Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Talk about twisted! Al you MUST be a liberal Democrat…only a Bill-Clinton-type could come up with such rubbish thinking. In America…we all have the freedom of expression. Liberals would like us all to just shut up and listen to what Big Brother has to say. The protest by the Kerry bunch is a foreshadowing of what a Kerry administration would be. If THEY don’t like what you are THINKING / SAYING you are subject to being punished or exterminated! Sounds like a far stretch? Don’t be surprised, God forbid, when President Kerry bans all free expression which conflicts with the ” party line “.

Wow, no childern on airlines? I may have to start flying again.

Wow, no childern on airlines? Now that would be common sense. I may have to start flying again.

Al:

Using your own logic, it must be common sense to you that every statement you made about the SwiftBoat vets can and should be used about Terry McAuliffe.

Remember that it is McAuliffe, as head of the DNC, who claims that Bush was AWOL. Lets put your logic to the test:

No evidence
Known partisan (Chairman of DNC)
Contradicted by official documents (ANG records)
Contradicted by eyewitness (John “Bill” Calhoun)
Has a history of attacking his target.

** I left out the part about him changing his story as I dont know if he has or not.

Al, based on the logic you presented, I expect you to denounce McAuliffe as a liar who no longer has the right to be taken seriously, no longer has the right not to be called a liar, no longer has the right to have his views echoed on every political pundit show on the air waves.

How about it, Al? I’ll be waiting on your reply.

Al’s right—my common sense leads me not to pick number 3. The correct choice is clearly number 2—especially if the person flipping the coin is a Democrat.

(.5) to the ninth power is the probability of a flipped coin coming up heads nine times in a row—not impossible odds, but pretty steep and something to make you suspicious if you’ve been asked to bet on flip ten.

After the ninth flip, I would strongly suspect (again, if the flipper is a Democrat—and Flipper himself IS a Democrat) that we’ve got a double-headed coin on our hands here. And indeed that’s what it’s like to debate Democrats—they flip double-headed coins.

Just consider Al’s argumen: the Swiftboat vets are liars for questioning John Kerry’s version of events. How do we know this? Because their statements contradict statements in documents based on John Kerry’s version of events.

Like I said, a double-headed coin.

Rights, gentlemen? I think it’s within a person’s right to speak their mind, give their opinion, but the moment they start defaming a person without evidence to back themselves up, that right becomes questionable. Libel and Slander are not protected speech.

I think their recent commercial really stepped over that line, badly misrepresenting what Kerry actually said, omitting language where Kerry makes it clear he does not blame lower level soldiers, but rather higher level officers and civilian officials. I think the difference might be significant enough to get the commercial pulled as a misrepresentation of what Kerry said, and as an unwarranted defamation of character. Kerry did not attack or blame Veterans for the mess in Vietnam. His statement before that commission did not call for the punishment or the abandonment, much less the vilification of soldiers. It painted soldiers as honorable people who’s government is making them pay morally, physically and psychologically for the policy maker’s mistakes.

Stephen:

I’ll ask you the same question I asked Al. Are you willing to hold Democrats like Terry McAuliffe to the same standard that you hold Republicans? Or will you, like so many Democrats and Democrat leaders, continue to define more stringent standards for anyone who disagrees with your opinion?

Also, when Kerry said the following, he knew precisely that he was including all officers, not just the high ranking officials:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command….

I’m coming to the belief that perhaps Kerry truly had thoughts about helping end the war for gallant reasons. But the means he used subverted that. He did impugn the character of his fellow veterans with what he now blithely refers to as “over-the-top” language. He did willingly use information from the Winter Soldier group that we now know to be false (some of the soldiers supposedly at that group were never even there, and others who were there lied about their service).

I believe that you can have the right intentions, but use methods that produce the wrong results. His comments, even if made with the right intentions, were used against American POWS held in torturous captivity.

Imagine the horror of being tortured, but somehow holding on to your dignity and information, only to hear your captors play the words of one of your own against you.

Read the words of Admiral James Stockdale: (http://www.soft-vision.com/hanoi/frame.html)

In this crippled condition he had reached Hanoi. He was depressed, worried, frightened. Foremost in his mind were studies he had made years earlier, while working toward his master’s degree in international relations at Stanford University, of how American POWs during the Korean War had been brainwashed, had been made submissive enough to make treasonous statements against their government. How smart, how tough would one have to be to withstand brainwashing?…

Stockdale prayed, and thought hard. He was convinced that this was going to be a long war. Somehow, he had to buy himself some time and plot a proper course. There could be no leaks, no surrender of precious information.

