November 28, 2005 - November 21, 2005
Friday, August 27, 2004
charge against William Kennedy Smith. What would it be? Rape
Surprised? How about bored? How tired are we of hearing about the
antics of America's "royal" family? Oh. You're not
tired? Sorry. We forgot how cool it is that these offspring of
multi-millionaire, Germanophile bootleggers get to do whatever they want,
whenever, just because they're adequately equipped with cash, thick
black Irish hair, millions of idolatrous Democrat apologists, and the
moral sophistication of a gang of acquitted sociopaths. The current
mess can't help but remind us of this pair of entries from Who's Who in
Shuteye Nation (where all
the names are changed just because) four years ago:
Up-and-coming star in Ameria's most famous political°
Schwartz first came to the
public's attention when he got charged with rape at a party hosted by
Teddy. Many otherwise savvy political advisers, including some members
of the family, considered this an unpromising start to his political
Teddy was so upset about the whole thing that he asked for a family
to designate Schwartz the stupidest member of the Schwartzenkennedy
clan*. However, there was good stuff in Schwartz and he understood long
before the rest of the country did that it was okay to lie°
under oath, especially if
you did it on TV in the brand new amusement medium called celebrity law°
It was his trial, in fact, that made the new medium popular and thus
to the blockbuster successes of the Ojay Simpson
trial and the Presdent's empeachment°
trial. In this way, Schwartz also gave rise to the careers of numerous
Van Cistern, who got famous explaining that just because you had a
big dot on your face didn't mean you got raped on the beach, especially
if you took off your pantyhose in the car beforehand. Schwartz has been
biding his time for a few years, waiting for his pioneering efforts to
bear fruit, but don't be surprised if there's a blazing dark horse in
2004 race for the Democratic°
nomination. Ameria might be ready by then.
*The answer was no. Teddy wasn't officially relieved of
this title till Armhold Schwartzenkennedy°
a few years later wormed his way into the family by marriage.
Gretel Van Cistern
of CTN's daily law talk show, elevated to fame as a TV lawyer°
by her broadcast commentary on the William
Kennedy Schwartz rape trial. (See Loyerz Station, Shuteye
It's funny how quickly Greta leaped onto this story in her Fox
News Channel show. She didn't quite know how how to play it. She kept
referring to the sordid past of the accused. She made no mention of the
fact that her own television career dates to the commentary she gave in
support of a Kennedy acquittal in the old rape case. Does 'objective'
mean never having to acknowledge the personal benefit you've received
from a story you once covered as a journalist°
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Does the president deserve to wear
this uniform? Yes.
A GREAT BIG MESS
seems as if the world has narrowed down to just two topics: swift boat
vets and the Olympics. There have been some nice moments in the latter,
but not very many in the former. So as to be on the record, InstaPunk
has a few observations to make about the unseemly Kerry circus. First,
we think Kerry has brought this controversy on himself in several ways.
He thought he could play both ends against the middle, which is always
a dicey proposition but almost suicidal in a case like this one. He
believed he could appeal to defense-minded patriots with his combat
record in Vietnam while retaining the support of the peaceniks with his
anti-war activism in the 1970s. The divide between these two groups is
not a fuzzy gray area but a cultural cleavage that has festered in this
country for 30 years. When you play such ends against such a middle,
the natural result is that you fall into a very deep chasm. That's
where he is now. He has also, over the years, seemingly gone out of his way to make
his vulnerabilities in the current controversy worse. Unlike every
other combat veteran we've met, Kerry has not
been modestly taciturn
about his wartime exploits. Instead, it appears that he has been
continuously garrulous about his heroism in every mass medium he has
access to: speeches on the floor of Congress, television and radio
shows, books, and even 8 mm film (directed by himself). Before the
current blow-up, we had already formed a picture of Kerry as a man who
would buttonhole strangers at parties, on airliners, and in doctor's
waiting rooms to tell them about his service in Vietnam. Now he seems
befuddled that the whole case being made against him rests on his own
abundant written and recorded verbiage on the subject. He reminds us of
the hopeless bore who is suddenly dismayed that anyone has ever
listened to him long enough to take issue with what he says. Well, it
can happen, particularly when a big bore runs for the Presidency.
We are also struck by the Democrats' reaction to the swift boat vets.
