Visiting with U.S. troops in Baghdad on Thursday, failed presidential candidate John Kerry trashed Commander-in-chief George Bush for making “horrendous judgments” and “unbelievable blunders” that have undermined the war effort.
In a series of demoralizing comments first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, the defeated Democrat griped, “What is sad about what’s happening here now is that so much of it is a process of catching up from the enormous miscalculations and wrong judgments made in the beginning.”
Once again Senator John Kerry shows how much more he cares about America and our soldiers than his own political venting.
[source]
Forgive me for shooting the sitting duck, the fish in the barrel, but under the headline “The Army We Need” the Times has written an editorial calling for the Army they need.
The Pentagon is beginning to resemble a desperate farmer who feeds his starving family the seed corn meant for sowing next year’s crop. To keep enough boots on the ground now, it is sacrificing the ability to retain the leaders of tomorrow. As overdeployment has become chronic, promising young officers are opting not to re-enlist. When new crops of young people graduate from school, they will be less willing to combine their civilian careers with service in the Army National Guard; recruitment is already down almost 30 percent. The Regular Army is hurting too. Despite enlistment bonuses, it has had to speed up its reporting schedules, sending new recruits straight into basic training.
It’s an editorial, so these folks are entitled to their opinions, but a few factual matters could add a bit of weight to their arguments:
1. Officers don’t enlist. Enlisted members enlist. Hence the term “enlisted”.
2. All new recruits go “straight to basic training” - hence the term “basic” training. Skipping basic training would be the sign of an Army in a hurry.
Sadly, the NY Times’ indifference to facts renders them insensitive to this type of devastating argument.
[source]
I mentioned that I was curious about the credentials of Christine Ahn, the California activist, and why someone with no apparent expertise in Korean affairs would be invited to speak at a conference sponsored by the South Korean Human Rights Commission. Josh of One Free Korea got back to me with the answer. It turns out that Ms. Ahn is a member of the Korea Solidarity Committee, a far-Left and pro-Pyongyang front group whose aim is reunification under the North Korean government. In other words, they’re rooting for the Dear Leader, and don’t much care what he does inside his own borders. That affiliation was not disclosed at the conference, or in any of the related material I read in assembling that last post. If you’re rooting for Kim Jong Il, then of course human rights are an inconvenience.
It makes as much sense as having Sudan on the UN Human Rights Commission while it’s government is committing genocide. What I get stunned by is not that this kind of thing is done, but that it’s done without any apparent cost.
according to the senator [Patrick Leahy], the American people have failed our government: By placing Republicans in charge of all three branches, they have left too few checks and balances in place.
I guess there were still plenty of checks and balances when the Democratic Party controlled all three branches, though.