Bush's hometown newspaper endorses Kerry

As you've doubtless heard, the local newspaper of Bush's hometown of Crawford, TX, has endorsed Kerry for President. I was going to deconstruct the editorial in which the editorial board of the Lone Star Iconoclast presented its endorsement but I've decided to do something else.

On the way to work this morning I was listening to The Bob Rivers Show on the Seattle radio station KZOK (102.5 FM). They had a phone interview with W. Leon Smith, the editor of the paper. At least I'm pretty sure that was his name. There's a link to the interview in Windows Media format on the Bob Rivers Show website but it doesn't appear to be working right now or else I'd check for sure.

During the interview, there were three points which, taken together, led me to conclude that this guy had no credibility whatsoever. Again, as I can't listen to the replay I'll have to paraphrase.

First, he seemed to confuse the national debt and the deficit. He basically said that there was no debt before Bush took office. This may have been a simple mistake, and what he said after that indicates that it probably was. But what if it wasn't? This is a minor quibble. The others are much worse.

Second, he criticized President Bush's work ethic. He didn't give any details but I'm assuming he's referring to Bush taking working vacations at his Crawford ranch. Note the key word here: working. Just because he's not in the White House doesn't mean he's kicking back. And do you think Kerry is going to be any better? How many times has he attended meetings of the Senate Intelligence Committe, of which he is a member? (Answer: at most 24%) How many votes has he shown up for since he announced his candidacy? True, he does have to concentrate on the campaign but the people of Massachusetts hired him to do his job in the Senate and he should at least make an effort to be there part of the time. How many pieces of legislation have his name on them? As I recall, only a couple (although, based on your viewpoint, that's not necessarily a bad thing).

Third, like many critics of the President, he misinterpreted the First Amendment. He was complaining that people had written and called to criticize the editorial, and I think there was also something about contacting advertisers. Bob, who is a pretty sharp interviewer, called him on it and brought up the tried and true example of the Dixie Chicks. Leon backed off some but wasn't completely mollified.

I feel compelled to degress slightly here. The First Amendment basically means this:

• The Congress of the United States can't pass any laws infringing on your right to free speech. (The general interpretation is that state and local governments are similarly enjoined, although this is usually if not universally incorporated into state constitutions.)


• Neither the government nor anyone else is obligated to facilitate your speech.


• How people react to what you say, provided they don't break the law, is entirely your problem. In fact, that reaction is likely speech protected under the First Amendment.

The impression that I got from the way Bob ended the interview and the comments he and the other members of the show made afterward was that they weren't very impressed with W. Leon Smith. I certainly wasn't.

Oh, what the hell. I'll go ahead and address some of the statements made in the editorial.

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:
• Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
• Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.
• Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
• Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
• Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
• Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
• Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

I can't speak directly to the accusation regarding Social Security except to say that borrowing against the Social Security fund is not an invention of the Bush Administration. Also, remember, the President doesn't set fiscal policy, the Congress does. The editorial also criticizes Bush's plan to privatize Social Security at least partially. Let's just say that experts' opinions differ on whether or not that's a good thing. I tend to think it is, but I'm not an expert. I'm willing to bet that none of the Iconoclast's editorial board are experts either.

What I know about Medicare is that a huge prescription drug benefit was passed by Congress and signed by the President. I also refer you this article at FactCheck.org which states, in part:

Indeed, most seniors stand to gain a good deal financially from the measure. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, the average drug bill for seniors is expected to be $3,160 in the year 2006, when the new drug benefit will go into effect. The new benefit will pay more than half of that, and even after deducting an estimated $35 per month in premiums to purchase the coverage, seniors with that average drug bill will be $1,080 ahead.

To be fair, it does also say:

For those with roughly $800 or less in drug costs the benefit won’t equal the costs of premiums, deductibles and co-payments, though seniors will still have the comfort of being protected should their drug costs unexpectedly rise. And an unknown number of low-income persons who now get prescription drug benefits through the state-federal Medicaid program may end up paying more when they are shifted to the new Medicare benefit.

I don't know if that qualifies as cutting Medicare by 17 percent.

As for veterans benefits, I again turn to a FactCheck.org article on the subject:

It is true that Bush is not seeking as big an increase for next year as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wanted. It is also true that the administration has tried to slow the growth of spending for veterans by not giving new benefits to some middle-income vets.

Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.

The conclusion:

All this means Bush can fairly be accused of trying to hold down the rapid growth in spending for veterans benefits -- particularly those sought by middle-income vets with no service-connected disability. But saying he cut the budget is contrary to fact.

And as for cuts in military pay, what I found had to do with cuts that would come as a result of the expiration of pay increases. In other words, it would return the pay to the level it was before. Yes, it's a cut, but it would be the result of not extending the pay increase.

Regarding overtime pay, once again it's time to dip into the treasure chest at FactCheck.org:

The latest TV ad from the Moveon.org Voter Fund says "George Bush wants to eliminate overtime pay for 8 million workers," referring to new overtime rules that the Department of Labor has proposed. The 8-million figure (hotly denied by the Bush administration, of course) comes from a study by the labor-funded Economic Policy Institute.

The ad misquotes the study, however. What the study actually says is that an estimated 8 million would lose the legal right to premium overtime rates should they work more than 40 hours per week. It does not say they would actually lose pay as the ad says. In fact, the 8-million figure is inflated by many part-time workers who never get overtime work, or overtime pay, even though they now have the right to it.

The truth is that some would lose, some would gain. The article explains it in more detail.

In response to the claim about oil prices, I'll take this one off the top of my head. Oil prices have gone up due to uncertainty in the Middle East, certainly, but that's not the only reason. The strategic petroleum reserve is being filled and there are also problems having to do with a shortage of refineries that affect gasoline prices. As with the overall economy, there's more to the price of oil than just the president's actions.

Now to outsourcing of jobs. FactCheck.org has this to say in this article:

There is indeed a tax break for US-based multinational corporations to locate operations overseas. Bush isn't to blame for it -- it's been there for decades. It's also true that Bush doesn't support Kerry's proposed remedy, which is controversial.

And later:

Economic analysts say offshoring is a fairly small problem, and Kerry's tax proposal won't do much to solve it.

Read the rest. The end result is that Bush isn't responsible for this "problem." And don't forget all the jobs that are "insourced" by foreign companies employing Americans for the operations they have in this country. For example, many Japanese cars are built in America by American workers.

