Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

February 10, 2004

Liberal Talk Radio

Filed under: Society-Culture — Bunker @ 6:13 pm

The New Republic Online has an article about a liberal talk-radio host in Florida who has a bigger audience than Rush, who precedes her on air. Randi Rhodes voices such gems as:

A couple hours later, Rhodes was still on the same topic, this time with a microphone cradled in her right hand, addressing not just me but thousands of listeners throughout Palm Beach. “You had to actually be married to the Republican Party to believe the president today,” she declared. She ridiculed Bush’s explanation that the people attacking American troops in Iraq “hate progress”: “People are willing to strap bombs on their bodies because they hate electricity … and they hate school?! This is the explanation we’re getting?!”

Yes, Randi, the people blowing themselves up, along with as many innocents as possible, DO hate progress. They hate electricity and any school other than their local madrassa.

The article is good (as are most from TNR) and talks about the future of liberal talk radio after “decades” of conservative domination. Wow.

Credibility

Filed under: Politics — Bunker @ 10:46 am

This is the new mantra of the Democratic Party. I don’t remember it being an issue in the ’90s, but they believe it now.

Bush’s credibility is strong where it needs to be in the war on terrorism–in capitals around the world. There may be lots of rhetoric flowing from leaders around the world condemning what we are doing, but they all know that what George W. Bush says, he means. That carries more weight than three divisions of armor in the places it matters most.

February 9, 2004

Kerry the hero

Filed under: Bunker's Favorites,Military,Politics — Bunker @ 5:58 pm

PowerLine carries a story by a former member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. His memory of Kerry is that of an opportunist.

This meshes with my opinion based only on what I’ve learned about his background prior to joining the Navy and going to Vietnam. I’ve done a few searches on the ‘net for any information on his actions, but haven’t yet found anything regarding who submitted him for his Silver Star.

After reading various versions of the action which got him his medal, I have to wonder, “Was that all?” I’ve known people who did far more for far less recognition. If anyone out there has better information, I’d love to hear it.

Update: AftermathofwarcopingwithPTSDtoo is a community bulletin board on MSN with an entry by Henry Mark Holzer, a lawyer who has set himself a mission of outing fake warriors. As I could only locate the article through a Google cache, I’ve copied it here in full, and added Mr. Holzer’s site as a link:

JFK (II): WAR HERO OR FAKE WARRIOR?

BY: Henry Mark Holzer

Senator John Forbes Kerry, Navy veteran and candidate for the democrat party nomination for President of the United States, has for years played the ?war hero? card. As the story goes, for his service in wartime Vietnam Kerry was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts.

However, for all those years, and especially now, questions have been raised and doubts have surfaced about the legitimacy of some of those awards. Few people know the truth, preeminently Senator Kerry?but he?s not talking. This is not to say?and I am certainly not saying!?that Kerry did not deserve his medals. I am saying that because of Kerry?s character, associations, conduct and silence, there is a legitimate question as to whether he is the Vietnam War hero he claims to be?a question only Kerry can answer. Thus far, it has gone unanswered.

A Silver Star is awarded for ?gallantry? for conduct not warranting the next highest award, a Navy Cross?nor the highest, the Medal of Honor. A Bronze Star, next on the list just under the Silver Star, can be awarded for either ?heroic or meritorious achievement or service.? (A Bronze Star with an accompanying ?V? [for valor] is awarded for heroism, while one without a ?V? can be for running a great mess hall). The Purple Heart requires ?a wound . . . which . . . must have required treatment by a medical officer.?

None of these awards are easy to come by?particularly the Silver Star?so let?s focus on that one.

Why have questions been raised about Senator Kerry?s Silver Star?

First, because he, himself, not only is a liar, but because one of his worst lies involved the Vietnam war. At pages 135-136 of Stolen Valor (Burkett and Whitley, Verity Press, 1998), the authors reveal that in April 1971, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) held a demonstration in Washington, D.C. called Dewey Canyon III. Kerry was an organizer and leader. According to Burkett and Whitley, “Kerry flung a handful of medals–he had received the Silver Star, a Bronze Star Medal, and three purple hearts–over the fence [of the Capitol]. * * * But years later, after his election to the Senate, Kerry’s medals turned up on the wall of his Capitol Hill office. When a reporter noticed them, Kerry admitted that the medals he had thrown that day were not his.” (Burkett and Whitley source this statement with: “Phil Duncan, editor, “Congressional Quarterly’s Politics in America,” 102nd Congress, 1992, p. 678″). If Kerry lied, for political purposes, about eschewing his m! edals, it raises the distinct possibility that he (or someone on his behalf) lied either about his receiving them or about exactly what he received them for.

