Captain's Quarters -

Kerry still refuses to release his service records and still refuses to explain his "other than honorable" discharge.

Dems rewrite history. Big Brother would be pleased with their Ministry of Truth.

Forget the Kerry connection. What qualifications does Sam Fox have other than the fact that he has been a major campaign contributor to Bush Cheney?

Ambassadorships are being bought for political campaign contributions. This has of course been going on for decades. It stinks. Is there anything in Washington that cannot be bought?

"Despite Mary Ann Akers' unsupported assertion that the SBVT campaign "smeared" Kerry, no one has been able to refute the substantial evidentiary and testimonial record of their charges."

Educate yourself:

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

Ambassadorships are being bought for political campaign contributions.

And always have been. The Democrats expose their own hypocrisy by getting all righteous about it now just because the man who makes the appointments is a Republican.

Senate dhimmies want to impose some sort of thought control on Republicans, and pretend Kerry was smeared.
Kerry was caught lying about Vietnam. Period.
He lied about his trip to Cambodia - it did not happen. Period. His own peers were the leadership of SVT. They turned on him.
That he, like a deer caught in the headlights, could not respond to them, is a fact.
Kerry has, despite his lies (and his supporter's lies) not released his full military record. Period.
Kerry did lie in his winter soldier effort against the troops. He did lie in his assertions comparing our troops to Ghengis Khan.
You lefties can whine and pose all you want.
The American people saw through his shallow cynical veneer and rejected him.
The Senate dhimmies can whine about recess appointments all they want as well. They are lawful, constiutional, and available to Presidents of any party.
That dhimmies want to deny Republican Presidents the excercise of their power, even in time of war, is well established.
So dhimmies can get used to the idea of more recess appointments.
Deal with it.

Can anyone list one reason why Sam Fox should be an Ambassador? 52% of voters opposed Kerry, so that alone can't be a reason.

The interesting question here is: was this 'strategery' from the start or did Bush cave twice, once to the Dems and once to the Cons when he saw how mad they were?

Fox may not be able to serve as an ambassador after all, according to this:

So as long as Fox -- a multi-millionaire -- agreed not to sue the Bush administration later for not paying him, the White House would be comfortable with giving him an unpaid, "voluntary service" recess appointment as ambassador to Belgium.

But here's the rub that makes Democrats view Bush's recess appointment of Fox as a major-league no-no: Federal law prohibits "voluntary service" in cases where the position in question has a fixed rate of pay, as an ambassadorship does. That's how the Government Accountability Office, an arm of the Democratic-controlled Congress, interprets the law.

In other words, according to senior Democratic Senate aides, the salary is a "statutory entitlement" and cannot be waived. While Fox would not be receiving a salary, he would still be entitled to live in government-owned housing and receive other benefits due any ambassador.

"How to reconcile this clear conflict between the pay restriction, which says that Fox cannot be paid, with the voluntary services provision, which says that the State Department cannot accept voluntary services from Fox?" queried one senior Democratic aide who asked for anonymity to speak frankly about the matter.

Otherwise, these recess appointments are just a petty exercise in petulance from President Bush, and may in fact not be legitimate since it's unclear that the Senate is not still in session. A week-long break is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when it came to such Presidential appointments.

BTW, the fact that "Clinton did it too" doesn't necessarily make it all o.k., as I hope some here would agree... :-)

This might be a good opportunity to review the whole issue of recess appointments, and how they might better be handled in the future.

Sam Fox should be an ambassador if the President has both the power and the inclination - end of story. If anyone doubts he has the power, sue him. In the meantime, all the snivelling and bitching and whining is just boring!

The Belgians will surely be impressed that the US is sending an Ambassador who could not be confirmed by the Senate and whose only apparent qualification is the amount of money he contributed to election campaigns.

But Belgium is "old Europe" and not relevant anyways.

The Constitution gives Senator Kerry no power to deny an ambassadorial candidate approval based on the candidate's history of exercising his First Amendment rights. Last I heard, anyone can freely support any candidate. Apparently, Kerry thinks not.

Were the media anywhere near honest, they'd run a paragraph or two on Kerry's Vietnam-era behavior whenever he rears his ugly head in political hatchet jobs such as the one on Sam Fox. But they deliberately turned their back on the Swift Boat testimony and buried it - because they knew it to be true, and knew it would damage Kerry if the whole public were reminded of his sniveling behavior as a military man, and his mendacious testimony before the Senate, and his treacherous meeting with NV representatives with the war still in progress (that must have inspired Nancy Pelosi's recent junket to Syria, come to think of it).

Were it not for the vicious one-sided MSM partisanship, the country might elect representatives to Congress that more nearly reflected the averageof citizen opinions. But said bias, generously shoveled into 'news' articles as well as editorials, does have the effect of skewing Congress left, since citizens are deliberately deprived of full reporting.

The Senate of the United States has long since lost any ability to confer even the slightest gift of respectability on anybody, and the only qualification an Ambassador need's is the confidence of the President who dispatches him.