Regarding the accusation about government contracts without bids, this is not the first time that's been done. Could it be that Halliburton was simply the best choice for the job? And it's not like they're making a huge profit either. From FactCheck.org once again:

(I)nvestigators from the General Accounting Office (GAO) found Halliburton's no-bid contracts to be legal and probably justified by the Pentagon's wartime needs. Furthermore, Pentagon auditors have yet to make any final determination of whether payment should be denied to Halliburton for gasoline or meals for troops. Those billing disputes are still being negotiated.

What about Cheney's connection to Halliburton? There are two connections he retains. The first is that he receives a deferred salary. This is not affected at all by Halliburton's performance. It's salary he has already earned; they're just paying him on the installment plan. The second is that he still has some stock options. He has consigned all profits from the sale of those options to charity. From the followup article at FactCheck.org:

And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education, a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

I don't know about you but I'm satisfied. If you think about it, we should be rooting for Halliburton's success so that these charities will receive a greater donation.

As for the war, they bring out the same old tired canards about how there are no WMD's (even though we've found some and just about everybody, Democrats included, were saying that he had them) and how there were no ties between Iraq and terrorists (although those ties are well-documented). They say that Kerry's plan is a good one but I think that Kerry is on crack if he thinks that he can get countries like France and Germany to help out in Iraq. France at least has stated unequivocally that it will not help in Iraq. Period. Most of the other points in Kerry's plan are things the current administration is already doing.

Finally there's the item regarding the deficit and the debt. I posit that the recession that Bush inherited and the September 11 attacks had as much to do with this, if not more, than any of the President's policies. Yes, the war in Iraq is expensive. War always is. Our deficit is certainly not the largest in relation to GDP that we've ever had. And I doubt Kerry's policies would really eliminate the deficit, not when he's proposing to implement socialized medicine at astronomical cost. I've certainly not shied away from criticizing the President on his spending, but I believe Kerry would be far worse.

I'm not saying that none of the concerns of the Iconoclast's publishers and editors are valid, but for a lot of them they seem to be parrotting the views of the left rather than researching them for themselves. They have the right to endorse whoever they want and if they want to endorse Kerry, that's fine. All I've hoped to show by this is that you may not want to give as much weight to that endorsement as you initially would.

New infantry rifle?

According to the GeekWithA.45, it looks like a new primary battle rifle, with several variants, will be on its way to our soldiers in the next couple years:

It's going to be the XM-8, in 6.8 Remington, fielded in large numbers starting in 2006.

Now I'm no expert but no less an authority than the ever-irascible Kim du Toit has been calling for the switch to a more powerful round for some time. The evidence I've read indicates that the 5.56 round just isn't powerful enough for today's battlefield. As I understand it, the ostensible reasons for selecting that round in the first place were weight and recoil. But since then there has been a lot of evidence that it just doesn't have enough punch to deal with what our soldiers are facing nowadays in Iraq and elsewhere.

As noted in the page the Geek links to, the XM-8 was originally chambered for the 5.56 round but chambering it for the 6.8 Remington won't be a problem. The 6.8 is just a bit longer than the 5.56 and no modifications to existing magazines is required. As mentioned in the Geek's post, it should also be possible to manufacture M-16 and M-4 upper receivers for the 6.8 since the lowers and magazines will all work just fine. (Again, I'm no expert, but it seems to me that replacing the entire upper might not even be necessary. The bolt assembly and barrel might be all that's required.)

There is at least one potential issue however. As a friend of mine commented when I told him about this, switching to the new cartridge would result in deviation from the established NATO standards. We'll have to wait and see how that shakes out. I'll definitely keep my eyes and ears open for any additional information on this. In my opinion, however, the safety of our troops is the paramount concern and this round will definitely be more effective without adding much weight or recoil.

The Pajamahadeen

Kevin over at Smallest Minority provides the first instance of the word "pajamahadeen" that I've seen along with its definition in his response to an ignorant GFW:

I'm one of the "pajamahadeen" Mr. Aleshire, one of the bloggers who fact-check and expose the bias and outright lies of the "old media." Your peice, and this rebuttal, are now up on my site where about 400 people a day will see it - and will pass it on to others. There's a lot of us "gunbloggers" out there. Together, we have quite a readership!

Googling for the word shows that this is far from the first use of the word. It looks like this is where the word was originally coined, at least according to this post.

I wonder if there are any formal requirements for membership....

Words cannot describe

how upset I am over this.

Two survivors and the families of six slain victims of the 2002 sniper shootings have reached a $2.5 million settlement with the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle used during the attacks and the gun shop from which it had been stolen.

Bushmaster did nothing wrong. They manufactured and sold a legal product that was not defective, not to mention one of the most heavily regulated products of all.

The victims' attorneys said yesterday that it was the first time a gunmaker has paid damages for crimes committed with its weapons. The manufacturer, Bushmaster Firearms Inc. of Windham, Maine, "paid damages for negligence leading to the criminal use of a gun," said the victims' co-counsel, Dennis Henigan.

"That's why it's a breakthrough of lasting significance," said Henigan, who also is legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is based in the District.

The Brady Campaign (formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.) has as its ultimate goal nothing less than the complete disarmament of the US citizenry, which would leave us all at the mercy of armed criminals and, more importantly, our government should it turn tyrannical. This is just one front in their war on our rights. They work to promote legislation that would result in registration and, ultimately, confiscation. They also, as shown in this case, are working to bankrupt the firearms industry.

I'm not convinced that Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, where the rifle used by the DC snipers was stolen from, is entirely blameless. They did not keep proper records, didn't notice that the Bushmaster had been stolen, and didn't properly account for several other guns. However, as the article states:

(Seattle lawyer David L.) Martin said poor paperwork and accounting within the store made it seem that many more guns were missing than actually were. "We have accounted for most if not all of the weapons," he said.

The main concern is that it sets a precedent. A company that has absolutely no culpability whatsoever has paid money to victims of criminals who bear complete responsibility for their own actions. This is wrong. It is, quite simply, a travesty of justice.

A more immediate climatological problem

I'm referring to the climate of fear described in the linked post as:

Many Republicans are afraid to put Bush-Cheney bumper stickers on their cars or signs on their lawns because they are afraid of physical retaliation from angry liberals.