Yes, they have to defend their candidate, but their strategy looks
silly on two counts. Trying to smear 250 combat vets because they are
(perhaps) smearing one combat vet seems a bit elitist, recalling the
anecdote from Kerry's Massachusetts critics which depicts him as
constantly asking inconvenient others, "Do you know who I am?" It turns
out that smearing a combat vet is unacceptable only when the vet is
named John Kerry. The simultaneous effort to pin the whole affair on
the Bush administration seems equally arrogant. At the Democratic
convention, John Edwards essentially dared the world to seek out
Kerry's wartime compatriots to find out who Kerry is. When a bunch of
them step forward with a less than pretty picture of who Kerry is, why
are the Republicans expressly at fault? If we're to accept the whole
mythic ethos of "band of brothers," how are we supposed to believe that
any of the brothers would betray one of their own at the behest of a
presidential campaign operative? Unless Kerry actually regards the
whole "band of brothers" thing as a useful fiction. Even so,
accusations of partisan dirty tricks can do nothing whatsoever to
conceal the one fact that is
clear in this whole mess: most of the men who served with Kerry in
Vietnam do not like or respect him. Karl Rove and George W. Bush did
not create that fact, and they cannot make it go away.
Kerry's whining demand that Bush make the swift boat vets shut up would
have more resonance if he had forthrightly condemned the endless
Democrat bashing of Bush's record in the Texas Air National Guard (ANG). He didn't.
He was -- and still is -- fully prepared to accept the benefits of
lefty smearing of Bush. He didn't object when Moveon.org compared Bush
to Hitler, and his objection to the renewed smearing of Bush's ANG
service is a transparent ruse. Make sure that the ad runs and then
condemn it as if the same charges hadn't already been made and refuted
over and over and over again.
Finally, we can't forget that the Democrats launched the first
official party attack in the arena of military service. It was
Bill Clinton whose convention speech lumped George W. Bush in with himself and Dick Cheney
as men who sought to avoid service in Vietnam. Since Clinton is a
confessed draft dodger, it's a mite much for him to claim President
Bush as a comrade-in-non-arms. This kind of loose talk makes us
want to revisit Bush's military service in the context of the swift
Some of us are old enough to remember the Vietnam War era. We knew
people who tried to avoid service in Vietnam. Whatever other motives
they had, number one on the list was this: they did not want to get
killed. One of the worst ways we can think of to avoid getting killed
is volunteering to fly fighter jets. Yet how often has this point been
made by any commentator on either side? Even Republicans act as if
Bush's ANG service were somehow less than brave and honorable and needs to be excused in some way. InstaPunk knows something of fighter pilots. We reject the notion that a fighter pilot needs to be excused for anything, regardless of whether he served in a zone of war or peace. If you
have participated in any of this derision yourself, then provide an
honest answer to this question: what would it take for you to strap
yourself all alone into a 600-mph chunk of metal, sit on a couple
thousand gallons of explosive jet fuel, and fly by instruments at night
with another piece of equipment just like yours hurtling along beside
you, no more than a few feet away? Would you feel safe doing that, as
if you had somehow outsmarted the military's great big death machine?
Not sure? Here's what WorldNet Daily reported way back in February
2004, when the lefties were doing their best to bring down George W on
the basis of his shameful ANG service:
Flying the F-102, a one-seater jet, was
no cakewalk. In fact, it was downright dangerous.
"I was glad to serve, but I just carried
a clipboard around; and I tell you, George had a much riskier
occupation there in the Guard than I did," said David Perry, who played
junior-high school football with Bush at a private academy in Houston.
He says the F-102, weighing in at more
than 15 tons at takeoff, was a "flying rock." And it carried just two
hour's worth of fuel, with no chance for midair refueling, which meant
pilots had to get up and back down relatively quickly or risk running
out of fuel.
"That's a risk-taker right there, just
going up in that flying rock all the time," said Perry, a staff
sergeant who served from 1968 to 1974. "I admire him just for that."
"You risked your life going on any
mission in that airplane," he said. "It had some engine problems. It
had a gear, called a bull gear, that came apart, and that happened a
couple of times to our unit. You lose your fuel control, your
hydraulics, your electronics, and it flames out and you're basically a
glider, because you can't restart it."
Liles, who worked on the flight line,
says he had to ground Bush one night after discovering hydraulic fluid
leaking from his plane.
There was also a malfunction in the
F-102's ejection system that could cause a pilot's chest to be crushed
when the seat and parachute were deployed, noted Roome.