Get over it!

You're right, Lew. I should get over it. I'm just a little envious that, not being a Pioneer or a Ranger, I don't qualify for a plum posting.

The Fox appointment to Belgium certainly has you riled up, Rob D. But be realistic. The Gabon slot was already filled. And you have to credit the president for decisiveness. He didn't waffle.

Ambassadorships are given to political appointees as a favor for service to the party or the campaign. It's been that way for years, if not decades. Western European capitals are the plum jobs, and they go to the friends of whatever Administration is in power.

No one, NO ONE, buys an ambassadorship to Equitorial Guinea. We leave dreary posts such as these to professional diplomats.

Political appointees can and often do make very good ambassadors. They often have social connections, or family, education, or sentimental ties to the country in question. Their job is to socialize, hob knob with the elites, and stay out of the way of the legions of pro diplomats behind the scenes doing the real work.

Belgium understands this. Everyone understand this...except a few here, I guess.

woooohoooo. In your face, Kerry!

His personal ox stepped to the podium, and it got gored (pun intended) again.

Tom Shipley,

FactCheck's "refutation" starts with an ad hominem attack, which is a sure sign of a weak case.

The next part of FactCheck's "refutation" rests on an interview that one of the Swifties gave to the Globe and that the Globe *immediately* took out of context. (I forget the guy's name now, but he came on the record disagreeing with what the Globe had said he'd said. Not that the Globe would issue a correction.)

And much of the rest is the word of people who are in Kamp Kerry one way or the other. Now maybe they're telling the truth, but it's not like we have forensic evidence.

For example, Letson said that Kerry's first Purple Heart was a mere scratch. The FactCheck refutation of this somehow depends on the words of "two crewmates of Kerry's" "according to the Kerry campaign." We are to accept the Kerry campaign as a source of unbiased truth. That is FactCheck's idea of fact checking.

***
Much of the details of the SBVT's complaints are one guy's word against another. I read their book, and they seem quite sincere. But arguably nobody but the eyewitnesses will ever know about many of these details.

This misses, however, the big picture: What is indisputable is that a LOT of Kerry's former shipmates in Vietnam feel very, very strongly that he is unfit for command. This is their personal opinion, and the fact that they hold this opinion so strongly means something to me and to many other Americans.

Pretty sad state of affairs in America when a Presidential candidate isn't allowed to campaign, or contribute to a campaign against a SELF-CONFESSED TRAITOR who is up for a Presidential election, instead of a TRIAL FOR TREASON.

Really sad state of affairs with the opposition party "remains politely silent" about the FACTS ON THE GROUND on this issue.

And it is a party that demands the Conservatives vote for whoever their candidate no matter who it is, because the GOP is the better conservator of the Constitution than the party that put the traitor up for their candidate.

And this party did WHAT??? to protect our Constitution from the other party's machinations???

They make me feel like someone who is protecting themselves from a nuclear bomb with a paper shift.

I'm like - WOW! What a sheer stroke of GENIUS - I'm going to pour all my investments into this guy's work! Oh, Yeah!

Posted by: hunter at April 5, 2007 07:45 AM

Excellent Post!!!

BTW, the fact that "Clinton did it too" doesn't necessarily make it all o.k., as I hope some here would agree... :-)

This might be a good opportunity to review the whole issue of recess appointments, and how they might better be handled in the future.

Posted by: starfleet_dude at April 5, 2007 08:48 AM

*****************

EXCELLENT IDEA!

STEP #1 - All Democrat self-confessed traitors, and self-evident murderers, too,should be REMOVED from the Senate AND SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, and put on trial for their crimes against humanity BEFORE there are any more WASTED TIMES with CONFIRMATION HEARINGS of GOP appointees - and until that is taken care of, the appointments WILL BE RUBBER STAMPED.

Posted by: Rob D at April 5, 2007 09:31 AM

So! Is America supposed to be impressed with the conduct of the CONGRESS for REFUSING the confirmation of a man MERELY because he isn't a "HANOI JOHN the TRAITOR of the Paris Peace Talks" fanatic???

Please explain.

To Rob D,

Is it your contention by the standard of the Congress you just endorsed by implying that Sam Fox isn't fit for office only because he opposed the election of Hanoi John - that the Congressional standard of no Presidential Appointee can be a person who worked to keep another candidate from being elected --- that Congress by their own standards cannot allow any appointment or hiring of any person FOR CONGRESS who opposed any particular Candidate for office, ESPECIALLY if they opposed the election of the SITTING PRESIDENT???

I'd love to see all the Congressional offices cleared of those who opposed the election of President Bush, wouldn't you?

I mean, you are willing to see them all cleared of anyone who would have opposed the elec tion of Hanoi John the Paris Peace Talks' Traitor!

So you MUST be equally prepared to see them cleared of those who opposed the President himself!

With all of the important foreign policy issues in play, and the need for support from allies, is America best represented by someone who couldn't get confirmed and who basically bought his posting?

