President Bush had a chance to make a ringing endorsement of free speech rights, and he muffed it big time. From the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web (which doesn’t seem to do permalinks):
Never murder a man who is committing suicide,” Woodrow Wilson once said. President Bush seems to be following that advice, refusing to be drawn into the controversy over the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s allegations about John Kerry’s Vietnam War record. Yesterday the president did, however, make a procedural criticism of the group, as the New York Times reports:
In response to reporters’ questions, the president once again condemned the so-called 527 groups, which can raise unlimited donations and run attack ads, but cannot directly coordinate their efforts with the campaigns. . . .
“All of them,” the president said, when asked whether he specifically meant that the veteran’s group’s ad against Mr. Kerry should be stopped. “That means that ad, every other ad. Absolutely. I don’t think we ought to have 527’s. I can’t be more plain about it, and I wish–I hope my opponent joins me in saying–condemning these activities of the 527’s. It’s–I think they’re bad for the system.”
For once we’d have to say Bush is actually vulnerable to criticism from civil libertarians. Does he really mean to suggest that no group except a campaign or a political party has the right to express its political views? And of course Bush is substantially to blame for the rise of 527s as an alternative to campaigns and parties, whose fund-raising and free speech are severely restricted by the McCain-Feingold law, which he signed.
Why couldn’t Bush have said “Hey, its a free country. If they want to exercise their right to free speech, put out a book, run some ads, who am I to say no?”
Its hard to say what Bush really believes should be legal campaign discourse – apparently, political parties should have their contributions choked off, campaigns should be subject to strict limits (after all, he signed the McCain-Feingold bill that did just this), and independent, unincorporated associations should be prohibited from saying anything political as well.
Who does that leave? Well, the media and bloggers, I guess. So far, in the cage match between Old Media and the Unwashed Masses (that would be you and me), the Masses are ahead on points, in my book.
Kerry voted for it, IIRC, and W signed it.
McCain won’t let it go and go back to the old way and just up the donation amounts, which should have been done.
Now ABC’s The Note suggested even more restrictions should be forthcoming.
Incumbancy Protection Act.
Give me a break. This is just Bush playing the political game. He loves the Swifties and wants them to keep hammering away, but he doesn’t want to endorse what appears to be a personal attack on Kerry (especially because his Vietnam record is not very glamorous).
The way he said it was a masterstroke. He is vaguely denouncing the Swift ad, and challenging Kerry to renounce the MoveOn ads as well. However, the Swifties will keep the pressure up, as I’m sure BC04 knows very well.
Yeah President Bush flew jet fighters…not glamorous. Top Gun was a load of ole’ cobblers then.
Congrats for getting both the word “bush” and the word “muff” in the title!
I too think this was the right way to go for Bush. It gives him plausible deniability, but lets the swifties continue to bleed Kerry for all he’s worth.
And I gotta say, I do find it amusing how the Democrats, who’ve been laying into Bush for a year via their Moveon.org proxy now cry foul when their own medicine gets forced back on ’em. Much attention is paid to the “shady Republican donor” who gave the swift boat vets a few hundred grand while practically no attention is shined on George Soros, who’s literally donated millions to leftwing attack groups.
Bush comes off in this instance as steady, calm, and statesmanlike. Meanwhile Kerry comes across as a whiny little twat who can dish it out, but can’t take it.
Masterful.
Congrats for getting both the word “bush” and the word “muff” in the title!
Speaking for all my fellow gay (male, at least) samizdatists, that’s just nasty…
I concur with Alex and Hank that Bush is playing rope-a-dope with a bunch of dopes. Coming out for “Free Speech” as you term it in this case means coming out for an institution which raises money at over 10:1 for the Democrats.
The realities of politics necessitates slamming that institution.
Oh, I agree that from a political horse-race perspective, Bush’s response was useful to his campaign.
Still, a robust defense of the First Amendment would have been just as useful, and made Kerry look like just as much of a ninny.
Every new variation of election and campaign laws brings a new crop of groups who mysteriously manage to avoid the “spirit” of the law by staying just within the letter.