Second, Kerry was a founder of VVAW. His organization had its hand in at least two contrived events of consummately false anti-American, pro-Communist propaganda. The first, in early 1971, was known as the ?Winter Soldier Investigation.? Featuring the likes of Hanoi Jane Fonda, her lover Donald Sutherland, activist Dick Gregory, and other assorted luminaries of the Left, the ?investigation? paraded alleged Vietnam veterans who told atrocity stories that had been literally lifted from Hollywood movies and the screeds of Communist propagandists. Most of those who ?testified? were Fake Warriors, their ?testimony? consisting largely of lies about the war and about their role, if any, in it. The second event was Dewey Canyon III, referred to above. There, reflecting the contrary-to-fact movie stereotype of the physically and mentally damaged Vietnam vet, the demonstrators put on what Burkett and Whitley correctly characterized as ?political theater.? Again, many identified ! participants were Fake Warriors, whose sole purpose was to discredit the United States and elevate the Vietnamese Communist cause to indigenous ?nobility.? Kerry?s central role in founding the organization that engineered these two palpably phony events, and his participation in and association with those who had provably lied about the Vietnam war and their alleged service in it, casts doubt about any other claims he has made about his own military service.

Third, there is some dispute about the event which was the basis for Kerry?s Silver Star. One published account reports that his river patrol boat came under fire from the bank and retuned fire. As the craft approached the shore, a wounded Viet Cong was observed running away. Kerry is supposed to have chased him, and both disappeared from sight. Shots were heard. Kerry jumped aboard and claimed that there had been a firefight. Result: one Silver Star. If this published report is true, there were no witnesses to the action?yet two witnesses are required for a Silver Star recommendation. As Burkett and Whitley have written, ?Silver Stars are awarded only for actions in combat; most of those who receive a Silver Star suffer wounds in the process. Receiving a Silver Star requires witnesses and significant substantiation of valor.? The authors of Stolen Valor continue: ?How a soldier, sailor, or Marine receives a valorous medal essentially hasn?t changed since the Civi! l War. One way is from the bottom up. For example, a soldier is with a platoon in the field [or on a river boat]. The North Vietnamese [or Viet Cong] start pouring over his platoon?s perimeter [or firing from the shore]. He?s screaming orders, dragging wounded, saving people [chasing a wounded VC into the jungle]?being your basic hero. The next day an ?after-action? report by his commander will describe the soldier?s bravery. The other men who saw the events will be motivated to nominate the hero for recognition. The recommendation goes up the chain of command and is either approved or denied. The ?top-down? process occurs when higher-ups?the company or battalion commander?nominate him. Aware that something heroic has happened, his superiors interview witnesses and nominate the soldier, sailor, or airman for a medal. The system is open to a certain amount of back scratching. Say a platoon [or a river boat] fights a battle. People fight; some die. The platoon lea! der [or boat commander] wants a Silver Star, and he lets the platoon s ergeant [or seaman] know that the way the sergeant [or seaman] can earn his own Bronze Star Medal is to authenticate his superior?s heroism. Except for outright fabrication, this is usually not an official cause of concern. Whatever the medal, there has to be a recommendation by the command authority and supporting evidence. The higher the decoration [the Silver Star is the third highest], the more stringent thee requirements for supporting documentation. (Emphasis added).

When awards like the Silver Star are ordered (there is an actual ?order? issued), a ?citation? is also issued describing the conduct that is the basis for the medal. This completes the paper trail.

To sum up: As to Senator Kerry?s conduct, there should be reports of the engagement; there should be chain-of-command recommendations; there should be an order directing the award of the medal; and there should be a citation describing his ?gallantry.?

Where are these crucial, corroborating documents? Why has Kerry not released them? And while we?re asking questions in this, an election year, it would be interesting to know whether anyone else on that river boat was awarded a medal?and, if so, who recommended it.