The enemy had resorted to barbarism to extract information, violating not only the Geneva Convention, but every rule of civilized behavior.

Rod was proud of his performance, but at length he turned for an opinion to SRO Stockdale, who had listened carefully to the exchanges. “I think you did a fine job, Rod,” Stockdale said. ”I think you took the right approach. Give them nothing; make them take it from you, and make sure they take nothing of value. You did just fine. Hang in there.”

Until he heard these encouraging words, Rod had not realized how much he needed them.”

Imagine if the “encouraging words” you heard were also from a fellow veteran, but that they were John Kerry’s words. How much would you need them then? Imagine finding out that what you withheld from the Viet Cong under pain and torture, John Kerry gave them for free.

Stephen, this is the depth of the veterans’ anger at Kerry. If Kerry meant well, so be it——he did NOT accomplish good for these men. His motives may be viewed as honorable or dishonorable, but his actions speak clearly for themselves.

I expect you to denounce McAuliffe as a liar who no longer has the right to be taken seriously, no longer has the right not to be called a liar, no longer has the right to have his views echoed on every political pundit show on the air waves.

I don’t know about Al, but I’m not buying it. Anyone who isn’t a complete idiot should realize that the words of the head of the DNC (as well as the RNC)should taken with a grain of salt. His job is to be a partisan attack dog.

That wouldn’t excuse him lying, but I think it excuses a partisan summary of ambiguous facts. He isn’t claiming to have any special knowledge of what Bush was doing in Alabama in the 70’s. The media repeats what he says because of his position, just as they repeat what Bush says.

The Swiftvets, on the other hand, are claiming to be nonpartisan witnesses with intimate knowledge of what John Kerry was doing on Vietnam. If they are actually partisan hacks who twist the truth, there is no reason for people to take them seriously.

Think of it this way, what if in 2000 there was a group of Yalies who claimed that Bush raped a girl at a frat party, but they had ties to the DNC and their testimony was full of holes? Let’s say that some of them had been publicly quoted earlier saying that Bush always treated women honorably, but then changed their tune when he ran for President. I would hope that they would be consigned to oblivion.

Al, you went a long way to conclusively prove nothing, but I applaud the effort. As for me, I’m all for discouraging people to fly. There are people that fly now that used to cling to the bottom of trains to travel. Besides, there would be more frequent flyer seats.

As for that coin, I think it is probably a disenfranchised coin.

HEADS: “Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on!”

TAILS: “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry urged President George W. Bush on Saturday to “stand up and stop” what he called personal attacks on him about his combat record in Vietnam.”

Bring it on? Make it stop? Almost makes you want to give up coin flipping.

HEADS: “We fought for this nation because we loved it … I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president.” -DNC Convention July 2004

TAILS: “we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom … is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy.” - early 70s tirade

Re heads and tails:

Kerry is indeed trying to have it both ways on Vietnam. This fact that deserves honest debate.

I can understand the anger some veterans have at Kerry, but it’s anger born of a misunderstanding perpetuated and exploited by those who don’t want to be held responsible, or don’t want to admit that Vietnam was the mistake it was.

What he did coming back home was to inform the American public of the toll the failed policies of Vietnam had taken on Veterans. Some saw this as weak, some saw it as him actually accusing all soldiers of being war criminals in the substantive sence of the term. How many of them have actually read what he really wrote, heard what he really said. It is telling that the SwiftVets edited out so much of the qualifying parts of Kerry’s testimony, where he says this environment of atrocity was forced on them from above. It is telling because it indicates just how unfamiliar most Veterans must be with what exactly Kerry said. We all are vulnerable to forming prejudices based on the secondhand information we are given by those trust, and those we call friends, who themselves may never have seen the material for themselves.

I would encourage every veteran to go and find a transcript of Kerry’s actual testimony, unedited, and read carefully what Kerry actually said, and only then come to their conclusions. Otherwise, they are at the mercy of those who seek to hide behind the systemic dishonesty and secrecy that marked our war in Vietnam.

He did willingly use information from the Winter Soldier group that we now know to be false (some of the soldiers supposedly at that group were never even there, and others who were there lied about their service).

How do you know this? I grant there may have been fakers, but on FactCheck, the verdict is, there is documented evidence of systemic atrocities spoken of at that meeting. I wouldn’t doubt there were fakers and frauds who spoke up, but I don’t think you’ve provided any evidence he knowingly used their accounts.