Meanwhile, the charges and countercharges fly furiously about this alleged violation of paragraph 16, subsection f, or some other arcane misstep which proves that the perpetrators are vile scum and we desparately need another set of campaign laws to close the recently discovered loopholes, lest all our noble intentions to protect the gullible, misguided American public will be for naught.
This is another example of the “regulatory” mindset, which delights in obscure clauses, and contradictory administrative demands, all written in as convoluted and indecipherable a mush as can possibly be constructed by specialists whose entire life seems devoted to making reality unintelligible.
Just as it is now impossible to operate even the smallest business without violating numerous administrative rules and regulations, it is also impossible to run for any electoral office without violating sixteen clauses of the myriad of state and federal campaign laws.
This is exactly how the system was designed, i.e., to engender as many violations as possible, and the sooner the entire mess is repealed the better off the political process in the US will be. It never ceases to amaze me that the same ignorant, gullible fools who somehow manage to operate an 11-12 trillion dollar economy that stretches from one end of the world to the other can’t elect a local county commissioner without fifty seven pages of gobblety-gook to make sure something terrible doesn’t happen to the electoral system.
R C Dean, if the world was perfect, yes, it would be great to hear President Bush defend free speech in politics and all that. In the real world, however, he’s up to re-election and needs to defeat his opponent using his inimitable “I am just a simple guy” tactics. He said he’s against all 527s, liberal media translated it to “he’s against the Swifties” and as soon as Kerry’s connection to numerous Democratic 527 are reported (SOON), it’s going to be fun to watch. I concur with numerous commenter here that it was, indeed, quite smart.
Bush did not fly jet fighters much, since he was constantly AWOL and was not allowed to fly for most of his service. He also was a draft dodger.
The National Guard was guaranteed to never be sent to Vietnam, and slots in it were precious few. Bush entered the National Guard , using family connections, so he would never have to risk his own neck in combat. This is what we call “draft dodging”. Now, I oppose conscription, so I don’t mind, except for the fact that most people didn’t have powerful members of government in their family to turn to.
He did indeed join a national guard jet squadron, but he was AWOL so often that he effectively wasn’t allowed to fly for most of his “service”, which was spent comfy and cozy in the US while less privileged kids died in Vietnam.
A few points to ponder:
The plane Bush was trained to fly was retired part way through his tour, and it made no sense to retrain him on another plane. That his why he didn’t fly for the latter part of his tour.
Bush was never AWOL. Please, Perry, point us to the proof that he was required to be present for duty at a given post and failed to report.
Bush joined a national guard unit that, at the time he joined, was rotating pilots into combat in Vietnam. If this is draft dodging, then what should we call Bill Clinton’s rather more vigorous attempts to keep himself out of harm’s way?
As far as I am concerned, Bush and Kerry both served their military commitments perfectly adequately. I am willing to leave it at that. I would caution the Kerry supporters against a more militant stance on this issue – your guy has more to lose than Bush does.
Can’t we all, please, just move on?
I was very disappointed that Bush did not go on the offensive and defend those who are defending themselves against Kerry’s slurs. One again, it is hard to be a Bush supporter when he let’s down those who support him most
Draft dodging is one of Bush’s few good points. The draft was/is literally and nothing more than slavery and is pure evil.
As someone who has repeatedly voted for 3rd party candidates over the years as a form of protest against the unbelievable list of, shall we say, less than distinguished politicos put forward by the major parties over the last 30-some years, I find this current “big deal” to be a fart in a tornado.
Neither Bush 1 or Bush 2, and certainly not the unprincipled satyr who separated them, could possibly have reached such heights in a rational society. So, how did they get there?
They were rewarded by the political parties for their stalwart service, loyalty, and ability to work within the party’s machinery to raise money and organize the faithful. It is not quality that leads to political office, but steadfast determination to do whatever is necessary to satisfy the party regulars that you will carry out their narrow list of particulars.
But there is a distinct difference in the party faithful who most fervently support Bush and those who support Kerry. For all my reservations about Bush’s following, they are, at least, totally committed to the idea that the country comes first.