Let me restate the obvious: He who would be president of the United States is morally required?in fealty to those who hold Medals of Honor, service Crosses, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars for valor, and Purple Hearts?to put on the table the documentation that supports his claim to be a war hero.

If he is one, no one will applaud louder than I. If he is not, all Americans?regardless of party?deserve to know the truth. One way to learn the truth is for every one of us with a conscience to demand that truth from Senator John Forbes Kerry?and right now!

Click Here

Fences

Filed under: International — Bunker @ 4:16 pm

Vincent has a thought…let’s get rid of all the fences in the world before insisting Israel stop building theirs.

Un-Carter

Filed under: International — Bunker @ 11:41 am

Bill Clinton has decided to be the Un-Carter.

I never had much use for Bill Clinton. I never believed anything evil of him, but I don’t think he ever really had any plan in his life except to become President. As he did as Governor of Arkansas, he saw the job of President as simply a way to meet girls. He floated along merrily enjoying the perks of office. His wife, on the other hand, had an agenda. And still does.

After leaving office Clinton received a lot of flack for voicing criticism of the new President. I can’t blame him completely, because there are many reporters who hang on his every word, and he’s always liked the limelight. Anything he said against Bush was reported ad nauseum.

With all of the Democratic candidates spewing critiques of Bush, however, there was a niche opening for him. Everyone else in the party was moving left, so Bill went back to what he does best: going centrist. And it has been a quiet move.

At first it received notice. He made comments about having believed the same about Saddam as did Bush. This was pretty widely reported. His later comments in support of Bush in this area get less and less coverage as the primary campaign heats up.

Marc Ginsberg takes the Bush Administration to task for not attending the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Qatar last month. Clinton spoke there:

Clinton pointedly called on the Muslim world to accept its share of the blame for the outbreak of extremism, and scolded Arab leaders for their own abuse of the Palestinians. He chastised Muslims for being too quick to judge America through the pinhole of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He pointed to our own shortcomings as a nation, still striving to build “a more perfect union.” He resolutely defended America’s friendship with Israel. “America’s support for Israel is not rooted in hostility to the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians,” he said, and he condemned Yasser Arafat for squandering the deal he was offered at Camp David. Moreover, Clinton reminded his audience that President Bush supports the creation of a Palestinian state.

He told his audience that had he been president when the September 11 attacks occurred, he would have followed a course identical to that of his successor. He praised President Bush for trying to convince Muslims that America’s war on terror is not a war against Islam. And despite all of the baiting during a question and answer session, Clinton never blamed the Bush administration for its many policy missteps. Instead, he called on his audience to join the United States in helping to bring about a “free, independent, stable, and representative government in Iraq.”

I’ve not seen any coverage of the event. The media missed it because they were wrapped up in following candidates around Iowa.

I don’t believe Clinton would have “followed a course identical to that of his successor” as he said, but it was a powerful message to those assembled. And it is the kind of thing we should hope past Presidents say in that environment. It is completely out of character for him because he, like the current candidates and the UN, believes the war on terror is a law enforcement issue. Or maybe he’s changed his mind.

Carter was a terrible President. He has done nothing since to change that. His greatest contribution to this country has been his work with Habitat for Humanity. Clinton doesn’t want to be the next Jimmy Carter. With his harping about Bush, he was on that road. Hillary wants to be the next Clinton in the White House. And they both want Chelsea to eventually be there in her own right. So his tone needed to change.

It is a change for the better, regardless of the reason. When we fight this war we need to be emphatic. It is the only countermeasure we have for the type of battle we confront. Having debate “within the family” is important to our political process, but it needs to remain within. The enemy we face depends on division here for strength in his battle. The task is to have our differences without them providing support for the enemy.

I think Bill Clinton finally gets it. Carter never will.

February 8, 2004

Security

Filed under: Politics — Bunker @ 6:33 pm

Sarah pointed out that over at EuroPundits, Nelson Ascher grieves at how the war on terrorism has slowed, and that the whiners are winning. In the next post he voices his opinion regarding the election (nine months away), with his own analysis of what will happen if Bush loses.

