Best of the Web Today - April 28, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
How Kerry Lost Vietnam
Those of our readers who support John Kerry's presidential bid are none too happy with the beating their man has taken this week over his shifting stories about his antiwar activity. Here are some excerpts of e-mails we've received:
"It is unbelievable that the Republicans would challenge Kerry, an authentic war hero (and ever more heroic when he returned in his opposition to the awful Vietnam War) when their man, a sting-pulling AWOL, makes believe he is in the military and dresses up as a Fly Boy (what could be more ridiculous? and what else does he dress up as?)."
"Please, please keep talking about Kerry's service in Vietnam. It's hilarious to see you twist and writhe to minimize his heroism."
"How many military medals did John Kerry throw away? Four more than George W. Bush ever earned with the Alabama Flying Mailsorters."
We guess we can understand why these folks are sore. Things are not going as planned for John Kerry. His Vietnam record was supposed to be his greatest asset, but instead it has turned into a political liability. Why did that happen? Here's our explanation:
He talked about Vietnam entirely too much. We noticed this way back in December 2002, when in an interview with Tim Russert he even managed to work Vietnam into an answer about capital punishment. The incessant repetition makes him seem either opportunistic (trying to exploit his service to further his political ambitions) or obsessive (unable to view Vietnam from a healthy distance even after more than three decades). Either interpretation raises questions about his ability to lead the country effectively today.
The adversarial press being what it is, Kerry's single-minded emphasis on his Vietnam experience also invites scrutiny of such matters as the questionable circumstances surrounding his first purple heart--blemishes on an otherwise honorable record.
He became an antiwar activist. Sure, lots of Americans ended up opposing the Vietnam War, but Kerry did so by becoming the respectable face of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group whose stock in trade was accusations that American servicemen had committed war crimes. These claims came in the form of "confessions" from men, some of whom turned out not even to be veterans--and Kerry repeated them in sworn testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971.
Kerry's involvement with VVAW has drawn attention to the group's most unsavory activities, such as a discussion of an assassination plot against pro-war senators that took place at a November 1971 meeting. Kerry played no part in that plot and might not even have attended the meeting, but inevitably a politician is judged by the company he keeps. By signing up with VVAW way back when, Kerry made it harder today to present himself as a war hero. Whereas veterans might ordinarily identify with one of their own, many are furious over what they see as his betrayal back in 1971.
He attacked his opponents for not serving. This didn't start with his response to Medalgate, in which for the first time he raised the tired old question of President Bush's National Guard attendance record. Here he is in Pittsburgh April 19: "I'm tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance. I'm not going to listen to them talk to me about patriotism." Such partisan demagoguery might have played well in the primaries, but it's unlikely to win over many wavering voters in the fall.
Is there anything Kerry can do to get himself out of this mess? Maybe. His war record ought to count to his credit, but he'd be better off talking much less about his own heroism in Vietnam and letting others make the case instead. Probably the best moment in his entire campaign came in Iowa, when Lt. James Rassmann thanked him for saving his life.
Kerry says Vietnam informs his views on foreign and military policy today. USA Today's Walter Shapiro "asked Kerry whether his dissenting view of the war, in contrast to Bush's seeming acceptance of the conflict, had larger implications for the 2004 campaign." The answer:
"I think it is very relevant," Kerry said, "because I think it says a lot of things about . . . what your perceptions are about events that are different from the way that public officials are telling you that they are, and the way that military people tell you they are. I think it tells you something about your willingness to stand up and fight for the principles you believe in and the lessons you learn. And I think that it tells a lot about the kind of leadership we need now in respect to Iraq and the war on terror."
Well, OK, but what does it tell us? It might be worthwhile for Kerry to give a speech explaining what lessons he learned from Vietnam and, crucially, how he would apply these to today's war. If he has any regrets about his actions as a VVAW spokesman, this would be the time to tell the country.
If presidential races were decided on the basis of who has the more impressive war record, Kerry would beat Bush. But they are not, or else Bill Clinton never would have defeated a pair of World War II heroes. For that matter, George McGovern served with distinction in World War II, but he didn't have what the country wanted 30 years later. If Kerry does not learn to run a forward-looking campaign, he will surely go the way of McGovern.
Spanish Charges in Sept. 11 Attack
"A Spanish judge has charged a fugitive Moroccan for involvement in planning the September 2001 attacks in the US," the BBC reports:
Judge Baltasar Garzon said that Amer Azizi helped to organise a meeting in Spain in July 2001 where key 9/11 plotters finalised their plans.
Mr Azizi fled Spain in November 2001 after several al-Qaeda suspects were arrested by the Spanish authorities.
According to "some reports," Azizi is also linked to the March 11 attacks last month in Madrid, "but this cannot be confirmed."