What was the alternative to Kerry’s efforts? More years of involvement in a war we’d already lost on many levels. What you’re essentially arguing is that Kerry’s word were hurtful to the veteran. No doubt they were. But what I also have no doubt about is that the Vietcong selectively quoted him, selectively referenced him. These were torturers, interrogators. They likely left out anything in the transcript that they thought would comfort the soldiers. These guys were not going to present the fair and balanced, well-documented version of Kerry, they were going to make Kerry look like he was accusing any soldier, regardless of their actions, of being war criminals.

It is in the SwiftVet’s interest now, and was in the North Vietnamese interests then, to pit Kerry (or some version of Kerry) against these soldiers, to make it seem as if Kerry ruthlessly hated and despised them. The North Vietnamese had there reason to selectively quote Kerry- they were were trying to break the men’s spirit, and some of what Kerry said, taken out of context could do just hat.

The SwiftVets, however, have only one reason to do this: to get Bush elected. In the process of flinging their accusations, though, they have once more pitted veteran against veteran, once more called into question people’s honor and honesty, all because their stories do not fit their mold of what they believe, or have been brought to believe really happened. How many men have they called liars to make sure Kerry got tarred as one? How many veterans have to relive the doubt and the pain of that war now, so that a man who sat it out stateside will not have to answer questions about his own minimal service?

How long will the SwiftVets persist in trying to overturn the verdict of history on the Vietnam war, in the service of a man who may have very likely handed my generation their Vietnam?

NOTOTH-
Where’s the contradiction? Kerry’s simply saying to Bush, “Stop having your proxies make these charges. Come out and make them yourself, to my face, and lets see how far you get with it.”

All it would take from Bush is just a word. As leader of the Republican Party, his wishes would be honored. If he’s actually behind the SwiftVets, then he could just tell them its over. So far, he’s made it about 527s, a most cynical position to take. “Never mind the attacks on my opponent, I just want to hammer on my opponent’s supporters!”

It’s not that he would even be a political loss. If he made it about attack politics, and not funding methods, he would put the negativity ball in Kerry’s court.

Conservatives college graduates have an advantage over liberal college graduates when it comes to understanding politics. University establishments are clearly liberal (just check the numbers of supporter of Kerry vs. Bush among college professors and administrators), so Conservatives learn to defend their ideas in a hostile environment while they are young. Liberals, on the other hand, are lulled into the complacency that everybody(except weird conservatives, more and more common among students but still marginalized) agrees with them. This posting reflects that mind set. I read this in the WSJ that sums up the attitude better than I can:

“Democrats feel a mixture of horror and contempt for the huddled masses — so bovine, so benighted, so besotted with talk radio — who made a king of an empty-headed movie star (Reagan, long before Arnold) and inexplicably want the Republicans’ current nitwit leader to have a second term.”

Jack-
That’s a neat point of view, but it’s so unprovable as to be worthless as a political theory. A hostile (or seemingly hostile) environment can force one to better justify one’s opinions, but one can also end up getting into the bad habit of just holding a position regardless of factual back-up. It can also encourage one to simply clam up about politics in general. Responses like this are individual.

Mostly, nowadays, it’s been a circle the wagons attitude. Democrats don’t demand loyalty oaths from audience members. Seems like, having grabbed power from the Democrats, the Republicans are dreadfully afraid that the Democrats will subvert it by one means or another. Of course, that’s just a broad opinion with no means of proof.

But personally, you know what I see when I look out there? Potential. For good and evil. There is so much this country could do, if it set its mind to it, and so much it will do accordingly. We cannot simply passively assent but have robust debate on matters of domestic and foreign policy. Has the Republican party encouraged or discouraged debate on that? Have they accepted dissent or portrayed it as a threat?

Democrats want to make these charges about Bush and his motives. They are not. Bush hasn’t said a negative word about Kerry’s Vietnam service. There is no evidence his campaign had anything to do with them. A rational person knows that the risk of being involved in something like that far outweigh any benefit they might gain from these ads if they orchestrated them.

However, men that stayed in Vietnam far longer than Kerry have voiced their opinion and they have that right. Liberals want to redirect the debate. When Republicans question Kerry’s voting record in the Senate or his comments after the war the Democratic response is basically….”Kerry served in Vietnam.. don’t question his patriotism.” Misdirection. No one is questioning his patriotism. Anyway, there is a more involved discussion about this on my site that I won’t go into here.