Just before reading these posts I had been looking at one of the best site available for keeping up with all the facets of the war: The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (top of my International/ Military Links list in the right sidebar). It is an impressive organization, and truly non-partisan. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Chuck Shumer, Newt Gingrich, Steve Forbes, Marc Ginsberg, Donna Brazile, and Zell Miller all have voices in its operation and research. Their mission is:

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies conducts research and education on international terrorism ? the most serious security threat to the United States and other free, democratic nations.
FDD produces independent analyses of global terrorist threats, as well as of the historical, cultural, philosophical and ideological factors that drive terrorism, and which threaten democracies and the individual freedoms guaranteed within democratic societies.
Non-profit and non-partisan, FDD promotes informed debate about policies and positions that will most effectively eradicate the scourge of international terrorism.
In addition, FDD works to improve education about democracies, and to help promote democracy in troubled regions around the globe.

Clifford May makes a case for debate about the war. His points are well-taken. Every time I hear one of the Democrats chasing the presidential nomination, I?m struck by how vague they are on this topic. They basically say, ?We need international support.? I?ve not heard a thing from them more specific.

This concerns me. As Nelson points out, we probably have only 20% of the knowledge of what?s going on that decision-makers have. I would think folks like Kerry and Edwards have about 50% by virtue of their positions in the Senate. That leaves an awful lot they don?t know. Yet they are expected to make promises to get the nomination, and could box themselves into a corner where US security is in jeopardy. That?s one reason to speak in generalities.

We Americans are very self-centered in general. So, it doesn?t surprise me to see polls where the majority believes the economy is the number one issue in the upcoming election. More somber analysis, however, will remind anyone not out on the fringes that US security is what allows us to have an economy. Recent history should be a guide. When Carter was President we had inflation and interest rates through the roof (20% mortgage rates!). ?Stagflation? was the term coined to describe our economy. The Cold War was very active, the USSR invaded Afghanistan, embassy employees were held hostage in Iran. Reagan reversed that with some tough decisions. I remember thinking at the time that somebody had to have a plan beyond the next two years, and there would initially be some pain. There was, but Reagan had a five-year plan, and it resulted in the demise of the Soviet Union and a growing economy.

Bush 41?s success in the Middle East was another boost, quickly offset by his acceptance of a tax increase by Congress, something he had promised not to do. It was a bump in the economic road, but cost him a second term.

Clinton benefited from some fiscal responsibility on behalf of Congress, and the lack of a tangible threat from outside our borders. The threat was there, but not apparent to the average American.

The burst NASDAQ and DOW bubble that came in with Bush 43 was exacerbated by events of 9/11. Markets dipped lower, numerous industries, not the least of them the airlines, were jeopardized. They are back, but you wouldn?t know it to hear the wannabes.

Now, Americans feel more secure. The focus again becomes ME, and a return to normalcy.

It is a false hope. Terrorist networks around the world are rocked back on their heels, but they don’t require much in the way of infrastructure to maintain an organization. The ability to produce such agents as ricin are within the grasp of most people with a basic understanding of chemistry, and this very specific knowledge can be easily passed along. WorldNetDaily features an article claiming bin Laden’s group have obtained nukes. Our intelligence agencies (only American ones, not those around the world who drew the same conclusions) are under fire for not having perfect information on the goings-on inside a totalitarian regime. If our economy is at risk, it is endangered by uncertainty. And there is still plenty of that in the world. The fact that the Super Bowl was played with no terrorist strike isn’t an indicator that the threat didn’t exist.

The primary function of the President of the United States is National Security. The Constitution has no provision for his control or meddling in the economy except in the realm of interstate commerce. In fact, a President has little control over the economy at all except through National Defense.

I want a President who is willing to shoulder that burden, not pass it off to the UN. The only Democrat willing to take that stand, Joe Lieberman, is now out of the race. The others are no choice at all.

February 7, 2004

AT&T Tournament

Filed under: Golf — Bunker @ 6:04 pm

Gary Van Sickle has an article in this month’s Golf Magazine about Bill Murray and his play at Pebble Beach. Gary complains that the cameras follow Ray Romano and Kevin James instead of Murray.

I watched today, and those two were featured prominantly, along with cameo appearances by every CBS star and exec in the field. It was pretty much a four-hour ad for their prime time lineup. I didn’t see Murray. I checked to see if he was in the field, and couldn’t find his name. So much for checking if CBS would follow his advice.

I enjoy watching Bill Murray on the course. He is a true golfer, and enjoys himself when he plays. The article I’ve linked explains it pretty well. He’s first-rate, and I hope he missed the tournament for reasons other than illness.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress