OUT OF BOUNDS

I said from the beginning that I would refrain from blogging the campaign, since this is not a political blog, unless something came up that seemed to veer into my lane.

I think that happened last night.

The two most important speeches of the political season, arguably, are the two speeches at the conventions where the candidates accept their parties nomination. They are a very, very big deal.

It was extraordinarly classless and graceless for Kerry to speak, not just within the same news cycle, but within the same hour as the President's acceptance speech. But politics, as they say, ain't bean bag.

My beef is with what he said in his speech.

When he says:

"Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty," Kerry said. "Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without health care makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi royal family control our energy costs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Handing out billions [in] government contracts without a bid to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit."

you may think he's right, you may think he's wrong, but he's completely within the bounds of legitimate political discourse. Lets tee it up, and get it on.

But when he says:

"I'm going to leave it up to the voters whether five deferments makes someone more qualified than two tours of duty," Kerry said. Cheney received a series of deferments from 1962 to 1966 for college and graduate school and then for having a child.

he's playing with a very dangerous argument, one that at the very least I feel compelled to point out. Because I think there was a subtle shift in the argumentative structure of his position last night.

You may believe -- many do -- that the system of deferments in place during the Vietnam-era draft was an outrage. But that was the system. Cheney didn't go to Canada. He didn't lop of a piece of a finger. He didn't do anything illegal. The argument here isn't that he did something illegal and therefore is of criminal character. The argument here, really, is "hey, I went to war and he didn't."

Is that really the grounds for qualification? Is that the argument here? That those who have seen combat meet the threshold test for high office and those who have not don't?

He's laying it out pretty baldly here. He isn't saying that combat has forged in him certain qualities or certain values that make him better qualified, he's now saying that combat qua combat is the defining characteristic, that it's a bright line that separates him from other potential candidates for the job.

As I've been arguing for some time, that's just not a position we want a presidential candidate to be taking.

Just as a by the way, a very, very small number of women (fighter pilots) would be able someday to run for the presidency. But this would mean -- and perhaps someone should ask Mr. Kerry about this -- that no disabled person would ever be considered as a qualified candidate.

Is that really a position consistent with progressive values?

Update: One vet thinks it isn't consistent with good military values.

Comments

[Bryon Gill]

Combat experience is a legitimate supplemental qualification for the position of Commander-in-Chief, and I defy you to find any statement by Kerry claiming that it's anything other than supplemental.

The most obvious rebuttal to your silly argument is Kerry's choice for VP- Edwards, who has no combat experience whatsoever, is next in line for the presidency if Kerry is elected. Tell me again how Kerry thinks people without combat experience aren't qualified for the presidency?

It's about the sort of personal risks one's willing to take for one's country. Risking your life for your country does give you a privileged position in defending it, although it's obviously not true that it's a prerequisite- just a bonus. The risks you take for your country demonstrate your character and your values. Just as it's legitimate to imagine that Bush's simple-minded resolve is a character trait that will serve him well, it's legitimate to imagine that Kerry's willingness to risk life and limb for his country and experience in actual battle will give him a wider range of data from which to make truly informed decisions.

The disabled thing is ridiculous- if you aren't able to serve in combat you are excused from doing so. If you decide you have better things to do but you don't oppose the war, it's a reflection of your character. But I'm sure we agree that gender should be no barrier to combat participation, and I hope we agree that sexual orientation shouldn't either. You've identified a cost of discrimination rather than a reason to ignore military experience in our leaders.

The only part of Kerry's speech that I find fault with is that he bothered comparing his record to that of the VP rather than the president (who actually did break laws to avoid service)- but then again, given that Bush couldn't testify to the 9/11 commission without him, perhaps that comparison was the right one after all.

[vnjagvet]

RP:

I agree with you. Last night's midnight performance reminded me of a Saturday Night Live skit. Not exactly the image of a sober leader of a nation in time of war. I wrote this analysis the other night which is contra Mr. Gill's points:

"Ask five VN Vets whether they think John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief in 2004. One might say yes. Duck from the reaction of the rest.

Here's why:

The undisputed facts really show:

First: Kerry is at best a serial exaggerator who stakes his campaign on the premise that 4 months service in Vietnam as a junior officer over thirty years ago demonstrates beyond doubt that he is qualified to command our troops in war. His four months prove no such thing, and his “defenses” over the last month prove he cannot lead anyone to get a straight story out regarding why that service was so much better than the 2.5 million who served there that he should be elected President. Moreover, his failure to authorize disclosure of his complete record demonstrates he does not want this truth to come out.