(Emphasis in original)

I've seen it myself, as described in my Bush/Cheney Sign Watch series of posts. In fact, there's more in that saga. The sign, and the smaller signs decrying vandalism, were recently brutally destroyed once again. They have been replaced with a new lone Bush/Cheney sign that appears to be of the hand-made variety. It has survived a few days so far but we'll see how long it lasts.

I have not observed any instances of vandalism to cars or property, just the signs themselves. Yet I still wonder how well my car would fare if I were to put a bumper sticker on it showing support for Bush. I contemplate replying to slogans on bumper stickers that support Kerry or are critical of Bush with some sort of flyer, but I would never consider defacing the sticker or otherwise damaging the car.

I'm not saying all Democrats will do this. The vast majority of them are decent people who respect the law and other people's rights. It's unfortunate that this vocal and violent minority is out there casting the entire left in a bad light.

Dan Rather, Marine

This article at FrontPage magazine is an opinion piece that purports to show the pattern of behavior that led to Dan Rather's most recent hoisting-by-his-own-petard involving the forged Bush National Guard documents. I really can't comment on a lot of it as I am certainly no expert on Dan Rather's life and career. I do want to say something about this excerpt, however:

In 1953, Rather graduated with a degree in journalism from Sam Houston State Teachers College. He had already been working for Associated Press and then United Press International and a few radio stations as a “stringer” reporting stories that happened in Huntsville north of Houston. But being in college gave Rather a semester-by-semester student deferment from being drafted into the Korean War.

After Rather graduated, “the way he got around being eligible for the draft was he joined a reserve unit – Army reserve,” wrote B.G. Burkett, co-author of the book Stolen Valor. Rather dropped out of the reserves as soon as the Korean War ended in armistice. Whether Rather used journalist or related politician connections to get into the Army reserves, as he would later accuse President George W. Bush of doing in the Texas Air National Guard, is unknown.

Former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg in his 2002 best-seller Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News described a confrontation with the anchorman: “Rather’s voice started quivering, and he told me how in his young days, he had signed up with the Marines – not once, but twice!”

This was inaccurate. Rather signed up once with the Army reserves and once with the U.S. Marines. Rather, wrote Burkett after studying his military record, “was discharged less than four months later on May 11, 1954 for being medically unfit… He couldn’t do the physical activity.” As a boy, Rather “had suffered from rheumatic fever,” reported veteran UPI journalist Wes Vernon.

Ever since Dan Rather has described himself as a former U.S. Marine, after spending roughly the same amount of time in Marine Corps training before being rejected that now-Senator John F. Kerry spent in Vietnam. “This,” wrote Burkett, “is like a guy who flunks out of Harvard running around saying he went to Harvard.”

The key point here is that Rather voluntarily signed up with the Marines. When he was discharged, it was for medical reasons, not because he changed his mind or otherwise desired to leave. As such, I say he deserves the title of former U.S. Marine. I have a friend who enlisted in the Marines. It was what he wanted more than anything else. Unfortunately, during basic training, a medical condition with his feet was uncovered and he was medically discharged. He was honorarily granted rank (can't remember what rank, it may have been as high as Corporal) and honorably discharged. He, too, is a former U.S. Marine.

Whatever you believe about Rather's behavior and ethics as a reporter, the fact remains that he enlisted in the Marines and left involuntarily. I respect him for that, if for nothing else.

Quotes of the day (with commentary)

From today's Federalist brief:

"We confront a dangerous enemy and it is one which would count the loss of our own freedom as one of its most prized victims. Once more we as a country are called to rise to the challenge in the same way our forefathers were at Lexington, Gettysburg and Normandy Beach, fighting for freedom and liberty -- no doubt most were fortified by a belief in a God who is demanding yet just and merciful. Only time will tell if we are truly prepared to grapple with an enemy driven by the fervently held view of a vengeful, unmerciful Allah, who demands total submission of 'unbelievers,' particularly Christians and Jews." --Paul Weyrich

We must not let our freedoms and liberty be sacrificed for any cause, regardless of which party you support.

"[T]he blogosphere isn't just a challenge to journalism in its currently stagnant state, but a potential boon to problem-solving of a higher order. The beauty of the blogosphere is that it is self-igniting, self-propelling and self-selecting, a sort of intellectual ecosystem wherein the best specimens from various disciplines descend from the ethers, converge on an issue and apply their unique talents. Though virtually newborn, the blogosphere has blossomed exponentially in a matter of Earth-time seconds, from a few random voices to a mighty and diverse chorus of sometimes spectacular talent. Bloggers are the Big Bang of the Information Age." --Kathleen Parker

The "blogosphere" has, given its role in the recent dustup with CBS and Dan Rather, been characterized as a form of distributed information gathering and analysis. I think that's a pretty fair comparison. It may not be very efficient when looking at the average "node" but it's so big that it more than makes up for that in its sheer computing power.

"As I have said time and again, 9/11 changed everything. Everything, that is, except the national Democrats' shameful, manic obsession with bringing down a commander-in-chief. John Kerry has been wrong many times, but he's never been more wrong than in his failure to support our troops and our commander in chief in this war on terror. So, my critics can call me a psychopath and fire spitballs at me and froth at the mouth when an ex-president sends me a nasty letter. That's the freedom of speech they all enjoy, courtesy of the American soldier." --Zell Miller

No comment necessary.

"Do you know Congress reported that the deficit for this year is going to hit a record high $443 billion? Now, that pile of red ink is going to be dumped on top of a record $7.5 trillion national debt. And that is a debt that's built on backstabbing, political lies, and Enron-style accounting. You know, 10 years ago, my friends and I ran for Congress to change the way Washington worked. And for a few years, we were the barbarians at the gates of an imperial Congress and we threatened to change that culture forever. But you know what, friends? The sad truth is that Washington won. Washington always wins. And those same barbarians turned into the palace guards, drunk with power and indistinguishable from those people they hoped to replace. And you know what? In the process, the party of Reagan became the party of big government, as it became harder to tell any difference between Capitol Hill Republicans and Capitol Hill Democrats. Why? Because, in the end, most seem more interested in keeping power there than in saving America." --Joe Scarborough

I've made no secret that I think Bush is not pushing enough (if at all) for reduced government spending. Even though the deficit is pretty low, historically speaking, as a percentage of GDP, we still need to get it under control and balance the budget. After 9/11 some additional spending was required, and the war effort needs to be supported for as long as it takes. The government just needs to stop spending so much on stuff that isn't really its job anyway.