The New Left heritage of Kerry, and the activist base of the Democratic party that supports him, does not operate from that foundation. It is disingenuous beyond anything I have ever seen for this group to now claim the patriotic high ground when they have relentlessy undercut every position taken in defense of the US in the last 30 years.
It is critical to examine Kerry’s voting record in the Senate, not his service record as a youth. It is critical to examine the positions he has taken as a public figure from the early ’70’s to the current time, not the wording of some obscure document, or the mixed recollections of this or that group of sailors.
The New Left, as the Old Left before it, has been a fifth column in the West for all of its existence. Its takeover of the Democratic Party in 1972 was one of the great tragedies of modern political life, leading to decades of policies whose point was not the health of the nation, but its detriment.
It is time to judge the candidates on the basis of their political positions and probable policy directions. While I grimace at the thought of Bush, I can find nothing in the record of Kerry which would represent my insistence that, above all else, the US must be kept strong and independent, able to act in its own interests with or without the permission of the rest of the worlds’ corrupt dictatorships.
There is nothing in the history of the world which would lead an observer to believe that free men have ever been safe. The current assault by Islamo-fascism is just the latest in a long series of attempts to crush the idea, and existence, of a society in which free people can govern themselves as they see fit. While far from perfect, I would not care to see it replaced by the collectivist mush that Kerry represents.
Uhhhhhhhhh!
Wasn’t it not long ago the GOP was upset because someone made a Bush add on MoveOn comparing Bush to Hitler?
Well if it’s good for the goose maybe we should return to making comparisons, and embellishing truth.
Bush? Hitler? What exactly did they have in commen again?
That was patently ignorant, Perry. Just because your hero, LBJ, distorted the reserve system to minimize the political impact of war does not mean that the Reserves/Guard are a “safe” place to be.
veryretired:
I agree with you completely. The Democratic party knows it has a credibility problem when it comes to defense issues. Before ’72 they were more aggressive in foreign policy than the Repubs. J F Kerry could be the poster-boy for the post-72 Democratic party. Kerry posturing as strong on defense is pure chutzpah.
Perry Metzger:
Flying an ANG F-102 during the Vietnam War was hardly safe:
“Even in peacetime conditions, F-102 pilots risked their lives on every flight. Only highly-qualified pilot candidates were accepted for Delta Dagger training because it was such a challenging aircraft to fly and left little room for mistakes. According to the Air Force Safety Center, the lifetime Class A accident rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, much higher than the average for today’s combat aircraft. For example, the F-16 has an accident rate of 4.14, the F-15 is at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps’ AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush’s tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots.
Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. In fact, pilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a program called “Palace Alert” from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air Force program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for periods of three to six months for frontline duty. Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush’s who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required. Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants.”
-source aerospaceweb.org
This whole issue’s so tired now, & doesn’t really have much to do with either man’s competence to run the country.
I have to say though, comparing flying a plane in your own country, even a plane that’s more dangerous than modern day ones, hardly compares with going into combat. You might as well praise the ‘fearless motorists’ who drove cars in the 60s; the cars were at least 20x more dangerous than those we drive now, yet they got up every day & fearlessly got behind the wheel. Astounding; comparable to taking fire in combat, no?
But like I say, I don’t really give a damn either way. When are people going to talk about actual policies?
We call it draft dodging.
LBJ my hero? Surely you jest. I’m a libertarian, not a socialist.
As for the history of the time, joining the National Guard was a safe haven against service in Vietnam. The government declared guardsmen would no longer be rotated into Vietnam, and suddenly joining the Guard became mighty popular. How did Bush get one of the precious guard slots available? He was a member of a powerful political dynasty. Letters were written “recommending” him for the guard — the sort of letters no ordinary citizen could have solicited.
As for the question of Bush being AWOL repeatedly, go read the record. It is all online. There isn’t enough to “prove” it in court, but I don’t need that much to form a strong conclusion, and neither does anyone else.
I am no fan of John Kerry, but it is disingenuous of the Bush administration to attack his war record when Bush strenously avoided serving at all.