The Wrong Venue for Partisanship
"Former US first lady Hillary Clinton said the "stubborn" policies of President George W. Bush's administration were endangering stability in the Middle East," Agence France-Presse reports:
The New York Democrat senator told the London-based Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat that the Bush administration had not been "frank" with the American people concerning the human and financial costs in Iraq.
Clinton said the Bush administration did not have a plan for Iraq and did not have a full understanding of the situation there.
She said the United States was in trouble because it could not abandon Iraq, nor provide enough manpower to run the country, nor gather world allies willing to provide the necessary assistance for the gigantic task.
She described the Bush administration as "stubborn and arrogant" for refusing to admit its mistakes which were endangering US soldiers, Iraqis and stability in the Middle East.
Mrs. Clinton obviously has a perfect right to say whatever she wishes about the Bush administration, but is it really wise to advertise in the Arabic press her belief that the U.S. is in trouble?
This Just In
"Iraqis Not Celebrating Saddam's Birthday"--headline, Associated Press, April 28
Europe vs. International Law
Writing in National Review Online, Joshua Muravchik argues that Europe, by denouncing Israel for defending itself against the terror group Hamas, is not only acting in a morally craven fashion but defying international law:
Each of these European states is a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Unlike, say, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the genocide convention is a treaty, with the force of law. It is one of the oldest, and perhaps the most widely subscribed piece of international human-rights legislation, and arguably the one with the soundest legal foundation, codifying what the Nuremberg tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly in its very first session found to be existing customary law.
Article One of the convention obligates every party "to prevent and punish" genocide as "a crime under international law." The convention goes on to define genocide as, inter alia, "killing" intended "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."
Hamas seeks the destruction of the Jewish state, and its charter says it "regards itself the spearhead and the vanguard of the circle of struggle against World Zionism [and] the fight against the warmongering Jews." As Muravchik writes, this is "as clearly formulated a project of genocide as we have had since Mein Kampf."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scare and Scare Alike?
Check out these two sentences in a Reuters dispatch from Damascus:
Syrian security forces killed two terrorists and wounded two in a shootout after the group detonated a car bomb in the diplomatic quarter of Damascus, the state-run news agency SANA reported on Wednesday. . . .
The United States has accused Syria of sheltering "terrorists" and not doing enough to stop foreign fighters infiltrating from its territory into neighboring Iraq.
In Reuterville, it seems, the Syrian definition of terrorism is to be taken at face value, while the American definition must always be questioned--even though, according to the Jerusalem Post, a Syrian dissident group claims the Damascus attack was a fabrication.
Saudi Self-Destruction
Almost a year after the May 12 attacks on Riyadh, the Saudis are making only slow progress toward taking the terrorist threat seriously, argues Amir Taheri in the New York Post:
Until a month ago, it was nothing but "operations against deviants." Now Saudi officials use terms like "conflict" and "war." And after a suicide-bomb attack destroyed the security forces buildings in Riyadh earlier this month, Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz said, "We are waging war against evil-doers."
The problem, says Taheri, is that terrorists "are the ultimate products of a society in which religion, rather than being regarded as part of life, has become an obsession that engulfs the entire nation's existence":
From the moment they wake up until the moment they sleep, Saudis are bombarded with religion, with not a single day of respite. Every evening they watch television that sings the praises of martyrdom, which means killing some Israelis, Americans or, more recently, Iraqis in suicide attacks.
Saudi state TV now devotes long programs to the effects of terror attacks on the kingdom itself. It gives officials unrestricted air time to lament the attacks and to condemn "the evil doers."
But all such programs are immediately followed by others in which fire-eating preachers talk about "our Palestine," "the beauty of martyrdom" and the ugly soul of the Western powers. The 9/11 attacks and the suicide-murder of Israelis sitting in cafes or riding buses to work are presented with a mixture of admiration and awe. The criminals who are killing Iraqis in the name of Islam are presented as "fighters against occupation."
The Saudis won't be able to do their part against terrorism until they "realize that there is no good terrorism," Taheri writes. A fuzzy-minded view of terror imperils Arab lives as much as it does American, Israeli and European ones.
Those Must Be Some Ferocious Boxes
"Boxes Seized From Prosecutor Slay Suspect"--headline, Associated Press, April 26
Sacrifice on the Slopes
"The U.S. military is demanding the return of five howitzers that two Sierra Nevada ski resorts use to prevent avalanches--saying it needs the guns for the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," the Associated Press reports from Reno, Nev.:
Alpine Meadows and Mammoth Mountain received the artillery pieces on loan from the Army and began using them last year to fire rounds into mountainsides and knock snow loose before it poses an avalanche danger.
But the ski resorts received word earlier this month that the Army's Tank Automotive and Armaments Command at the Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois needs the howitzers back immediately.
Who says Americans aren't making enough sacrifices for the war effort? |