Second: Kerry's overt anti war activities while still a commissioned officer in the United States Naval Reserve (he was not discharged until 1978) consisted at bottom of delivering the talking points of the People's Republic of North Vietnam with his unqualified endorsement before the United States Senate and elsewhere. In so doing he gave the unmistakable appearance of corroborating enemy propaganda the likes of which had not been seen since Axis Sally. It has not been seen since.

Third, and most important: he has given voice from 1966 to the present to a philosophy that the United States should look to the European community (particularly France and Germany) for the best way to defend its national interests, and to preserve, protect and defend the the United States. That is the one thread that has been consistent throughout his political career.
In my opinion, such a man is truly unfit to command our troops in the ongoing war against the Islamic Radicals who, since at least 1993 have sought to destroy us. I believe internal polling reveals that an overwhelming majority of those who have been and are now "in harm's way" passionately believe this. If you don't believe me, ask them."

I believe this is at the guts of the reactions to the Miller speech and the vehemence of a broad group of former "Scoop Jackson/Sam Nunn democrats" like me who now support the President.

IMO, he, like Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman before him is doing his best to "Preserve Protect and Defend" the nation at war since 9/11 as his oath requires him to do.

If you want an eyewitness, read General Franks' book. It is "stout".

[Media Hound]

One wonders why Kerry failed to mention his own request
for deferment (which was denied).

Glass houses and all.

One also wonders about these Kerry falsifications:

The New York Sun September 2, 2004

Kerry's Bit Of Colored Ribbon

By THOMAS LIPSCOMB

Senator Kerry no longer has a problem with just the 35-year-old
recollections of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that are
questioning his military records. He now has to deal with the United
States Navy.

Mr. Kerry's campaign Web site, which may be viewed at
www.johnkerry.com, lists a Silver Star with a Combat V on his DD214.
This form issued by the Department of Defense summarizes a
serviceman's career. It is always signed and authenticated as accurate
by the individual, in this case Mr. Kerry. But according to a Navy
spokesman it is "incorrect." The Navy has never issued a Combat V at
any time for the Silver Star.

This is a serious issue. The chief admiral of the Navy, Jeremy Michael
Boorda, committed suicide over questions raised about his right to
wear a Combat V by Newsweek magazine in 1996. Boorda stated in his
suicide note to his sailors that the questions raised about those he
wore caused him to take his life. And that was only a Bronze Star, not
the Navy's third highest decoration.

At the time, Mr. Kerry told the Boston Globe that Boorda's conduct was
"sufficient to question [Boorda's] leadership position....If you wind
up being less than what you're pretending to be, there is a major
confrontation with value and self-esteem and your sense of how others
view you."

The Navy also questioned the listing on Mr. Kerry's Web site of a
DD215 form listing four bronze campaign stars for his service in
Vietnam. According to its records, the Navy credits Mr. Kerry with two
campaigns. That is sufficient for the wearing of the Vietnam Service
Medal for one campaign bearing one campaign star for the additional
campaign -- not four.

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/09/02&ID=Ar01702

And:

The Chicago Sun-Times
August 28, 2004

Kerry citation a 'total mystery' to ex-Navy chief

By Thomas Lipscomb

Former Navy Secretary John Lehman has no idea where a Silver Star
citation displayed on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's
campaign Web site came from, he said Friday. The citation appears over
Lehman's signature.

"It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I
never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not
written by me," he said.

The additional language varied from the two previous citations, signed
first by Adm. Elmo Zumwalt and then Adm. John Hyland, which themselves
differ. The new material added in the Lehman citation reads in part:
"By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to
duty, Lieutenant (jg) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself...."

Asked how the citation could have been executed over his signature
without his knowledge, Lehman said: "I have no idea. I can only
imagine they were signed by an autopen." The autopen is a device often
used in the routine execution of executive documents in government.

Kerry senior adviser Michael Meehan could not be reached for comment
on Kerry's records.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips28.html

And:

The Boston Globe

The Kerry campaign removed a 20-page batch of documents yesterday from
its website after The Boston Globe quoted a Navy officer who said the
documents wrongly portrayed Kerry's service. Edward Peck had said he
-- not Kerry -- was the skipper of Navy boat No. 94 at a time when the
Kerry campaign website credited the senator with serving on the boat.

The website had described Kerry's boat as being hit by rockets and
said a crewmate was injured in an attack. But Peck said those events
happened when he was the skipper. The campaign did not respond to a
request to explain why the records were removed.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/24/kerrys_thigh_has_shrapnel_records_show/

[Walter E. Wallis]

A political party whose champion lied to his draft board about his ROTC plans, then went overseas to campaign against his own country, and then went into the heart of our enemy with no explanation has no standing to criticize others.

