Ever since the liberals discovered John Ashcroft, Tom DeLay
hasn't been in the news as much. In best Texas fashion he doesn't
say much -- so that when he does say something it sticks. Yesterday
the Washington Times' Inside
Politics section drew attention to an exchange
DeLay had on CNN regarding Sen. John Kerry. DeLay and Trent Lott
had criticized Tom Daschle's opportunistic remarks about the War on
Terrorism, which elicited this lecture from the snooty Kerry:
"Let me be clear tonight to Senator Lott and to Tom DeLay. One
of the lessons I learned in Vietnam, a war they did not have to
endure, those who try to stifle the vibrancy of our democracy and
shield policies from scrutiny behind a false cloak of patriotism
miss the real value of what our troops defend and how we best
defend our troops. We will ask questions and we will defend our
democracy."
Asked to respond on CNN last Saturday, DeLay couldn't have been
more on target:
"Well, the last I remember, Senator John Kerry was against the
war in Vietnam even though he served in it, and went around the
country undermining the military overseas in trying to fight this
war and giving aid to those that were trying to run the war from
Washington, D.C."
For which he's now been attacked by the likes of Marshall
Wittmann, house McCainiac at the Hudson Institute. In his Bull Moose blog, which
calls itself the "Project for Conservative Reform," Wittmann terms
Delay's "barrage" against Kerry "disgusting" ("to employ the same
response that DeLay used against Daschle's comments that originally
sparked the exchange").
Wittmann's evidence? "Perhaps, Kerry should not have played the
Vietnam card," he writes. "But, Kerry certainly cannot be confused
with Hanoi Jane Fonda." He can't? Only because he didn't marry
Roger Vadim or Ted Turner. Last spring "Meet the Press" replayed
comments Kerry as head of Vietnam Veterans Against the War made at
a Senate hearing in 1971. Here's what he argued:
"... I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same
kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in
that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted
harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns,
which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only
weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions,
in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of
warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all
of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the
government of the United States from the top down. And I believe
that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war
criminals."
Could Jane Fonda have been any more defiant?
Sounds like Wittmann's Project for Conservative Reform should
rename itself as Project for Conservative Surrender.
As a staunch advocate of American assertiveness in the world,
it's too bad Wittmann allowed his disgust with DeLay to keep him
from engaging what DeLay also had to say about Vietnam and the
politics of leadership.
"If we had had the leadership of a George W. Bush back in the
Vietnam War days, we probably would not have lost that war. We
would have gone in and won it. We would have given our soldiers the
kinds of weapons that they needed. We would not have the rules of
engagement that the liberals put on them. We would have allowed
them to win this war.
"And that's what happening here. George W. Bush is giving our
military all of the support that they need. They are giving the
military all of the weapons that they need, and giving them the
international support from a coalition that they need. We're going
to win this war because we are focused on it and we have a resolve
to win it."
Even sharper was DeLay's reply when asked about Congress's duty
to advise and consent as the war expands:
"Yes, Congress should be asking questions behind closed doors.
Congress should be informed and briefed by the executive branch and
by the Pentagon behind closed doors. If Congress finds something
going awry, then Congress should say so behind closed doors. And if
they don't get it fixed, then they can go to the media.
"What's going on here is Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kerry and others are
going to the media, are questioning in the media and undermining
our resolve, or trying to undermine our resolve, for politics.
"I just don't think that's the responsible way to go. And I
found out -- or I notice that they also feel it, because they have
been backpedaling ever since they've been making those statements,
because the American people have reacted vehemently against this
kind of playing politics."
In his commentary Wittmann added that maybe it would have been
"the better part of valor...for DeLay to remain silent about
questioning the patriotic credentials of a decorated veteran who
served in a war he avoided." The nation should be grateful to DeLay
for refusing to be intimidated by such bogus posturing and
one-upsmanship. If DeLay "avoided" the war, so did the overwhelming
majority of his generation. Are all of its representatives now
honor-bound to posture themselves before a self-described possible
war criminal like John Kerry? That wouldn't make for a very
"vibrant" democracy, now, would it?
topics:
Law, Military, NATO