I want to make it clear that the prospect of either Kerry or Bush being elected disgusts me. I am not a fan of Kerry, but neither am I a fan of Bush. They’re both rotten statists, and no one who calls themselves a libertarian should be claiming otherwise. Nor, for that matter, am I a fan of conscription — no libertarian should be. What I’m merely trying to do is to attempt to even out what I perceive to be a strange bias.
I’m really surprised to see a libertarian blog take such a consistently pro-Iraq war, pro-Bush stance (or at least so it seems from the outside). I don’t appreciate having vast amounts of money extorted out of me to be wasted on this boondoggle. I don’t appreciate an administration that has sworn to uphold the constitution claiming the right to hold citizens indefinately without charge or trial (which, mercifully, the supreme court has also opposed.) I don’t appreciate being lied to about weapons of mass destruction to serve a weird neo-con desire to “refashion” the middle east while Osama bin Laden and his band of criminals walk free. I also cannot understand why any libertarian would support any of this crap, or the administration that spawned it.
If Kerry is elected, I will also oppose him and the insane statist policies he will doubtless push forward — but that is no reason for me to prefer the current crop of madmen.
“I am no fan of John Kerry, but it is disingenuous of the Bush administration to attack his war record when Bush strenously avoided serving at all.’
There’s a difference, here, though. Bush has never attempted to elevate himself to war hero status. He never testified to horrific war crimes in front of the senate after he got out of the guard. He never met with the enemy on foreign soil while the war was still going on. He never constructed elaborate Apcolaypse Now scenarios about running guns into Cambodia while Nixon (!) was president, in the wrong year no less.
Kerry has, however. He’s apparently constructed a Walter Mitty-like history for himself, and now he’s royally pissed that people are calling him on it. Look, this kind of behavior is annoying enough from the neighborhood drunk claiming to be “ex-SF”, it’s really, really ugly when coming from someone who wants to be commander in chief.
The day he left Viet Nam, nobody really cared or objected to what Kerry actually did in Viet Nam. Most people still don’t really care about his actual service.
What has the Swifties exercised, though, is what he did as a political activist after he came home (the accusations of atrocities, the grandstanding opposition to the war).
What is relevant to his fitness as a President is the difference between what actually happened on the ground in Viet Nam, which was perfectly adequate military service, and what he says happened there. That difference, and the way he uses it for his own ends, is what the current controversy is about.
Those who want Kerry to take power try to recast the controversy as being about what he did in Viet Nam, but that is not really true. If all he had claimed for his service was what he Swifties say he did, then there would be no controversy because a straight reading of the Swifties account is that Kerry was a pretty typical ambitious young officer, and he certainly didn’t actually do anything on the ground that would count against his run for office.
So we are not arguing about what he did there. Rather, we are arguing about the accuracy of what he claimed to have done (in his medal requests and in his political speeches), and the insights his claims give us into his character.
This isn’t about what Kerry did as a soldier, it is about what he said as a politician.
Addressing a couple of people’s points:
Well, the atrocities really happened, and the war really was wrong, so what’s there to dislike?
Actually, he has. Note, for example, his aircraft carrrier deck landing to announce the “end” of the war a while back. He’s perfectly happy trying to wrap himself in heroism at every chance.
Anyway, why is anyone here the least bit enamored of Bush? He’s a scummy statist. Sure, hate Kerry. I don’t mind. But why do any of you like Bush? Why are you eager to defend him and the war he trumped up in Iraq to attack an imaginary threat? Why are you eager to defend the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars, taken at gunpoint from U.S. citizens, to pay for that insane, deadly adventure? Do you defend the deaths of all the innocents there with some sort of sick equation against the number Saddam Hussein killed, or will you resort to the old Stalinist “you can’t make an omlette without breaking some eggs” crap?