"Terrorists don't care who you are, or where you come from, with whom you're aligned, or not aligned. Terrorists have killed rich and poor, those who represent countries fighting terrorists and many more who want nothing to do with terrorists. It doesn't matter. Neutrality doesn't protect them. Wealth doesn't save them. They are all targets. We are all targets. It's hard to think about making money when you're burying a son or a daughter, a mom or a dad. No, saying 'it's the economy, stupid' is like shouting to the world that you really are stupid. I'm happy more of the jobless are finding jobs. I'd just be a lot happier if more of the terrorists were losing theirs." --Neil Cavuto

The economy is important, but it's really something that the government has a lot less control over than a lot of people think. The best thing the government can do is get out of the way and let the economy grow on its own.

The following is a reader comment that was included in the brief:

"Now that the sun has set on the so-called 'Assault Weapon' ban, it is time to reconsider how we look at 'Homeland Security'! If all law-abiding citizens were encouraged to train in the use of, and carry firearms, as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, we would experience a higher degree of security against foreign enemies, and as a bonus, have domestic criminals seriously considering another line of work!" --Black Hawk, South Dakota

Amen, brother.

What, you're still here?

That's what I wish the US would say to the Kofi Annan and the entire UN. Why we're still a member of this corrupt organization, and why we allow them to reside on US soil, are beyond me. Well, not really. Despite the disingenuous cries of "unilateralism," I'd say our continued membership in the UN serves to at least partially assuage the ravages of world opinion. If we up and quit, and told them to get the hell out, the backlash from the rest of the world may prove to be rather discomfitting.

Still, when I read stuff like this (tip o' the hat to Misha), I just wish the Congress would say to hell with it and present an eviction notice to that large building in New York.

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without U.N. approval and much broader support from the international community," he said in an interview with the BBC World Service.

I refer you to the 30 plus countries that are helping us out in Iraq. True, not all are combatants, but they are there now. And I'll say it again: I'm sure Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, etc. are surprised to learn that the US did it all by itself. In Kofi's world, "unilateral" means "without the assistance of France and Germany."

The U.N. Charter allows nations to take military action with Security Council approval as an explicit enforcement action, such as during the Korean War and the 1991 Gulf War.

Yes, I'm sure the US-led campaign in Iraq was the only time a member nation has taken military action against another nation without Security Council approval.

But in 2003, in the build-up to the Iraq war, the United States dropped an attempt to get a Security Council resolution approving the invasion when it became apparent it would not pass.

At the time, Annan had underlined the lack of legitimacy for a war without U.N. approval, saying: "If the United States and others were to go outside the Security Council and take unilateral action they would not be in conformity with the Charter."

There was absolutely no way that the Security Council was ever going to sign off on the campaign. It just wasn't going to happen, despite numerous UN resolutions that effectively required the UN to take military action against Iraq. I guess it just shows how good the word of the UN actually is.

After talking about doubts that security conditions in Iraq would allow the elections currently scheduled for January 31, 2005, to take place, the article concludes:

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, all but ruled out any delay beyond the Jan. 31 deadline for elections in Iraq's interim constitution.

"Let there be no doubt: we are committed to this timetable," he told council members Tuesday.

I'm not going to guarantee that elections will be held on that date. In war, nothing goes entirely as planned, and Iraq is certainly no exception. But I will guarantee that elections will be held, even if they end up being delayed a while. The goal is to have a political system in Iraq that is at least somewhat close to a democracy (with variances that take into account the reality of the culture) and a government that has been elected by the people. We're deliberately trying to infect the area with perhaps the biggest meme of all, liberty. Yeah, it sounds grandiose, and perhaps it really is. But I think it's our best hope for a true and lasting peace.

Compendium

A good rundown of the evidence that the documents presented by CBS and 60 Minutes which purport to shoe that Bush received special treatment in the TXANG are forgeries can be found in this post at QandO.

In order for these documents to be authentic, so many unlikely things would have had to happen (not least would be the use of a very expensive typewriter/typesetter) that the odds against it are astronomical. I'm convinced they are forgeries.

This brings up an interesting phenomenon that happens when people feel strongly about something. When presented with evidence that undermines your position, you tend to dismiss it or subject it to very close scrutiny, looking for indications that the evidence is fraudulent. If such indications are found, you tend to accept them without necessarily subjecting them to the same level of scrutiny.

Similarly, when presented with evidence that supports your position, you tend to accept that evidence without subjecting it to the same scrutiny as evidence that undermines your position receives. If there are indications that the evidence is fraudulent, you tend to dismiss it or attempt to provide counter-arguments that the evidence is indeed legitimate.

Both of these happened in this case. The left trumpeted these documents as the smoking gun of Bush's special treatment in the TXANG and accepted them as truth. The right smelled something fishy and took a closer look. When they found considerable evidence that these documents are fraudulent, the left attempted to find ways to discredit that evidence and went to ridiculous extremes to do it. This time, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence (in my opinion) is on the side of the documents being forged. If the positions of the left and right had been reversed (i.e. documents purporting to prove that Kerry didn't deserve his Purple Hearts but which turn out to have been likely forged), then I think you would have seen the exact same thing in reverse.

About the forged documents

Chances are, if you're reading this you've already heard about the documents that Dan Rather and CBS presented on 60 Minutes II which purported to show that Bush received preferential treatment in the National Guard. In my opinion, based on the information I've read so far, these documents are certainly forgeries which were created on a computer. I'm not going to link to all the other bloggers who have posted about this; just click a few links in my blogroll (QandO is a good place to start) and just scroll down.

I do want to address one thing, though. Charles at LGF showed that, if you write one of the documents in Word with the default settings, the spacing and line breaks are identical with the one released by CBS. There was one discrepancy, however, and that had to do with the superscript 'th' which was different in position. When he printed out the document, it looked identical to the CBS document and he chalked it up to the difference between screen and printer fonts.

Having some small expertise in this area (I once did tech support for a major desktop publishing application and fonts was a big support area), I would like to address just why this happens. On a computer (a PC or Mac), you have two different types of fonts in common use. The first is a TrueType font and the second is a PostScript font. These fonts are referred to as "soft" fonts as they are capable of being rendered on the screen by software and downloaded to the printer (depending on the model) for it to use. This is as opposed to fonts built into the printer's ROM, known as built-in fonts or hardware fonts. In the case of Macs and PC's, the software is built into the operating system. The TrueType font technology was licensed to Microsoft by Apple. The PostScript font technology is licensed to Microsoft, and I'm assuming to Apple as well, by Adobe which created PostScript. Prior to Windows 2000, PostScript fonts would only display on the screen through the use of a program called Adobe Type Manager (or ATM). The ATM technology was licensed to MS for Windows 2000 and Windows XP so separate software is no longer needed. In fact, the most recent font format from MS (and I think Macs can use them as well) is called OpenType and is a soft font that includes the font in both TrueType and PostScript formats.

