How, exactly, are “right-wing Republicans…actively working to suppress voting in minority districts”? This race-baiting mythology has been thoroughly debunked in the past, and no doubt will be again. I can’t say I’d be shocked to hear of some misconduct on the part of Republican operatives during this intense campaign – much as such behavior would disgust me – but the reports I’ve heard so far involve almost exclusively the hectoring of early voters by Democrat zealots.

Are we supposed to be impressed by the claim that things are bad “enough so that the NAACP has sent out teams”? The NAACP has demonstrated itself to be a viciously partisan group more interested in perpetuating old stereotypes and justifying its sclerotic existence than really working to help people of African ancestry advance.

Bill writes: “Bush jokes before a live audience about not being able to find weapons of mass destruction…”

One moment Bush’s opponents will lambaste the president for rigidity and lack of self-doubt, next they’ll criticize him for a self-deprecating comment that acknowledges his limitations and mistakes.

Of course, the President was no less omniscient than everyone else that believed Saddam’s capabilities were greater. However wrong intelligence estimates were, one thing is for sure: Saddam will not be a factor in the distribution of WMD in the future. In this age of asymmetrical warfare, it’s reassuring that he will not be playing a part, especially in the distribution of chemical or biological weapons that require vastly less infrastructure and time to develop and deliver.

Bill again: “… a war with no exit strategy…. Have we as a nation learned nothing from our experience in Vietnam?”

Hopefully we’ve learned that we should be focused on victory, not an “exit strategy.”

I think Bill draws exactly the wrong lessons from Vietnam. He recalls his hospital mates saying that “there didn’t seem to be plan… to win this thing.” They were right about that. So this time let’s plan to win rather than obsessing about when we can bug out. There were several reasons public sentiment turned against the war, many of them unreasonable. But a reasonable one was that the war was not conducted with determination to win a military victory.

Bill: “John Kerry did a very brave thing when he returned from that Vietnam war. He aired many of the frustrations and concerns of our troops on the ground to leaders who were in a position to do something about it. He did not ‘turn on’ his fellow combatants, as some have charged. He merely reported what he had heard and seen...”

John Kerry did “a very brave thing” that was immensely helpful in jump-starting his public life. Many veterans are justifiably angered that he portrayed their efforts in the worst light, unjustifiably disgracing them. That might have been a breach in loyalty had his comments been truthful and disinterested. It most certainly was a breach given that his comments were calculated to produce a lurid effect and larded with false accounts, in many cases providing wholesale inventions calculated to make the worst impression. I don’t recall Kerry’s apology for these damaging falsehoods. Yes, “His testimony was so well presented,” that many believed the crock of excrement he was peddling.

What is the average person to think of Kerry’s conduct? The best one can say is that he was a dupe in the Winter Soldier farce. But that seems too generous, given his degree of activity and leadership. Kerry also made a public display of throwing, or pretended to throw, his medals away. Later, once it was no longer so popular to denigrate the conduct of American soldiers in Vietnam (we can all remember how their portrayal in popular films, etc., began to change), Kerry didn’t scruple to leverage his service for political advantage. Which is it? Proud or ashamed? Band of Brothers, or barbarian horde? Contempt for medals, or a place of pride on his office wall? Obviously it’s both, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

Neither John McCain nor anyone else has successfully refuted the Swift Boat ads, to my knowledge. I’ve seen accusation and counter accusation, but the mainstream media’s tactic has been to simply dismiss or shout down the accusations rather than dispassionately entertain them, or even condemn the approach, if they disapproved, while honestly examining the claims. What McCain disliked, apparently, was questioning anyone’s war record. As far as I understand, he made a principled general objection, not a refutation of specific claims.

Bill writes: “We are the world’s only true super power. Yet we behave as if we were the big bully on the block… Teddy Roosevelt said: “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” He did not say: “Bully and swagger and shove the rest of the world around because we can.”

Obviously, if the U.S. ever acts as the world’s only superpower, those resentful or fearful of its dominant position can always describe it as behaving like a bully. Teddy Roosevelt didn’t say, “Speak softly and be embarrassed about that big stick you’re carrying, and never, never use it unless France, China, Russia and the two-bit tyrants of the U.N. approve.”

Many Europeans resent American power simply for existing, and go apoplectic when it is actually used. It may be that the exercise of American power thus diminishes American popularity, but it certainly does not diminish respect for American power. People confuse popularity for credibility. Judicious use of power increases credibility; while equivocation and empty bluster create the image of a “paper tiger” – which only emboldens action. Thus the Soviets reacted to Jimmy Carter’s diplomatic posture by invading Afghanistan, much to Carter’s chagrin. And thus terrorist culture has grown and metastasized in response to pandering and backing off. When Reagan retreated from Beirut after the barracks bombing, it taught the terrorists the lesson that they could intimidate a militarily powerful opponent. The same lesson was inculcated by Clinton’s ignominious withdrawal from Somalia. By contrast, George W. Bush’s unseating of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein sent a very salutary message to America’s enemies – one that Moammar Qadaffi took to heart, and one that will have made a strong impression in the breasts of many a malefactor from Syria to North Korea.

“Will we ever be the United States of America again?” Bill wistfully asks. “You know the country: The good guys… during World War II… Do we still have the will?” My hope is that people like Bill have the will and the good sense to resist the impulse to blame America first, or at least to think ill of America at the slightest suggestion by those who mean us no good. My hope is that people like Bill will eye America’s critics with as much skepticism as he applies to America’s actions. My hope is that, without romanticizing the America of WWII even as much as Bill might, we can look at its faults more sympathetically and cast off the image, forged in Soviet and European socialist propaganda of the United States as a font of evil in the world – an image that did so much to vilify American action in Vietnam, even as it romanticized and whitewashed the actions of America’s enemies in that conflict. That propaganda spawned the “blame America first” tendency, which even honorable people such as Bill (for whose service I am grateful) find hard to resist.

<h2>...I thought this web-site could be of interest: www.DividedStates.com</h2>