The supersonic Convair F-102 Delta
The gentleman named Roome quoted above flew with Bush. He didn't
join an organization called 'F-102 Pilots for Truth' and appear in a TV
excoriating Bush's qualifications to be commander-in-chief. He did have this to say, though, in the understated tone we have learned to expect from Chuck Yeager and professional military pilots trained in the U.S.:
"We flew a lot of night missions. We flew
in weather together," he said. "Our stock-and-trade was formation
(flying). We deployed in elements of two, and we'd have to target in
the stratosphere, where we had to snap up to (the target) up above
40,000 feet, or we might have one in the weeds, where we'd have to go
down and shadow (it)."
As a wingman, Bush tucked in closely and
flew smoothly, he says.
"He was one of my favorite people to ride
formation with, because he was smooth. He was a very competent pilot,"
Roome said. "You sort of bet your life on each other in some of those
formation missions, and to me it was always a pleasure to fly with
George. He was good."
Bush, who logged more than 625 hours in
the cockpit, ranked in the top 10 percent of his squadron, according to
his performance evaluations.
There's more information here than meets the eye. Now we know that
the F-102 carries two hours worth of fuel (apparently, the F-102 was the Harley Sportster of fighter jets). If Bush flew 625 hours,
that's more than 300 takeoffs and landings. Compressed into, say, a
one-year tour, that would be six flights a week. Even without an enemy
shooting at you, that's more risk than most of us would accept. It
takes guts to be a fighter pilot. Imagine your first solo in an F-102.
You're all alone in a plane you have never flown before. If you screw
up, you may very well die. But there's no other way to learn, which is
unlike virtually every other form of transportation anyone learns to
operate: cars, boats, tanks, helicopters, and most other kinds of planes. Think about it. It beats the first release of the clutch on a motorcycle by about a hundred miles. Put yourself in that moment, then stand up and declare that your president is a cowardly draft dodger for whom you can summon no respect. With the sole exception of his father, George W. Bush is the closest we have ever had in reality to the president fantasized in "Independence Day; The Fourth of July," the movie that drew standing ovations as it earned Hollywood (those guys) a $100 million payday.
Is Bush justified in wearing that flight suit on the deck of the USS
Abraham Lincoln? You bet he is. And shame on those who sneer at any
fighter pilot ever.
There's more in the original
article, which wades through all the various allegations about
Bush's service record and disposes of them pretty convincingly. A few
highlights: he was generally liked, by both officers and enlisted men.
He sought admission to an ANG program that would have sent him to
Vietnam but his application was turned down.
This is the last time -- barring some outrageous legal brouhaha --
that we'll comment on the swift boat thing. There's enough information
out there for people to make up their own minds what they think. That's
as it should be. But we hope that with the arrival of the Republican
Convention, the press and the public can get back to the real issues
that should dominate the campaign. To help this prospect along, we
offer a link to a very lengthy essay by Norman Podhoretz
which takes us all the way back to the Nixon administration and then
through every subsequent administration to the present for the purpose
of helping us understand the nature of the conflict we are now engaged
in -- you know, the one that's happening now, not 30 years ago, and
represents the reason commander-in-chief has become such an important
job title. As we said, the article is long, but it's worth reading
every word. Honestly. (For a capsule characterization of the Podhoretz
essay and another endorsement for reading all of it, look at this.)
And now for a footnote. The pundits keep clamoring about the
irony of a 2004 election campaign that is somehow obsessed with the 30
year old war in Vietnam. It may be unfortunate, but it is not ironic. Vietnam is the
beginning of the schism in our culture that has torn this country into
bitterly hostile camps. It ended but it was never resolved in the
nation's mind. For the first time in its history, the United States
chose to be defeated, to give up, to abandon an ally in extremis.
Giving up is one of those things that can get to be a habit. Oh, it's
too hard... we've given up before... let's just forget about it. It's
also easy to come up with a million good reasons for giving up... why
the objective might not be worthwhile... why our cause might not be
spotlessly pure... why the enemy might not be wrong... why there might
be an easier, less costly, more popular way to achieve approximately (or sort of, kind of) the same
objective. As you read Podhoretz's essay, count the number of times
our country has given up or failed to act vigorously in our own interest since we walked
away from Vietnam a generation ago. And think of the interesting
identities of the two men who are now competing to be
commander-in-chief -- the decorated combat veteran who became a
champion of defeat and the non-combat vet who didn't fight then but is
determined to fight now. Don't these two reflect us in illuminating
ways? Yes, maybe we didn't fight hard enough or for exactly the right things back
then, but we still must decide for certain whether that failure should
prevent us from ever fighting hard and unflinchingly again. Both
candidates face this decision -- if and how to put Vietnam behind us as a
relict of history. We all face exactly the same challenge. Which
candidate we pick will say a great deal about how willing we are to be
controlled by the past.
Back to Archive Index