the DNC does not understand how the Reserves and the National Guard works... or they are choosing to ignore it (more likely the later).

John O'Neill did an excellent job in "Unfit for Command" of detailing the different statuses in the Naval Reserve and Kerry's service record. I served from 1972-1978 in the Navy and was enlisted. Back then, the universal obligation was 6 years. Some served in the Regulars (like me) and others in the Reserves. I served all 6 years active in the Regular Navy. But, even if you are in the inactive reserve, you are still considered part of the Navy.

Brit Hume had an interview the other night where they detailed Bush's Guard service and how the point system works for the National Guard. Bush did exactly what he was required to do. He and many others may have had periods where they did not show up at all... this was not unusual... so, this whole bruhaha about him not showing up in Alabama is a bunch of mule muffins.

I agree, Hannity has made his point on the atrocities and needs to move up to the follow-on activity.  He sort of addressed it last night when they had O'Neill on and discussed the new SwiftVet ad saying "Kerry betrayed his country."  Of course, Colmes badgered O'Neill to ask him to say that Kerry committed treason - which is a legal term (I think).  O'Neill didn't fall into it and did say he was not making a legal judgment.  But UCMJ Art. 104 is clear and Kerry was in the Reserves - whether he was active or not.  I believe he fell under the "Any person who..." of Art. 104. Hannity needs to hammer at it the same way he hammered at the atrocities.  It is an essential angle under which we judge the character of a commander in chief.

I too served in the Reserves.  Five years on active duty, with 12 months (1969) in Southeast Asia in support of a Tactical Fighter Wing, and "15 good years for retirement" in the Reserves, for a total of 20.  The lame stream media/DNC chase after missed training days during a six month period is a red herring.  As many Reservists, there were years when I was unable, for one reason or the other, to perform required duty a regular intervals.  I made it up to have even more points than required.  By the MSM/DNC standard, I and thousands of others, would have been AWOL a few times.  It just shows how incredibly lazy and DNC-spoonfed they are.

And you're right.  I have read "Unfit for Command" and have found it meticulously researched and sourced.  Kerry can call it a pack of lies, but I yet have to hear him, or the Dems point to one specific lie.  And they won't haul O'Neill into court either, they don't have a leg to stand on.  That's proof in itself.

I saw the H&C show you mentioned last night and have been watching all the shows to see how they handle this. Major Garrett came the closest today... he did actually mention Kerry was in the Reserves... but still glossed over it. Sometimes, I feel like jumping through the screen and leading them by the nose to this!

It is such an important distinction... most especially for a commissioned officer to be doing this stuff when the war is still going on... and even more important... it reflects the character of the man who wants to be the commander-in-chief.

I know what you mean.  Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to watch during the day.  On top of that, I missed Brit Hume - mostly because I was glued to my monitor and didn't look at the time.

Check Power Line's posting of an October 1971 Doonesbury cartoon under Doonesbury on Kerry in 1971, then scroll down to the next story and look at a disgraceful salute.  While you're at it don't miss the last paragraph of that story:  CBS's casual trashing of Brig Gen Staudt's reputation.

Check this out on frontpage.com:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15127

It's slowly getting coverage.

I've elaborated on the FPM article in post 9 and a couple of others.

By the way, I taped the Brit Hume news at midnight and just viewed Major Garrett's segment.  Pretty close, but he accepts the Kerry campaign lie that Kerry was in the Inactive Reserve.  He wasn't and he fell under Article 104, "Any person who..."

Yes.  There is evidence of Kerry's treason.  In his own words and by his own acts.

Yes. Let's do talk about the president's National Guard services, though I can NOT imagine why you might make a moral equivalency between treason on the one hand, and honorable service on the other hand.

Sure.  Let's get into it.