February 16, 2004

Mark Steyn is Brutal

But on target:

Next to these deceptions [ed: he's referring to John Kerry and Max Cleland] — and self-deceptions — what are Dems hoping to pin on Mr. Bush? Thanks to John Kerry in his Hanoi Jane period, Vietnam was a disaster for America that gave the establishment a wholly irrational fear of almost every ramshackle Third World basket-case on the planet.
Look at what everyone from Arthur Schlesinger to Chris Matthews wrote about the "unconquerable" Afghans only two years ago. That defeatism was the Kerry legacy from the '70s: a terrified, Kerrified America. If he wants to fight Campaign 2004 on Vietnam, then, as he would say, bring it on.

I'll take anything written by Ann Coulter with a grain of salt - she's the Republican version of James Carville - and I don't have any knowledge of Max Cleland's Viet Nam service beyond the recent he-said/she-said that Coulter provoked, so I will not address that. But with Kerry, it's obvious to me that he is unfit to lead this nation, and the fact that he lies - there's no other word for it; misrepresents is too mild - his positions on Viet Nam and every war and defense program since is tragic in our current situation, because it means that we don't have a loyal opposition this year - and in war more than at any other time, we need one.

Posted by Jeff at February 16, 2004 09:48 AM | Link Cosmos
Comments

I'm curious to know exactly what about Vietnam is relevant today? Would someone please ask Mssr. Kerry? Vietnam was fought before I was born, Saigon fell exactly one year to the day before my birth.

There are three main lessons from Vietnam that I think have any relevance today. Number one, be wary of letting politicians run a war. Number two, maybe the draft isn't the best thing; how about an all-volunteer military? Number three, let's maintain our military strength, even in times of relative peace, so we are prepared when war begins. We should have learned THAT lesson before WWII and Korea.

Now, are any of these items the point of our current obsession over Vietnam? No, it's the candidates service? Yes, Kerry served valiantly; thank you for that. What's the point, though, really? Does it make him more qualified than George Bush? Bush didn't fight in the war, but he did fly fighter aircraft, a demanding and dangerous job. I might buy the argument that Kerry's combat experience would be an advantage, if it weren't for two factors. Number one, the wars of today are much different in the way they are fought than in Kerry's day. Number two, and most importantly, Bush has already been leading us, very successfully in the war on terror. He has the biggest advantage of all, real world experience in this exact job. Kerry's experience in 'Nam cannot trump that. If this were Bush's first run for the president, than the argument may have weight, but not anymore. All that matters now is what their stance regarding terrorism is going to be. We know Bush's; we've seen it in action. Mr. Kerry, what would you do - fight Vietnam again?

Posted by: Brian on February 16, 2004 07:45 PM
Post a comment