Stephen

I am not trying to make this observation into an overarching theory. I don’t believe in overarching theories. First decide the case and after that figure out the theory. But I think it is a useful construct and that helps explain why liberals are often surprised by conservative strength. I personally am surprised how many people I talk to plan to vote for Bush. Opponents are much more vocal and supporter tend to keep quiet in a group of friends in order to maintain friendships. I remember the election of 1980, where it was hard for pollsters and liberal commentators to find Reagan supporters. I decided to vote for Reagan, but thought I was probably the only one. It looked neck and neck in the polls until the day of the election when Reagan trounced Carter and won a majority in a three-man race. How could all the professionals miss such big numbers? One explanation for the surprise was that people did not want to tell people they considered liberal (pollsters and pundits) that they supported Reagan because it was politically incorrect. After the election and even after his 1984 landslide, you still heard comments that he somehow did not represent the people of the U.S. Liberals tried to count anyone who didn’t vote as a Reagan opponent. That way he didn’t get a majority. That way, of course, no president in U.S. history has made it.

I can well understand why Democrats are upset about the 2000 race, but they shouldn’t fall into the trap of believing that most people are equally upset. The 2002 elections showed unusual Republican strength missed by most pundits. The polls in this presidential season indicate an even race – after the Democratic convention and before the similar Republican event. Don’t be surprised if Bush wins this one by 3-5%. It won’t be close enough to dispute this time and again it will be a surprise.

> Because their statements contradict
> statements in documents based on John
> Kerry’s version of events.

Allow me to correct you:

Their statements contradict statements in [mountains of official] documents [that the SBVT’s leaders claim, without any evidence whatsoever to prove it, are] based [exclusively, they claim] on John Kerry’s version of events.

They’re saying, without any evidence at all, that the documents (tons and tons of them: multiple after-action reports, multiple medal recommendation letters, damage documentation, unit histories… all signed by multiple people, including members of SBVT!!) contradict Kerry because Kerry had a hand in the wording in all of them? And they didn’t even argue that Kerry wrote them until after the documents were exposed? That thinking isn’t the logic of the American justice system. That’s not even rational logic. Quite plainly, Martin, that’s the logic of Soviet-style political persecution. It’s unseemly of you to participate in it.

Your man (Bush), now that the fire has been set, seems to have come to realize just how unseemly these lies are. He just said today that he doesn’t believe any of this stuff and that he thinks Kerry served honorably and that Kerry didn’t lie about his record… Either (a) you are far more gullible than Bush is (extremely hard to believe - you are far, far smarter than the President), or (b) Bush is flat-out lying when he says he thinks Kerry is telling the truth, or (c) neither Bush nor you really believe any of this stuff, but you are willing to be a cynical partisan slandering hatchet man and are hoping that swing voter Americans will be too dumb to see through these lies and will actually believe you when you perpetuate them.

-Cf

NOTOTH wrote:
> Bring it on? Make it stop? Almost makes
> you want to give up coin flipping.

Woody wrote:
> Kerry is indeed trying to have it both
> ways on Vietnam. This fact that deserves
> honest debate.

You guys both have it wrong. It’s perfectly fine to talk about Kerry’s service in Vietnam. We shouldn’t be trying to change the issue. His service is, indeed, “fair game”.

But it’s not okay, though, to lie about it.

People say “Kerry brought it on himself.” That’s crap. Just because he may have first brought up his service in Vietnam doesn’t give his opponents the right to make up lies about it.

We Kerry supporters are NOT arguing that the American people shouldn’t talk about Vietnam at all. We’re saying that we should talk about it with dignity and honesty. I just wanted to get that straightened out.

-Cf

Christopher,

I’m with you man. The operative words there were “honest debate”. I don’t think the Swiftvets are engaging in anything resembling an honest debate.

Maybe the confusion comes from the two heads vs. tails posts. I should have specified that I agree with Aldaron’s flip-flop. As much as I want Kerry to win, I have to acknowledge that there is a logical contradiction between saying that you defended America and saying that you took part in a wasteful, imperialistic war. Politicians contradict themselves like this all the time, but it is fair to point out when they are doing it.

But it’s not okay, though, to lie about it.

People say “Kerry brought it on himself.” That’s crap. Just because he may have first brought up his service in Vietnam doesn’t give his opponents the right to make up lies about it.

