Bad pun, I know, but I have to put something into the title spot or it looks too lonely.
I read an article in National Review this morning, written by Rep. Hayworth (R-Arizona), that was completely worthless. I find myself in the unenviable position of defending the Droopster. Hayworth begins by quoting John Kerry attacking the Reagan defense build-up. All well and good, clearly Mr. Droopy is opposed to having a large military, or using it. Understandable given his experience in Vietnam but not the best attitude in the world for our commander-in-chief (see Bill Clinton).
Hayworth then repeats the charge that Kerry voted to eliminate this laundry list of weapons systems. This charge has been debunked already. Kerry voted against the entire defense bill because he thought it too large, not to specifically eliminate these weapons. So there is a legitimate charge here, that Kerry is not in favor of a large military, but it's not the one Hayworth makes.
The next attack is that Kerry is being hypocritical criticizing the administration for not providing enough body armor for the troops in Iraq. But Kerry's charge is true, sort of. There haven't been enough of the new life-saving Interceptor body armor sets to go around, but this was due to an Army screw-up in not having ordered enough of them, something that would be no different in a Kerry administration. And since Feb. 1, there have been sufficient numbers of the vests, as the army got five more companies to build them until there were enough (from Strategy Page, couldn't find permalink). So this charge basically stands, although it is very weakly argued, with no supporting evidence.
These are the only two arguments he makes in the partisan puff piece. Only one of them is legitimate and he does a horrible job of making it. This type of hackneyed preaching-to-the-choir type of article adds nothing. I find it disappointing that the "Honorable J. D. Hayworth" seems so incapable of forming a coherent argument.