Oh, and if you’re worried about all the poor folks suffering under third world dictatorships, please note that to fight our little war in Afghanistan and Iraq, we’ve been “forced” to prop up a bunch of petty dictatorships in places like Uzbekistan and such, laying the groundwork for the next ludicrous fight in 20 years, just as we created Saddam Hussein to fight a proxy battle against the Iranians for us 25 years ago, and just as we created the Shah who’s brutality lead to the Iranian revolution leading to our needing to prop up Hussein as a proxy against them.
Its all turtles, all the way down. Keep playing the great game, and you can never leave because there is always a “new” and
“important” threat brewing. There is only one solution, which is to do what rational countries like Switzerland do and stay out of foreign countries and their internal politics.
Bush checked the “No Overseas Service” box. Washington Post story from 1999
“At Height of Vietnam, Bush Picks Guard
By George Lardner Jr. and Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 28, 1999; Page A1
Fourth of seven articles
Two weeks before he was to graduate from Yale, George Walker Bush stepped into the offices of the Texas Air National Guard at Ellington Field outside Houston and announced that he wanted to sign up for pilot training.
It was May 27, 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War. Bush was 12 days away from losing his student deferment from the draft at a time when Americans were dying in combat at the rate of 350 a week. The unit Bush wanted to join offered him the chance to fulfill his military commitment at a base in Texas. It was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age, and usually had a long waiting list.
Bush had scored only 25 percent on a “pilot aptitude” test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics.
Bush was sworn in as an airman the same day he applied. His commander, Col. Walter B. “Buck” Staudt, was apparently so pleased to have a VIP’s son in his unit that he later staged a special ceremony so he could have his picture taken administering the oath, instead of the captain who actually had sworn Bush in. Later, when Bush was commissioned a second lieutenant by another subordinate, Staudt again staged a special ceremony for the cameras, this time with Bush’s father the congressman – a supporter of the Vietnam War – standing proudly in the background.”
“Among the questions Bush had to answer on his application forms was whether he wanted to go overseas. Bush checked the box that said: “do not volunteer.””
Compare and contrast with Kerry voluntarily joining the Navy, serving TWO tours of duty in the Viet-Nam theater of operations, and volunteering for Swift boat duty.
Kerry went and did. Bush went and hid.
Well, the atrocities really happened,
Not as portrayed by Kerry. Its pretty well established that the “Winter Soldier” project that he fronted for was a fraud, with many of the “witnesses” having never been in the army or in Viet Nam.
and the war really was wrong
A few million dead or refugees might argue with you about that.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it was quite wrong for the Communist regime of the North to try to extend its totalitarian grip over the entire country by force of arms. No one could claim that it was a legitimate government, at least not be any standard that relies on the consent of the governed and respect for minimal human rights. But somehow I don’t think Perry is saying it was wrong of the Communists to take to the field, which means he must be arguing that it was wrong for the non-Communists to resist.
I doubt you will find many libertarians willing to agree with the proposition that it is wrong to resist, by force of arms, the attempts of a non-elected totalitarian government to extend its rule.
Chris, no one is arguing with the facts you present in your post.
What people are arguing about is whether Kerry truthfully portrayed his service in Viet Nam, and what his account of that service to further his political career says about him.
Actually, atrocities did indeed happen. A pulitzer prize was won in the US last year for work documenting the coverup of US atrocities in Vietnam. See for example this article. Might I also remind you of a little town named My Lai and a certain massacre that happened there? How quickly people forget.
I’ve taken neither position — and I take neither position. You obviously don’t understand what I’m claiming at all. I’m about as thoroughly anti-communist as they come.
However, it appears that you’re not particularly cognisant of the history of the US phase of the Vietnam war, the horrible French colonialist policies and war that preceded it, or the nature of the regime in Saigon, which was hardly a paradigm of western democratic values.
There is also the small question of whether it was moral to impose conscription upon the population of the United States, and to spend tax money taken by force, on this adventure. Certainly I have no opposition to people putting their own lives and money at stake for whatever cause they choose to support, but it is another matter entirely to force people through threat of violence to support your chosen cause.
Might I note, by the way, that I am merely taking the standard libertarian position here? It is the population of Samizdata that is unorthodox with respect to the usual libertarian way of thinking about foreign intervention.