Suffering Fools

Ordinarily, I ignore Counterspin, a blog by an anonyblogger named "Hesiod". His stuff has all the spittle-flecked consiracy-mongering cachet that you'd expect to find on Democrats.com, but none of the writing talent [file under damnation by faint praise - Ed.]

But I've seen a few otherwise decent people cite this piece of bilge attempting to respond to last weeks' WashTimes op-ed supporting the President's record in the Air National Guard.

He starts bad:

Ed. How ****ing stupid does this guy think we are? RICHARD NIXON was President in 1970-1971. Not Johnson].

This involves a bit if something called "History", "Hesiod". I'll write slowly.

President Johnson made a decision not to call up the Guard to serve in Vietnam. The Guard is very closely tied to mainstreet USA. He didn't want that - as someone else pointed out, when a Guard unit suffers a casualty, a whole town feels the pain; when a draftee gets hit, one family suffers. Politically, it was an easier decision for him. It turned out to be disastrous for the military - which is why after Vietnam the military adtopted the "total force" concept, meaning that to deploy oversease the military had to have Guard and Reserve units involved. That way, the political leadership would have to make sure they really thought a war was politically worth it before they went into action.

As Nixon's goal was to leave Vietnam, there was no reason to call up the Guard en masse while Bush served.

Now - some air guardsmen were called up individually to go to Vietnam, and I believe a few units flying aircraft useful in Vietnam (attack planes, transports, etc) may have been mobilized. Other pilots volunteered to go - and according to Campenni, Bush volunteered for the program to send ANG pilots to Vietnam, but he and his unit flew a plane that was not suited for use in Vietnam (neither an attack plane like the F-100 and F-105, nor a capable dogfighter like the F4). As it would have taken a year to re-train him in a new plane, one not supported by the unit to which he was assigned, and the Guard wasn't accepting less-experienced pilots like Bush at that point (the war was winding down), there was no purpose in him going.

Reading the rest of "Hesiod"'s rant is an exercise in self-control. For example, on Col. Campenni's remarks about the liberal strawman about Bush not passing a drug test, he says:

[Ed. Another bald-faced lie].

Hm. A thoughtful retort, that. But Hesiod unaccountably fails to tell us why this is a "bald-faced lie". It's the word of an Air Force colonel against that of a spittle-flecked rantblogger.

"Hesiod" also cites another rantblogger who claims Bush wasn't a good pilot. Whether it's true or not (and I doubt it - the Air Guard could afford to be selective at that time, with the Air Force being downsized and lots of Regular pilots looking for part-time flying billets), I have to ask - so what? How far do we move the goalposts, here? As each layer of the smear is debunked, the moonbats try to piece together another, with the full connivance of the media. What's next? He served, he wasn't AWOL, he was in Alabama, all credible and documentary evidence says he was a decent pilot... At this rate, by October the moonbats will be attacking him for having shot down no Russian nuclear bombers?

It's not that Mr. "Hesiod" totally abjures the concept of "evidence", of course. He prints an email from a World War II veteran who, while not addressing any of the points in either Lt. Bush or Lt. Kerry's military records, does manage to make himself sound a mentally incontinent Democrat zealot. Proof enough for "Hesiod" and those who consider him anything other than a tinfoil-hatted crackpot? Perhaps. Not for the rest of us.

This par for the course for Mr. "Hesiod", of course - as we saw in this piece last fall, where we were told Algore would have been a better president because he's a clairvoyant superhero.

I got this link from Flash at Centrisity. I like to pass on bits of wisdom to newer bloggers; pick your sources carefully. "Hesiod" is to credibility as McDonald's is to food.

Posted by Mitch at February 16, 2004 05:10 AM