According to Kerry logic:
1. All Vietnam veterans are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
2. Some have the right to speak and be heard because they agree with me.
3. I am to be trusted because I served in Vietnam and was awarded medals.
4. People who served in Vietnam but who don't agree with me cannot be trusted even if they have medals,too.
5. Facts are what I say they are.
6. If my recollection differs from yours, see numbers 1 through 5.
Off the Deck
Friday, August 27, 2004
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Watching Rumsfield and the other grownups testify before the 911 Commission. It's a refreshing revelation about how complicated things are and why simple answers are not to be found.
Former Senator Bob Kerrey is right. We should have declared war against Osama and his organization in 1993 or 1998 or 2000. I can see why the Clinton administration didn't, though. We had the wrong military force structure then to fight such a war. According to the testimony I heard at the hearing, the choices for pursuing Al Qada were either lob a few cruise missiles or invade with too light forces or invade with too heavy forces.
No effort was made by the Clinton administration to change the force mix to give us more options. Instead, when Rumsfield took over at Defense, he started pushing for a more agile military that would allow a "just right" force to be applied. While being carped at by the critics of why it took so long to respond to the USS Cole attack, Rumsfield could have said "it took that long for the bureaucrats to take me seriously" and for the planners to get it together. He had already ruled out (as apparently so had the Clinton admin) the futile use of cruise missiles.
And, as wiser heads have already said, can you imagine the howling that would have arisen if we had suddenly invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of OBL? The current anti-war (anti-Bush) crowd would have really been after the "illegitimate" president.
Not to mention the problems caused trying to sustain a force on hostile ground with no friendlies nearby. The Germans got pounded by the Russians when the Luftwaffe couldn't keep the ground forces supplied... and if we had tried to do it from ships at sea, it would have been a logistical nightmare.
Former Senator Bob Kerrey is right. We should have declared war against Osama and his organization in 1993 or 1998 or 2000. I can see why the Clinton administration didn't, though. We had the wrong military force structure then to fight such a war. According to the testimony I heard at the hearing, the choices for pursuing Al Qada were either lob a few cruise missiles or invade with too light forces or invade with too heavy forces.
No effort was made by the Clinton administration to change the force mix to give us more options. Instead, when Rumsfield took over at Defense, he started pushing for a more agile military that would allow a "just right" force to be applied. While being carped at by the critics of why it took so long to respond to the USS Cole attack, Rumsfield could have said "it took that long for the bureaucrats to take me seriously" and for the planners to get it together. He had already ruled out (as apparently so had the Clinton admin) the futile use of cruise missiles.
And, as wiser heads have already said, can you imagine the howling that would have arisen if we had suddenly invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of OBL? The current anti-war (anti-Bush) crowd would have really been after the "illegitimate" president.
Not to mention the problems caused trying to sustain a force on hostile ground with no friendlies nearby. The Germans got pounded by the Russians when the Luftwaffe couldn't keep the ground forces supplied... and if we had tried to do it from ships at sea, it would have been a logistical nightmare.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Talked with my friend Virgil today about a lot of things. We had a pretty good laugh about the military "expertise" that could be claimed by someone who served as a LTJG in the Riverine forces. Not because we don't appreciate the duty performed at that level or the often heroic actions those forces undertook, but because we know (as former junior naval officers ourselves) that when you are operating at the "weed" level you gain an intimate knowledge of the weeds and not much else.
It takes years of training and experience to get the bigger picture. That's why we have war colleges and special training for officers (and NCO's) as they move up into positions of greater responsibility.
Also had a laugh at the media coverage of the reserve and guards. It is almost unbelievable the level of apparently willing ignorance demonstrated by our talking heads. If any of them had checked with any current or former reservist or guard member the system of "points", "drills" and rescheduled drills could have cleared up a lot of blather.
Plus, we talked about the over two years of active duty the President had to put in to learn to fly the ANG jet he flew. A lot of draftees only put in two years period. Mr. Bush put in two then 4.5 more. And he flew a plane with a tainted rep as a tough bird to fly, too.
It takes years of training and experience to get the bigger picture. That's why we have war colleges and special training for officers (and NCO's) as they move up into positions of greater responsibility.