When printing a document that uses a soft font, one of several things can happen depending on what kind of soft font is being used, how the printer driver is configured, and what kind of printer is being doing the printing:

TrueType font

• The font is converted to a PCL soft font when printing to a PCL printer (like many HP Laserjet models, and I think some inkjet printers now as well) and downloaded to the printer. This is done by the OS's font renderer and/or the printer driver.


• The font is converted to a PostScript Type 1 soft font when printing to a PostScript printer and downloaded.


• The font is downloaded to the printer in TrueType format, if the printer supports it.


• The text is converted into bitmap information when printing to printers that don't support downloading fonts (inkjet and dot matrix printers).


• A font that is built into the printer's ROM is substituted for the TrueType font in order to improve performance and reduce the amount of data being sent to the printer.

PostScript font

• I'm not as sure about this one. As I recall, when printing to a non-PostScript printer, regardless of type, the font was converted to bitmap information. Prior to Windows 2000, this required ATM. Windows 2000 and later have that part of ATM built-in.


• When printing to a PostScript printer, the font is just downloaded as is as it's already in the Type 1 format.


• A font that is built into the printer's ROM is substituted for the TrueType font in order to improve performance and reduce the amount of data being sent to the printer.

OpenType font

• As this font format includes both TrueType and PostScript fonts in the same font file, I would guess that the OS decides which of the scenarios above makes the most sense depending on the type of printer.

When the font is substituted with a built-in printer font, the font that is actually used is determined by a table that is included with the printer driver. This behavior can be overridden and the table itself can be modifed by an advanced user.
This is most likely what caused the discrepancy between the screen and printed document that Charles noticed. The font used on the computer was probably Times New Roman and the font that was substituted was Times or Times Roman, or some other variant of Times. Since typefaces are copyrighted, variations from different manufacturers must differ from the original in at least a small way. Arial, for example, is a TrueType font included with Windows since Windows 3.1. It's basically the same as the Adobe typeface Helvetica and, when a document using Arial is printed to a PostScript printer, Helvetica is usually substituted for it since all PostScript printers include Helvetica in ROM.

This is a bit simplified given that I don't want to put you all to sleep and also that it's been over ten years since I worked in that tech support job. A few years ago I did print testing for a Windows application, but I didn't get all that deep into the mechanics. I just made sure it printed correctly to a wide variety of printers and with a wide variety of TrueType, PostScript, and OpenType fonts.

Five days and counting...

More like 4.5 days. Unless something dramatic happens in the House and Senate, Tuesday, September 14, will be the first day that the so-called Assault Weapons Ban will no longer be in effect.

I own three high-capacity magazines for my Glock 19 pistol. They are legal because they were manufactured before the ban went into effect. I paid a hundred bucks for each of them. When the ban expires, new magazines will be available for about twenty bucks each. Some places are already taking orders and will ship them on or after the 14th. This means that I will lose at least 240 dollars in value, as they will be worth less than new ones since they're used.

You know what? I'll be glad to do it. Not having that constitutionally repugnant law on the books will be cheap at the price.

For regular updates on the status of the AWB, monitor Walking the Walls, a blog set up by GeekWithA.45 and others and which, incidentally, is using the same base template as I now am.

Here we go again...

Once again, the question of whether or not Bush satisfied his service requirements in the National Guard is being raised.

First of all, it doesn't matter whether or not he fulfilled his requirements, for one very good reason: He is not using his service in the National Guard as a qualification, central or otherwise, to serve as President of the United States.

Kerry is using his Viet Nam service as the centerpiece of his campaign so it is entirely legitimate to question the verity of his accounts of that service when significant doubt exists. I won't go into whether or not those who allege those accounts are not the truth as it has already been more than adequately addressed by myself and others.

While it is legitimate to question Bush's service if significant doubts exist, it makes much less of a difference for the reason given above. However, if you do so, you must accept the questioning of Kerry's service as well.

With thanks to Neal Boortz, I would like to present a link to an article that summarizes Bush's National Guard service:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

The article goes on to detail his service, and the number of points he earned each year, until the period of time that has come under scrutiny. After going over the known facts about that period of time, the author concludes with:

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

Go read the whole thing, it's not all that long.

The author also brings up the point, mentioned here and elsewhere, that Kerry has personally questioned Bush's service while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry's. Bush even went so far as to state that Kerry's service was "more honorable" than his own.

One issue that I've seen raised over Bush's service was not over whether or not he earned enough points, but whether or not some of the points he earned were valid. It has to do with timing with regard to the dates by which Bush had to show up for training. Since he was in Alabama at the time, he had to show up for alternate training at a base near his location within a certain amount of time before and after his scheduled training date. There is some question of whether or not he met those deadlines. The author of the article doesn't address this and I don't know whether or not those allegations are true. I've looked at some of the information presented at this site, which takes an in-depth look at Bush's military files and it does appear that there is at least some basis in fact for the allegations. Even if they are true, the fact is still that Bush put in enough time to accumuluate sufficient points for six years and, when he left with an honorable discharge, it was during a time where he was superfluous anyway.

New look

Since I just passed my one-year blogiversary (or is it blogoversary?) I decided to redo the blog with a new template. The previous one was something I downloaded from somewhere. The new template is one of those offered by Blogger. I've tweaked it a bit, and will probably tweak it some more but I think it looks a lot nicer than that drab brown and red color scheme I had before. Plus the template code is laid out a lot nicer and is easier to work with.

What do you think?

Bush/Cheney sign watch: and the story continuums

(Bonus points for anyone who gets the reference in the post title)

I didn't post about it but the sign got whacked again a few days ago. It was replaced with another of the hand-made signs. There are also a couple of the same Bush/Cheney signs on the main street near my house that have been similarly whacked or spray painted.

On the way to work this morning I saw a couple of guys working to replace the sign which had been whacked yet again. They had also put up a small sign sticking off to the side of the big one that says "No to vandalism." I honked my horn as I passed (at about 5 mph as traffic sucked) and gave them a thumbs-up.

