The Last Refuge

Matthew J. Stinson, in this weeks edition of what has become his weekly review of the Sunday talking head shows, makes this prediction:

Easiest prediction of the year: any criticism of any Democrat for any issue related to national defense, intelligence, or homeland security will be met with the charge that Republicans are “questioning the patriotism” of said Democrat.

Matthew's prediction was inferred from comments Terry McAuliffe made on This Week "asserting that criticizing John Kerry’s votes on national security is questioning his patriotism."

McAuliffe's attempt to prevent attacks on Kerry's national security voting record brings to mind Samuel Johnson's statement:

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Such an pre-emptive attack, an attempt to stiffle a meanigful debate about national security, leads me to ask why does McAuliffe fear a debate on what has to be one of the most important issues there can be.

One reason may be Kerry's statement in Thursday's debate that the terrorism threat has been exagerated:

BROKAW: Senator Kerry, let me ask you a question. Robert Kagan, who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don't get it.

Who is right?

KERRY: I think it's somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing...

BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.

Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.

I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three.

I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.

That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.

And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.

The entire transcript is available here.

Kerry's statement was highlighted in a number of blogs, including Power Line, Jay Reding and Captain's Quarters.

Of course the mainstream media did not give it the same coverage. The Washington Times picked it up. The New York Times reported it like as if Kerry was referring to Iraq:

Senator Kerry said Mr. Bush had exaggerated the threat from Iraq, and he mentioned the failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq and the failure to link Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein.

"I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration," he said. "They are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way." He was responding to a question from the moderator, Tom Brokaw of NBC

. Power Line tells us that the Washington Post didn't even mention it.

Another reason may be Kerry's anti-war activities after his Vietnam service.

This story was widely covered the blogoshere last week, but I didn't see any indication that the mainstream media covered it. Captain Ed, at Captain's Quarters, cautioned that the story should be left alone otherwise Kerry would simply wrap himself in the flag. The Captain may have had a good point, but Kerry made the issue fair game by campaigning on his Vietnam record.

Kerry's anti-war activities are still remembered by some Veterans. Thanks to Jennifer Martiniz, at A Collection of Thoughts, via Betsy Newmark of Betsy's Page.

Finally, maybe McAuliffe is just concerned about Kerry's voting record:

In 1996, Kerry introduced a bill to slash defense funding by $6.5 billion

In 1995, he voted to freeze defense spending for 7 years, slashing over $34 billion for defense

In 1993, Kerry introduced a plan to the Senate to cut many defense programs which included cutting the number of Navy submarines and their crews, reducing the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one, reducing tactical fighter wings in the Air Force, terminating the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program, and forcing the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year

In 1993, Kerry voted against increased defense spending to fund a military pay raise and he voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years

Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget" (Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs, The Associated Press, 6/3/88)
John Forbes Kerry may have served in the military, but he's spent most of his life turning his back on the soldiers and vets he now attempts to align himself with for political gain.

Courtesy of The Patriette

Kerry and McAuliffe shouldn't be ashamed of this record. If Kerry is not proud of his record and positions he should not be running. He became a candidate and his record is fair game. Calling any criticism a questioning of his patriotism is indeed the last refuge of a scoundrel.