"With all of the important foreign policy issues in play, and the need for support from allies, is America best represented by someone who couldn't get confirmed and who basically bought his posting?"

Actually, Rob D, they might be. Problem is we don't know because Mr. Kerry didn't question Mr. Fox about his qualifications--he chose to question Mr. Fox about his political contributions.

Wouldn't that be considered dereliction of duty on Mr. Kerry's part?

If you haven't read the superb Cold War novel "The Ugly American", it speaks to the issue of appointing political hacks as ambassadors. Though the novel was written a half-century ago, I sincerely doubt that things have changed very much (kudos to March Hare for pointing out just how lousy the confirmation system is).

That being said, not all political hacks make bad ambassadors. Henry Cabot Lodge did as well as I think could be expected during his tenure in Saigon, as did Ellsworth Bunker. Another political hack who proved a good ambassador was Myron Herrick, who served as ambassador to France during the Great War period.

In the final analysis, I'd say that scott is spot-on (April 5, 2007 03:11 PM):

Political appointees can and often do make very good ambassadors. They often have social connections, or family, education, or sentimental ties to the country in question. Their job is to socialize, hob knob with the elites, and stay out of the way of the legions of pro diplomats behind the scenes doing the real work.

BTW, anybody know how Joe Wilson got appointed as an ambassador?

So, let's get this straight - A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas gets more trust from you guys than the people who actually were in the same fights as Kerry and the official navy documents?

Also, the contradicting and misleading arguments put forth by the group's leader means nothing to you guys?

And Bostonian refutes the article tom linked to, but seems to have not read the piece at all - Or at least, skipped major parts of it after concluding to himself they were meritless without actually reading the full text -

It's quite obvious, Bostonian, that you cherry picked pieces from the article that were not crucial to the argument merely to add doubt with hearsay yourself -

How so? Because the Globe article had no bearing on the signed affidavits Elliot signed. The second one he signed said he had NO personal knowledge of the event - And so its quite odd that he would represent himself as someone with unique information, when he admitted (albeit after some time) that all of his information was based on other people telling him what he knew -

But of course - You attribute all the other information from people that were actually there (including the guy Kerry saved) to people in Kerry's camp -
One question for you Bostonian - If a man who is running for president saved your life in Vietnam, and the other guy running skipped Vietnam altogether - Whose camp would you be in?

lol - if you're true to yourself, you know it would be the guy who saved you -

So, I understand a little better now why you think the way you do - You believe information from people who have don't have first hand knowledge over the people who were actually involved - Makes a lot of sense huh?

ck,

Nice how you pretend the SBVT have no personal knowledge of Kerry's actions in Vietnam. That is the MSM/Democrat position, but it is not true.

Maybe you should educate yourself and read their book, to find out what they actually say.

ck,

No, I didn't read FactCheck in detail (not even for the purpose of cherry-picking!).

FactCheck cites two unnamed sailors via the Kerry campaign as a source. No link provided, nothing. If that is the level of evidence they use, it is clear they are not serious.

If they had a serious case, they would not weaken it by providing such "evidence."

***
And ck, if you read the SBVT's book, you would realize that it is essentially a set of eyewitness accounts. You can choose not to believe these men, but it is silly to pretend they weren't there.

On the specific accounts described in the book, Kerry does not claim those people weren't there (he would be fighting Navy records, after all). He just has a different account of events, and a couple of people on his side.

I would be perfectly happy to have the whole thing aired in court. I wonder why Kerry doesn't feel the same way?

Bostonian, you're kind of funny in a way - So gullible and eager to buy into anything that makes you think your side is right -

See, I'm not basing my information off hearsay - Its based off of the people that were actually there (including the ones now changing their stories to fit their political viewpoints) and official navy documents -

One such example would be the Rassmann account - The guy who was actually saved by Kerry and all of the people on Kerry's actual boat say one thing - While people who did not serve alongside Kerry say another thing - The official navy documents agree with Kerry's statements, and the people claiming otherwise have been caught in contradictions and outright falsehoods - Yet, who do you choose to believe? A rational person couldn't put more faith into a political attack ad that contradicts multiple people who served directly with Kerry in favor of people who did not serve with him - Yet you do -

A rational person would also take into account Wayne Langhofer who was directly behind Kerry's boat and says there was enemy fire - A rational person would put all this together along with the navy documents which even cited Thurlow as having received his bronze star under constant enemy fire, and figure that Kerry's version makes much more sense and has much more credibility than do the ones saying he lied -

And the guy saying he lied about his purple heart - Well he lied about what he knew - He claimed he had first hand knowledge - Then he claimed it was second hand - then it was third hand - So - what is it? He also claimed he treated Kerry, even though Kerry's medical sheet was signed by someone altogether different -

But you put your trust in this? Wow, you got some sense about you -

Lol - You read their book - lol -

btw - kerry did release his military record -

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/

You guys are unbelievable - 80 percent of what you know is false -