They say dissent is patriotic. I agree that principled dissent surely is. However, vandalism is not dissent; it is criminal behavior. These particular acts of vandalism are aimed at preventing the exercise of free speech and therefore I consider such behavior patently unpatriotic. It is thuggery, plain and simple.

Putting on my conspiracy hat

Kerry seems to be doing a lot of things that seem not to be helping with his campaign. His reaction to the Swiftvets, his obvious flip-flopping on the Iraq war, his midnight tirade against the Republicans after Bush's acceptance speech. I'm wondering if Kerry is subtly or not-so-subtly trying to throw the election. Oh, I know it's extremely unlikely but it's still entertaining to consider the possibility. If it is true, then why is he doing it? I can think of a couple reasons:

1. He doesn't really want the job.


2. He's doing it because it serves the greater overall strategy of the Democratic party.

If it's the latter, than there's one possibility that immediately comes to mind for just what that strategy is: installing Hillary in the White House in 2008. Neal Boortz has long indicated his belief that the Clintons will sabotage the Kerry campaign for this reason. Here's the breakdown:

Scenario 1: Kerry loses in November.
If this happens, Hillary can run in 2008 and won't be facing an incumbent. Under this scenario, Hillary runs at the earliest opportunity while keeping her promise to serve the entirety of her first Senate term.

Scenario 2: Kerry wins in November.
If this happens, he will run again in 2008 as the incumbent. Hillary's run will be postponed until at least 2012.

Scenario 2.1: Kerry wins in 2008.
Under this scenario, Edwards would probably be the nominee in 2012, pushing Hillary's run out to 2016 if he loses or probably 2020 if he wins.

Scenario 2.2: Kerry loses in 2008.
Hillary could run in 2012 but she would likely be facing an incumbent Republican.

As you can see, the only way Hillary runs before 2012, and the only way that she won't likely face an incumbent Republican before 2016, is if Kerry loses in November and Hillary runs in 2008.

Like I said, this isn't likely; it's more an exercise in speculation. But you never know....

This is why

Here I will lay out many of the reasons I will be voting the way I will. Some of this is redundant with earlier posts but I wanted to lay it out here in a single post.

Why can I not, in good conscience, vote for Kerry? I don't trust him. I can't expect him to make a decision and not change his mind because it's politically convenient. I don't trust him to protect this country. I don't trust him not to subjugate our military to the will of the United Nations, an organization that has been shown to be corrupt. He doesn't even know if he's for or against the war in Iraq. The latest is that he would probably have done it, but he would have done it differently. Just how he would have done it differently is left as an exercise for the listener. Besides, it's irrelevant. The only way it matters is if we turn back time, create an alternate universe where he was president and watch what happens. What matters is what he will do going forward. He and the Democrats don't even know the meaning of the word unilaterally; they're perpetuating the lie that we went into Iraq alone and that 30-plus countries don't have personnel there right now helping out. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Poland, and all the rest are there, not because we coerced them to be, but because they want to be. Kerry and the Democrats denigrate our real allies every time they try to tell us otherwise.

I don't believe he is a man of good character. How does he handle the allegations of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth? Instead of ignoring them and not dignifying them with a response, instead of simply refuting their claims with credible evidence, he sends his legal attack dogs out to try to shut them up. He and his campaign claim that SBVT is connected to the Bush campaign, and cite the example of Benjamin Ginsberg, while ignoring the numerous, and closer, ties he and his campaign have with their 527 supporters like MoveOn.org, Media Fund, and others. And what about that photo op involving poor Max Cleland? He totally exploited Cleland's disability when he sendt the man, in his wheelchair, up to the Crawford ranch with a letter demanding that Bush denounce the SBVT. When he was met at the gate by another veteran, with a letter criticizing Kerry for his anti-war activities after returning from Viet Nam, he refused to exchange the letters. What a lame stunt.

He wants to reduce the cost of health care. But he has chosen as his running mate a man who, along with the others in his profession, are the principle cause of those costs being so high. You think he's going to push for medical liability reform? I sure don't. Instead, he wants to implement socialized health care, turn our health care system into an inefficient, bloated bureacracy, and replicate the problems that have plagued socialized health care systems in other countries (such as the thousands who died in the French summer heat last year because of all the health-care workers on mandatory vacation). And he wants to spend over two trillion dollars to do it! No thanks. Right now we have the best health care in the world and, even if you can't pay, you can still get at least emergency care (Techno-Literary-Geekette, who works in health care, agrees with that statement). I don't want the government (i.e. the taxpayers) paying for everyone's health care. I would rather pay for it myself, and have private charities provide for those that can't. Health care is not a right, it's a product. I know that sounds cold, but it's true. Yes, it is deserving of a special distinction. But I'd rather donate to charity (and I do donate to United Way at the leadership level) than have the government take my income by force. At least that way it's my choice.

I believe that, given the chance, Kerry would make a mockery of the Second Amendment. Those who know me know that this is an important issue for me. He may say he supports the right to have guns for hunting, complete with photos of him engaging in that activity, but it's not about hunting and it never was. It's about defending yourself and others from violent criminals. It's about defending your country from foreign invaders. And it's about defending us all from a tyrannical governmnet. The right enumerated in the Second Amendment is the one that guarantees all the other rights listed in the Constitution. That is why I am armed citizen.

And finally, Mr. Kerry, I can't vote for you because of how you betrayed every American soldier who served in Viet Nam by telling bald-faced lies about them, under oath, in front of the Senate. You recounted testimony from Viet Nam veterans, many of whom turned out to be nothing of the kind, about how every soldier serving over there was a war criminal. Your testimony directly affected the outcome of the war. The North Vietnamese had all but lost, but they hung on in the hope, which turned out to be justified, that you and people like you would turn the opinion of the American public against the war. Your words were shown to POW's who endured torture to avoid admitting to the lies you told. I've long known at an abstract level that our armed forces are the people we truly owe our freedom to. But now I know it viscerally, at the core of my being. What you did to them was inexcusable. Every day that goes by that you don't apologize is another day you piss on every name engraved into that black wall.

You want to be the Commander in Chief of the finest fighting force the world has ever known. If you are elected, you may command them, but you will never lead them. They will follow your orders, but they will not follow you. You may demand their respect, but it will always be given grudgingly.