Also had a laugh at the media coverage of the reserve and guards. It is almost unbelievable the level of apparently willing ignorance demonstrated by our talking heads. If any of them had checked with any current or former reservist or guard member the system of "points", "drills" and rescheduled drills could have cleared up a lot of blather.
Plus, we talked about the over two years of active duty the President had to put in to learn to fly the ANG jet he flew. A lot of draftees only put in two years period. Mr. Bush put in two then 4.5 more. And he flew a plane with a tainted rep as a tough bird to fly, too.
The more I read about Kerry, the more it seems obvious that he really stands for nothing. The words pompous windbag come to mind. His is a tale told by an idiot "full of sound and fury signifying nothing" (if I remember my Shakespeare).
The President pretty much nailed it with his gibe setting out the various contradictory positions taken by the Dems in the primaries- and each held by Kerry.
It's not good to be laughed at this soon.
The President pretty much nailed it with his gibe setting out the various contradictory positions taken by the Dems in the primaries- and each held by Kerry.
It's not good to be laughed at this soon.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Well, the Democrats have weeded out Gen. Clark and the "energizer" bunny Howard Dean. The adults left even earlier when Lieberman and Gephardt cashed in their chips. Now they have John Kerry and John Edwards.
Edwards is a sort of neighbor. He's probably a really nice guy. After a big snow storm, he once wandered through the neighborhood knocking on doors and seeing if the people inside the houses needed any help. Although he made his fortune taking 30-40% of the damages awarded to his clients, such is the system we have created. The trouble is that he has zip for experience in governing anything. As a Senator, he has gone AWOL in his representation of the people of NC. In the last couple of years he has been running for president instead of tending to the people's business. There is substantial doubt that he would be re-elected if he has decided to run.
Kerry is like some odd Vietnam post-traumatic stress flashback.
I'm amazed at how rapidly the memories of those confusing days come flooding back as the press covers his military and post military careers. To those of us who served in the Vietnam war during the "forgotten" years (after the majority of US ground troops were pulled out - 1972 in my case), we got to see the impact of what happens when a commitment is abandoned midstream.
The North Vietnamese Easter Offensive of 1972 (beaten back by incredible courage on the ground and enormous US air and seapower) was a precursor to the eventual successful invasion (where the US stood by and watched). Who could forget the horror of the South Vietnamese trying to escape what they knew was coming? I can see the pictures in my head of the US Embassy and the helicopters lifting off. And the helos being pushed off the decks of US ships as the fleeing Vietnamese made every effort to escape... And the effect on those who trusted the US but couldn't escape.
And now, Kerry, who pushed for us to break the commitment to the South Vietnamese, now pushes for us to break another commitment. He claims to have learned hard lessons in Vietnam, he seems to have learned nothing since about honoring promises made.
In fact, judging by the way he takes every possible side on the issues, he may not even understand what a commitment is...
Edwards is a sort of neighbor. He's probably a really nice guy. After a big snow storm, he once wandered through the neighborhood knocking on doors and seeing if the people inside the houses needed any help. Although he made his fortune taking 30-40% of the damages awarded to his clients, such is the system we have created. The trouble is that he has zip for experience in governing anything. As a Senator, he has gone AWOL in his representation of the people of NC. In the last couple of years he has been running for president instead of tending to the people's business. There is substantial doubt that he would be re-elected if he has decided to run.
Kerry is like some odd Vietnam post-traumatic stress flashback.
I'm amazed at how rapidly the memories of those confusing days come flooding back as the press covers his military and post military careers. To those of us who served in the Vietnam war during the "forgotten" years (after the majority of US ground troops were pulled out - 1972 in my case), we got to see the impact of what happens when a commitment is abandoned midstream.
The North Vietnamese Easter Offensive of 1972 (beaten back by incredible courage on the ground and enormous US air and seapower) was a precursor to the eventual successful invasion (where the US stood by and watched). Who could forget the horror of the South Vietnamese trying to escape what they knew was coming? I can see the pictures in my head of the US Embassy and the helicopters lifting off. And the helos being pushed off the decks of US ships as the fleeing Vietnamese made every effort to escape... And the effect on those who trusted the US but couldn't escape.
