Says the Wuss: Ma, He’s Touching Me

It’s been a LONG time and almost everything has changed. So there’s not much left that can make me think back to my college years. But John Kerry forced the issue last week by siccing his attack lawyers on assorted TV stations. Say what?

Here’s how it happened. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth started running an ad in which several of their members stood up, faced the camera, gave their name, rank and serial numbers, and called John Kerry a liar about his service in Vietnam. This veterans’ organization has 260 members and Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (ret.), is its Founder and Chairman. In response to the first broadcasts of the Swift Boat ad, two lawyers jointly sent a threatening letter to TV stations across the country, seeking to make the program managers afraid to accept payment and run the ads.

But what does that have to do with “bright college days” so long ago? The most challenging and interesting debates we had were in the Yale Political Union. These were Oxford-style debates, under a detailed structure. A proposition is put before the House – one I remember was, “Resolved that the United States should use military force to defend Quemoy and Matsu.” To realize how little progress is made in some conflicts, that old subject is new again. Quemoy and Matsu are islands belonging to Taiwan that China will necessarily attack if and when it decides to “reunite” with Taiwan by force.

An Oxford debate consists of two debaters for each side. The first one to speak favors the proposition. The second is an opponent, and so on. What makes Oxford debates interesting, though, is that every speaker after the first one should be well enough prepared, and quick enough on his/her feet, to set aside part of the prepared speech in order to attack points just made by the speakers for the other side. The one set speech is the first debater. The most challenging and free-form speech is the last one, because that is the synopsis of everything before.

Well, that was vaguely interesting, I hear you cry. But what does it have to do with the truth about John Kerry’s service in Vietnam? John Kerry came into the Yale Political Union when I was already an officer of the Union and an experienced debater. As I recall, Kerry preferred to be the first (or second) debater, so he could boldly state his points. I preferred to go last, or next to last, because the extemporaneous counterattack on the views of the other side was more interesting.

Here’s how a team of two would prepare for a debate. You would discuss and decide with your partner three points: 1) What are the main issues we want to make? 2) What are the main issues the other side it likely to make? And 3) What counterattacks can we expect from the other side, and how do we counter those? It is the last point which is most difficult to prepare for.

It’s also the point at which even veteran debaters can lose the whole contest. John Kerry may have just made just that fatal mistake on the subject of Vietnam, and it may be the final nail in the coffin of his campaign for President.

I have a number of friends who were “in country” when John Kerry was. A couple were in the Swift Boat service. Before Kerry’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, I already knew the kind of charges of dishonesty that were possible. They were already being made, but well below the radar of national media. No one in the broader audience was listening.

Then Kerry decided, and it was obviously a deliberate and calculated decision, to promote his four months of service in Vietnam as the centerpiece of his campaign. And as I watched him do that, I knew he’d made a serious mistake right from our old Political Union days. Out of either arrogance or ignorance, Kerry did not anticipate the reaction that his Vietnam-centric speech would generate. As of this week, the proof is in that Kerry was not prepared to respond to what he should have known was coming, the truth squad of many more Swift Boat veterans than the dozen he featured on the stage in Boston.

The letter of 5 August is written by the “counsel for the Democratic Committee and for John Kerry.” It accuses Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as running a “dishonest” ad by fake crewmates and a “doctor.” Well the doctor is a real doctor, and none of the men on screen claimed that they were in his boat, only that they saw what happened. (The Kerry lawyers knock down a straw man by saying that they weren’t “in Kerry’s boat,” and blithely ignore that Swift Boats usually operate in flotillas of three or more boats.) And the letter implicitly threatens the station managers with lawsuits if they don’t back off.

Marc Elian, General Counsel, Kerry-Edwards ‘04, and Joseph Sandler, General Counsel, DNC, were the signers of this 2 1/2-page attack on the Swift Boat Veterans.

The tactics of Kerry’s (and the DNC’s) lawyers amount to this: They unfortunately paint Kerry as a small child in the backseat of a car with his siblings, headed for the beach. It’s been a long ride; the kids are getting fractious. And suddenly one of them whines to the mother, “Ma, he’s touching me.” That wussy tactic may work in the back seat of a Buick, but it won’t work in a presidential campaign. A man who cannot stand up to a vigorous debate conducted in English can hardly be expected to stand up to foreign enemies who are willing to kill Americans at any time and who speak the language of explosives.

If John Kerry had not put his Vietnam “service” at the very heart of his campaign, the counterattack that has come would not have occurred. Or, more accurately, it would have remained underground, known to only a few. It was Kerry’s choice to make Vietnam a front-burner issue, and that put the counterattack on the front-burner as well.

Now that the issue is joined in public, with the book-length treatment of this subject, Unfit for Command, coming out in a week, there’s only one way for Kerry to deal with the subject. He must give permission to make his Vietnam records public. That means ALL records – the ones concerning his Purple Hearts, and the ones concerned with the missions he did, and did not, take part in.

The best proof of what happened in Vietnam almost forty years ago does not rest on the memories of men who were there then, whether they support or oppose Kerry for President. Records made at the time are a far better indicator of the truth because those records were not generally made to influence an election four decades yet to come.