[Ralph Hitchens]

So, vnjagvet thinks Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam wasn't enough, and Media Hound is exercised over a clerical error on his DD-214. I guess the many months Kerry spent on Yankee Station doesn't count for squat. And he should have interrupted his out-processing to correct a trivial discrepancy on his 214? You guys are really stretching to find some mud to sling; here's one Vietnam vet who thinks you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You don't want a liberal Democrat running the country, just say so. You think he shouldn't have raised the issue of war crimes before Congress, say so. But character assassination is pretty low; you've got no business parsing honorable service and heroism. Respect the man.

[vnjagvet]

Ralph Hitchens:

Thank you for your service, and welcome home.

Your broad characterization of my post as "character assassination" is inaccurate.

What in my statement should I be ashamed of? Over 2.5 million of us served in Vietnam. How many have run for president? Answer, three that I can think of off the top of my head: Kerry, Clark and McCain. Although both McCain and Clark served with distinction (I believe both of them were at least the equal of Kerry in this regard), neither made that service a featured theme of their campaign.

The subject of my post never would have come up but for the former Lt. JG's presenting his Vietnam service as his basic qualification for president in time of war. To have done so showed bad taste and poor judgment at the very least in my opinion. Perhaps you disagree, but I believe I have earned the right to express my opinion without being labelled a character assassin.

You are simply misinformed if you believe that what Kerry did in April, 1971 merely "raised the issue of war crimes before Congress".

Indeed his entire testimony on that occasion (in uniform, BTW) shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to convey the impression that war crimes and atrocities were not only routine and wide spread, but authorized or condoned as a matter of course at all levels of command. That intended impression was inaccurate, and many Vietnam veterans were scarred by that testimony.

Here's an example:

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9359&catcode=13

I truly hope you didn't have such experiences. I witnessed some, and buried my disgust about them for over 30 years.

[antimedia]

Mr. Hitchens is apparently ignorant of the facts. Kerry has lied about almost everything having to do with his tours in Vietnam. Even his crewmates on the USS Gridley, who say he was "a fine officer" are astounded at the fabrications he's constructed about his service on that boat. The Swiftvets charges are far more specific and damning. And apparently correct. So far the Kerry campaign has had to admit that he lied, under oath, before Congress, about being in Cambodia on orders on Christmas eve, that his first Purple Heart was for a self-inflicted wound with no enemy fire and that his account of the 13 Mar 69 Bronze Star incident was false. (He claimed all the boats left the scene. He now admits only his left.)

As to the "clerical error" of the "V" on his Silver Star, other men have spent time in the brig for the same "clerical error". RG Burkett has written a book, Stolen Valor, about men just like Kerry, who have lied about their service, used fraudulent medal citations to make themselves look more important and claimed the feats of others as their own. The Navy is investigating Kerry's "clerical error". Perhaps we will know the truth about the "clerical error" before the election.

These admissions should tell you something about his character and his fitness to lead as CinC. If they don't, you're choosing to close your eyes to the damning truth. I can assure you that many more vets will not vote for Kerry than the few that choose to remain blind when they pull that lever.

[dauber]

It was not my intent to open this can of worms. If I'd wanted to get this debate going, I would have been blogging the Swiftees from the beginning. My argument stands, and it is a simple one: Kerry's position is that combat should be judged a preprequisite, a threshold qualification. That has not always been his position, that has not been his posiiton in every statement, but he gets dangerously close to it in this statement and it deserves to be pointed out. Frankly, you can be pro-Kerry and think that he's gone to far in the last two days on THIS ONE ARGUMENT.
Bryon, you are both making unproved assertions (where is your evidence that the President "broke laws?") and putting arguments in his mouth. Where has he ever said, Cheney's less qualified because he took deferments, whereas I bled for my country -- of course, that argument wouldn't apply to anyone who isn't eligible for combat slots. YOU'RE MAKING THAT UP to make the argument more palatable.

I understand that Kerry's Vietnam service is proviing in and of itself to be highly divisive and I understand why. My point is that had he served in Grenada, or for that matter Desert Storm, the argument that serving under fire is a qualification is itself a landmine, that it can be worded carefully and acceptably, or dangerously and unacceptably. And Kerry has no crossed the line, and you should be able to support Kerry, even see his time in service AS a qualification, and still get that much.

Think about the damn implications of his argument. How is this a position the progressive left is jumping for?

[dauber]

Just to be clear: I mean no disrespect for you all's service, for which I am grateful. But I believe that to preserve our belief in civilian control over the military that the argument that someone is qualified for political office BECAUSE of military service has be made with extraordinary caution and delicacy. I do not see that caution here.

[hhhhh]

出会い出会いデリヘル