I don't agree with everything that George W. Bush has done. I disagree with the Federal Marriage Amendment. I disagree with him signing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. I disagree with him saying he would sign an extension of the assault weapon ban if it came to his desk. I disagree with him increasing the size of government through programs like the Medicare drug benefit. I disagree with him expanding the federal government's role in public education. He's actually proposed and pushed for a lot of things that are the traditional bailiwick of the Democrats. He's not perfect, but I can live with that because I trust the man to do what is right when it comes to defending this country. I trust him to say what he means and mean what he says. When he makes a decision, he sticks with it, regardless of whether or not it's politically convenient. He is a man of faith and, though some may disagree with the tenets of that faith, at least he acts in accordance with his conscience. He doesn't quibble. He doesn't try to inject nuance into everything he does. He just calls it like he sees it and then acts on it.

Many people point to his record on the environment as an example of just how awful he is. It's true that he's not a rabid conservationist. It looks to me like he's trying to find a balance between conservation and responsible utilization of natural resources. Yes, he proposes drilling for oil in the ANWR, which would affect about one percent of the area. However, the only way, in the near term, that we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, is by creating new domestic sources (and, incidentally, increase the number of domestic refineries). New technologies and energy sources are on the way, but they're still on the horizon. It doesn't matter how many mpg your Toyota Prius gets; it still runs on gasoline. The electricity for electric cars has to come from somewhere. I think fuel cells are promising, but it will be a long time before they are pervasive provided the technology pans out.

Of course, we could always build more nuclear power plants.

This is a topic that merits further debate, I will admit. However, it's just one of many issues that go into the decision of who to cast one's vote for in November.

He has proven to me and, I will bet, to most members of our military, that he is worthy of commanding the US armed forces. You may think him flying to Iraq on Thanksgiving was a stunt but he did so at a not inconsiderable personal risk. He did it because he truly respects and appreciates our fighting men and women and wanted to show them just how much he does. He visits wounded soldiers recovering in the hospital, and he visits the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. The man, quite simply, cares. I can tell just by watching and listening to him. If he really doesn't, then he's an actor worthy of an Oscar. And he did serve in the military and he was trained as an officer. To those who think he's an idiot, you don't learn to pilot an F-102 jet fighter, and live through it, by being stupid; that was not a very forgiving aircraft to fly. And you're a hypocrite if you think that it's okay to say Bush was AWOL, but it's not okay to question the verisimilitude of Kerry's actions in Viet Nam. Both served; both were honorably discharged.

I believe that the Iraq is an essential campaign in the war on terror. We've tried diplomacy; we've tried appeasement; they didn't work. Saddam Hussein was a supporter of terror. He gave money to the families of Palestinians who died in terror attacks on Israel. He did have ties to Al Qaeda and, even if there's no evidence that he cooperated with them on the September 11 attacks, can you honestly believe he wouldn't have cooperated with them on a future attack if the opportunity had presented itself? And why is it that the left decries the kind of atrocities that went on in Iraq and Afghanistan, but then bitches when the US actually does something about them? Oh, that's right, it was all about the ooooiiiilllll. Yeah, and I'm still paying two bucks for a gallon of gas. In reality, the Iraqis have control of their own oil and they're reaping the benefits of selling it. Oh, it was all about making Halliburton rich. Yeah, and Halliburton has had people die in Iraq. As James Lileks said in the comment I posted the other day, "But if you wanted to make money rebuilding a country's infrastructure, wouldn't it be easier to drop sanctions in exchange for lucractive contracts fulfilled with the help of the existing regime?" Occam's Razor, people. Oh, it was about little Bush's desire for revenge against Saddam for the plot to assassinate his daddy. Come on, do you really believe that? If so, you better get out the tinfoil hats.

We spent 18 months dicking around at the UN, trying to get them to enforce their own resolutions so you can't say we "rushed" to war. The Congress of the United States voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq (which John Kerry voted for, you know) so you can't say that the President usurped the power of Congress. And, may I remind you all, that we were never really "at peace" with Iraq after the first Gulf War. He had continually fired on our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones and he did not adhere to the terms of the cease fire. The invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power is actually a continuation of what began with the liberation of Kuwait in 1991.

Nobody wanted war, but war was declared on us. We can't make peace with an enemy that desires only our destruction, submission, or conversion to their militant brand of Islam. And I won't accept us sitting back and waiting for the next strike to come. And it's not just us. The subway bombings in Madrid were Islamic terror. The massacre in the Russian school that just happened was Islamic terror. French refusal to assist the US and its allies in Iraq didn't stop their journalists from being kidnapped. In a not-so-subtle reference to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's appearance at the Republican National Convention, the terrorists are like the Terminator:

Listen. And understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

I've heard the doctrine of pre-emptive war compared to the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor. Let's examine that more closely, shall we?

By that time, the Japanese had already invaded China and had committed atrocities there such as the Rape of Nankang. The US froze Japanese assets and enacted an embargo. The Japanese, rather than accept the terms the US demanded in order to lift the embargo, tried to knock out US naval power in the Pacific. They hoped that, by doing so, the US would not be able to prevent them from dominating the Pacific and thereby gaining the strategic advantage. We got lucky; the aircraft carriers were out on maneuvers and were not destroyed. This would ultimately lead to our victory in the Battle of Midway, and the turning of the tide in the Pacific theater.

If you think about it, a more accurate analogue would be if the US had attacked Japan, not the other way around.

So we didn't find stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq. Well, if Bush lied about it, then so did all these people. And we have found chemical weapons. One or two shells? Yeah, but with enough sarin and mustard gas to kill thousands. Even so, it wasn't the only reason. Read this and this. And before you throw the word "yellowcake" at me, those infamous "sixteen words" in Bush's State of the Union Address were the truth. He said, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." British intelligence to this day stands by their report that this was the case. And remember Joseph Wilson of the CIA, who claimed that he found no evidence of attempts by Saddam Hussein to buy uranium from Niger? Well, the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA had something to say about that.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Short form: Wilson lied, Bush didn't.

I said Iraq was a campaign, which means that the overall scope of the war is larger. I could expand on this, but someone has already done so. If you click one link in this entire post, then click this one and read the entire article.

This is probably the longest post I've ever written so I'm going to wrap it up. I'm writing it to let you all know the reasons I'm making the decision that I am. There's a lot more I could add, and I may do so in the coming weeks. I don't expect it to change anyone's mind but, at the very least, nobody can say I haven't put any thought into it. I only ask and expect that you will vote the way you believe is right.