So far, Kerry has refused to release those records, which he could do at the stroke of a pen. George Bush has released all of his military records. As long as Kerry keeps his heels dug in, and withholds his records, it’s a reasonable conclusion that there are details buried in those old files which will harm Kerry if they get out.

And every bit of this was entirely foreseeable by Kerry before he decided to feature Vietnam. He forgot, or he never bothered to learn, the lesson from the Union debates so long ago. If you can see a counterattack which you cannot answer, then drop the initial argument like a hot rock. Don’t start down a path on a subject which you cannot win. I knew that when I was 20 and debating in the Union. Kerry doesn’t know it when he is 60 and running for President.

And that’s one more reason why John Kerry shouldn’t wind up in the White House. He’s a wuss.

While we’re on that subject, my profound thanks to Hershl Hartman, Faculty, International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism vegvayzer/Leader, The Sholem Community, L.A. He wrote to me about my column on “The Wussification of America ....” He’s the expert, and he properly corrected my mistaken claim that “wuss” was a Yiddish word. I had the meaning right, but not the source. And I appreciate rather than resent it, when my readers are smarter than I am and correct what I have written.

Post Script: This week’s employment figures generated much press dishonesty and demand a mention here. The Corporate Survey reported a job growth of only 32,000 last month. But the Employment Survey, also from the Department of Labor, reported a job growth of 629,000. Only the latter is consistent with the drop in the unemployment rate from 5.6% to 5.5%..

I covered the reasons for the difference between these two numbers about six months ago. Any competent and honest reporter can read the official report from the Labor Department and get this story straight. The only reason why any reporters (and their editors) get this story wrong is that they WANT to, because the false story plays into their biased view of the American economy.

Here are three groups who are NOT in the Corporate Survey, but ARE in the Household one. These total more than a million employees: domestic and medical workers in homes, military Reservists whose salaries are continued while they’re on duty, and self-employed workers in all careers.

About the Author: John Armor is a civil rights attorney who lives in the Blue Ridge of North Carolina. CongressmanBillybob@earthlink.net

The only difference between the two is ease of taking the challenge. Following Hart to spot the bimbos was a simple matter, compared to the shoe leather reporting required to spot the lies from Vietnam.

That's a copoout. The crux of your entire article is that the records are in the Pentagon (unless 9/11 torched them, BTW), and if it were a Republican - when it was Republican GWB - a cry for the candidate's signature to release them would be overwhelming.
But journalism is doing its job. Not the job they say they do - their claims of objectivity are mere PR - but the job that they are getting paid to do. They are paid to attack anyone who can't hit back, anyone who doesn't buy ink by the truckload or behave as a sycophant to those who do.
"Objective journalism" is a PR protection racket. No one who won't buy off its threat can be elected unless like Reagan they are able to face it down and beat it at its own PR game.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

You do a good job of demonstrating the shallow nature of Jean Fraude Kerrí's intellect.

Question for you: What strategy would have had a chance of working for Jean Fraude?

He can't run on his anti-war record, or his Senatorial record. From a national perspective he's clearly unelectable on those. From a national perspective he saw a chance running on his Vietnam record, and his narcissism was reinforced by the fact that he's gotten away with that record, albeit a fabricated one, for more than three decades. In addition, he had hopes that running on his Vietnam record would immunize him from his distasteful anti-war record. He also knew that the lamestream media would crawl through broken glass to cover up for him.

Anyway I look at him, Jean Fraude comes out unelectable. I derive great satisfaction knowing that the hate Bushers, most of whom reek with unAmericanism, unceremoniously dumped Howie Dean because he was unelectable only to select someone who may be even more unelectable.

John Kerry may have just made just that fatal mistake on the subject of Vietnam, and it may be the final nail in the coffin of his campaign for President.

I hope you're right, but thus far the numbers just aren't moving. American politics in 2004 are more partisan than at any time since the Civil War. Twenty five years ago, these sorts of charges that have gone wholly unanswered by Kerry would have cost him high-level support amongst patriotic Democrats. These people no longer exist.

The 8% of the population that are actually swing voters don't seem to care either. The numbers aren't moving. America is set to elect a stone liar to the Presidency, and a man with virtually no platform and no clear idea on how to win the war, or whether he even wants to win it. Frankly I'm scared.

Kerry did not realize, is that he would be questioned on his Viet Nam Centerpiece. John Kerry thought he would not be questioned on Viet Nam, but he thinks he can skirt around being questioned on his Senate resume also. John Kerry better wake up and realize, he is going to be asked a lot more questions about his resume, and not just his four months in Viet Nam.

Will he? Will the press pursue him? I see little evidence of it thus far. And I see no evidence that Kerry's voters care whether he's a liar or not. What does the swing voter think? Do they even know?

Kerry has mistakenly done a "wonderful" thing. By bringing up Vietnam he gives all the Vietnam Vets that he slandered the chance to clear their names. A chance they were not going to get in their lifetimes. Let's not forget what Kerry said:

KERRY: American soldiers had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephone to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Wouldn't it be nice if all the fine people that served this county in Vietnam got their good names back. And by the way Democrats 12.5% of those killed in Vietnam were black. So a good number of blacks must have done what Kerry describes above. Isn't that racist from the Democratic view?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.