And now, Kerry, who pushed for us to break the commitment to the South Vietnamese, now pushes for us to break another commitment. He claims to have learned hard lessons in Vietnam, he seems to have learned nothing since about honoring promises made.
In fact, judging by the way he takes every possible side on the issues, he may not even understand what a commitment is...
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Why do people want General Wes Clark to be president?
After I read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal today, I'm not confused. They support him based on a complete misunderstanding of him and the role he played in, amoung other things, Kosovo.
The author of the piece in the Journal claims Clark was the heroic liberator of Kosovo and that peace descended on that troubled part of the world when NATO moved in. Wrong! Sure, Kosovo was freed from the Serbian-dominated government of Yugoslavia, but Clark nearly caused a needless confrontation with the Russians (after they outsmarted him by rolling rapidly down from Bosnia and taking over the airport) that British General Michael Jackson put a stop to. I think Jackson's words were to the effect that he was not going to "start World War III" for Clark.
Clark was surprised again when the Kosovar Albanians (KA's) flooded back into their homes following the cessation of hostilities. Surprised again by their anger toward the Kosovar Serbs (KS's) who remained behind. Surprised by the killings and reprisals wrought by the KA's.
The peace imposed in Kosovo is largely there because of a segregation of the KA's and KS's into geographic zones where they are kept apart by a surprisingly large number of NATO troops (including US troops who were supposed to be home by Christmas of 1999 or was it 2000?). As has happened in recent months, when given the chance, revenge killings will occur.
How can Clark be critical of the length of time it has taken to get Iraq on track when we still have forces in the Balkans...under his watch. What was his plan to have these troops withdraw and let the nation-builders take over?
Unbelievable. That's the gist of former JCS Chair Hugh Shelton's assessment of General Clark. I would think he was in a pretty good position to know.
So, to the WSJ guest columnist I can only suggest that he do some more research before singing these praises.
After I read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal today, I'm not confused. They support him based on a complete misunderstanding of him and the role he played in, amoung other things, Kosovo.
The author of the piece in the Journal claims Clark was the heroic liberator of Kosovo and that peace descended on that troubled part of the world when NATO moved in. Wrong! Sure, Kosovo was freed from the Serbian-dominated government of Yugoslavia, but Clark nearly caused a needless confrontation with the Russians (after they outsmarted him by rolling rapidly down from Bosnia and taking over the airport) that British General Michael Jackson put a stop to. I think Jackson's words were to the effect that he was not going to "start World War III" for Clark.
Clark was surprised again when the Kosovar Albanians (KA's) flooded back into their homes following the cessation of hostilities. Surprised again by their anger toward the Kosovar Serbs (KS's) who remained behind. Surprised by the killings and reprisals wrought by the KA's.
The peace imposed in Kosovo is largely there because of a segregation of the KA's and KS's into geographic zones where they are kept apart by a surprisingly large number of NATO troops (including US troops who were supposed to be home by Christmas of 1999 or was it 2000?). As has happened in recent months, when given the chance, revenge killings will occur.
How can Clark be critical of the length of time it has taken to get Iraq on track when we still have forces in the Balkans...under his watch. What was his plan to have these troops withdraw and let the nation-builders take over?
Unbelievable. That's the gist of former JCS Chair Hugh Shelton's assessment of General Clark. I would think he was in a pretty good position to know.
So, to the WSJ guest columnist I can only suggest that he do some more research before singing these praises.
Sen. Elizabeth Dole asserts that the Chinese are responsible for the loss of jobs in the US, especially in North Carolina, the state she represents. While economic statisitics don't support this, I want to encourage her to follow her logic to its conclusion. Every state in the United States that offers lower taxes or better incentives to business is also "stealing" business from North Carolina. She should attack them, too.
In fact, she should go after the state officials who have raised North Carolina's taxes causing businesses to by-pass the Old North State.
She won't. Bring back Smoot-Hawley. We probably deserve the depression we'll get if we can't elect Senators with some sense of how real world economics work.
In fact, she should go after the state officials who have raised North Carolina's taxes causing businesses to by-pass the Old North State.
She won't. Bring back Smoot-Hawley. We probably deserve the depression we'll get if we can't elect Senators with some sense of how real world economics work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)