When Democrats attack

After Bush's speech the other night at the Republican National Convention, John Kerry made an unprecedented speech right afterward where he blasted Bush and Cheney.

"I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and who misled America into Iraq," he told a crowd of thousands in Springfield.

Here he is referring to Bush serving in the Texas Air National Guard and Cheney receiving draft deferments.

That hypocrite.

Kerry tried to get a draft deferment so he could study in Paris but it was denied. So he enlisted in the Naval Reserve. When he got called up anyway, he volunteered for duty on swiftboats because, by his own admission, it was not dangerous duty at the time. The mission of the swiftboats was changed from patrolling along the coast to the rivers and deltas, which made it more dangerous.

True, Cheney didn't serve (I dunno if Edwards was ever in the military). However, when Bush was training to fly the dangerous F-102 Delta Dagger jet fighter, qualified F-102 pilots from the Air National Guard were being rotated to Viet Nam as part of a program called Palace Alert. Although it can't be proven, there is an account by a fellow pilot that he and Bush inquired about being part of that program. By the time Bush was qualified, the program was winding down and no more pilots were being sent.

Kerry, to his credit, he went where he was ordered. But to blast Bush and Cheney for ducking service when he himself tried the very same thing is disingenuous.

"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief," Kerry said. "I'm going to leave it up to the voters to decide whether five deferments makes someone more qualified than two tours of duty."

Liar.

They never attacked your patriotism. They specifically honored you for your service in Viet Nam. It's your record in the Senate, that was the focus. It's the fact that you've consistently voted against the military weapons programs that this country needed to maintain its superiority. It's the fact that on numerous issues you've embraced both sides and can't seem to maintain a consistent viewpoint to save your life. That's what they were attacking. Not your patriotism.

And two tours? Two tours was 24 months, buddy. You were there for four and a half before you came home with your three Purple Hearts, none of which were for injuries that required hospitalization or absence from duty.

You're being confronted with the truth and - you know I have to quote Jack Nicholson here - you can't handle the truth. So you lash out with lies and half-truths, hoping that the American people can't see through the smoke screen you're putting up.

Ummm... Happy Blogoversary to me?

I thought I had a few more days but I checked and it turns out that yesterday was the one-year anniversary of my first post to this blog. Was it some great insight? Was it some fantastic example of salient prose?

It was a comment about my cat accompanied by a picture.

Has it improved since then? You tell me.

The last I'll say about this (probably)

Here's the deal. The facts and speculation about the candidates' respective military service are pretty well known now and have been pored over by many people. There are probably no more surprises or other new revelations left to be discovered. So I'm going to wrap up the way I see it and get on to the other issues surrounding the campaign (like what Kerry did after coming back from Viet Nam). Unless something big is announced, I'll probably not write on this again here.

Kerry served in Viet Nam. Kerry requested a draft deferment so he could study in Paris. When it was denied, he signed up as an officer in the Naval Reserve. When his unit was called to active duty in Viet Nam, he did his duty and went. He admits that he chose to serve on swift boats because it wasn't very hazardous at the time. When the mission of the swift boats was changed to patrolling the rivers, which was considerably more dangerous, he followed orders and went. When his boat came under rocket fire, he didn't run away but charged the enemy position at great risk to himself and his command. Even though it left his boat a sitting duck, he beached it in front of the enemy. Even though he abandoned his command in doing so, he jumped off and went after the man who fired the rocket who, despite having been likely struck by a 50 caliber machine gun round, could still have been armed and dangerous. Regardless of whether or not there was enemy fire at the time, he pulled Jim Rassman from the water. And despite the fact that none of his three purple hearts was given for an injury that required hospitalization, he still served four and a half months in Viet Nam before taking advantage of the rule that allowed him to return to the US.

Bush did not serve in Viet Nam. Despite the fact that it entailed a six-year obligation, rather than the two years required of draftees, Bush signed up with the Texas Air National Guard. Despite the fact that it required a great deal of skill to fly, and several pilots died in crashes, he learned to fly the F-102 Delta Dagger fighter jet and was considered a fine pilot by his superiors and fellow pilots. Despite the fact that qualified F-102 pilots in the National Guard were being rotated to Viet Nam as part of the Palace Alert program, and despite accounts that he asked to be a part of that program, he didn't go because, by the time he was qualified, the program was winding down and they didn't have any more open slots.

Both men were trained as officers. Both left their respective services as Lieutenants. Both were honorably discharged.

Despite the fact that Clinton never served in the military in any way, and despite the fact that Clinton's two opponents (Bush Sr. and Bob Dole) were both combat veterans in WWII, Kerry has made his service in Viet Nam the centerpiece of his campaign for President. Bush is not relying in his National Guard service, has never questioned Kerry's service or patriotism, and has even said that Kerry's service was more honorable than his own because Kerry went in harm's way and experienced combat.

Military service alone does not a good President make. Although it can give us insight into a candidate's character, there are many other factors that must be weighed when we make our decision on who to vote for in November. What did they do after their service? What are their records in their respective terms in elected office? What are each candidate's plans for the future should he be elected? These are just as important, indeed they are collectively even more so, as their military service.

Writing skills

I'd like to think that almost a year of blogging has resulted in improved writing ability. If so, then how in the world did I come with this sentence from an earlier post?

One of the arguments that I hear a lot from people who think that Bush is a bad president and should not be elected this November is that he pushed for and signed the USA PATRIOT Act.

Sure, it's grammatically correct, and it conveys the concept I want it to convey, but it just doesn't pop. It doesn't sing. I will therefore rewrite it thusly:

One of the many arguments presented by people who believe that Bush is a poor president, and that he should not be re-elected this November, is that he pushed for and signed the USA PATRIOT Act.

It's not very different; it still says the same thing. But it seems to flow much better. It also gets rid of the banal word "bad" which, given that I fancy myself to be rather proficient in using the English language, just didn't look right to me.

Bush/Cheney sign watch: dead again

This morning the sign had a large hole knocked through it, and another sign that was standing nearby had been knocked down and damaged. Pretty much par for the course nowadays. The people who have been doing this embody the very qualities that they accuse Bush and the Republicans of promoting. They stifle the free speech of others while denigrating the people who are fighting to protect their own. They are beneath contempt.