We Kerry supporters are NOT arguing that the American people shouldn’t talk about Vietnam at all. We’re saying that we should talk about it with dignity and honesty. I just wanted to get that straightened out.

Chris, I just couldn’t resist making a “flip” response to what I perceived as Al’s holier-than-thou assessment of why those poor, ignorant, uninformed, non-Democrats see things as they do. The specific quotes I grabbed were recent ones and, since not much of anything else has been in the news lately, were the first ones I came to.

But I have to tell you, after months and months of listening to sarcastic, mean-spirited, and often inaccurate attacks on Bush by hundreds of Kerry surrogates, I’m getting quite a chuckle out of Kerry suddenly demanding that Bush somehow make those awful swift boat guys shut up. As usual, Kerry wants both sides of the coin. Oops, there I go with that ridiculous analogy again.

On a side note:
Here in Oregon, Clackamas County Assistant Prosecutor Albert French is one of the Swift Boat vets on the first ad. His quote: “He lied about his record…” French also signed an affadavit attesting that Kerry lied about that and two of the Purple Hearts. Just one little problem- by his own admission, he based it on what a couple of his Swift Boat friends told him.
“D’oh!!!” You can almost hear the collective slapping of the forehead in Oregon.
But wait! If someone lies to you, and you just repeat the lie, that’s not really lying, is it? That’s just misleading, right?
So, hearsay is admissable evidence, and a super basis for say, invading another country. I’m starting to get the hand of this…

Don, where did you hear about Albert French’s ‘admission’? I can’t find it anywhere.

I am doing some research into the SBVT’s methods of soliciting signators, and I’d like to hear more about French’s situation. The idea that he was asked to sign an affadavit to attest to something he didn’t actually witness sounds like standard operating procedure for the SBVT. But in French’s case, it’s particularly surprising because of the “250” signators, he is actually one of the very few who was actually in the same location at the same time as John Kerry (most of the rest never met Kerry).

So, uh, do you have a link? Thanks!

-Cf

HEADS: “We do not need to divide America over who served and how.” Summer of 1992

TAILS: “I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can’t account for his own service in the National Guard, and a vice president who got every deferment in the world and decided he had better things to do, criticizing somebody who fought for their country and served.” - Spring 2004

Sorry, I can’t resist the flip of the coin theme in this thread. It’s so appropriate.

Me personally….. I don’t give a frog’s fat ass if he cut his nads while trying to shave them in Vietnam and applied for a Purple Heart. I probably would have done the same thing. What I care about is his voting record and how he perceives the military and its use. His comments after the war and his voting record go directly to how, when, and why he would use the military and in a post September 11th world, that is fair game. Reasonable people understand that.

It’s been front page news in Oregon’s major newspaper, ‘The Oregonian.’ See www.oregonlive.com Believe the story broke locally Monday? Tuesday? It’s unintentionally hilarious, or maybe just sad, but this gives you a good idea of how just a couple people created the smear. Maybe it will be required reading in political science classes a few decades from now.

Jack-
When I step into other people’s motivations, and try to work them out, I think it’s better to work from a vantage point of basic human motivations, rather than plug in those kinds of assumptions. I don’t like those theories because they seem as clumsy as oven mitts for handling individual political motivation.

I think what bears understanding is that there’s been something of a divide between liberals and left-leaning moderates within the Democratic party since about the time of the Vietnam War. Reagan was the result of a large proportion of the otherwise democratic voters voting his way.

Bush, I think, is in danger of the opposite happening. The War, the Economy, and other issues have become sticking points between factions of the party in this election, and because of the way the Republican leadership has demanded conformity of their politicians, the people within the party have not had the flexibility to work things out. The SwiftVet’s controversy will not help things, as the greatest effect of it in this election has been to decrease likely voter participation.

Bush should worry about what happens if this convention comes across as mean-spirited, out of touch, or simply bland to people. Puppies and fields music will be death to this campaign.

Why? Because within your party there are people who have questions as to Bush’s policies who aren’t getting heard. If enough tension builds up, you could see the kind of circular firing squad action that occurred in the 1992 convention.

NOTOTH-
To some extent, I think asking for fairness and accuracy from campaign commercials (on either side) is like asking for sweetness and light from a Marilyn Manson concert. The best either side here can hope for is that the crap our side throws is true enough to stick to the other side’s wall.

What I would claim, and you are free to blame my political bias for it, is that Bush’s digs at Kerry have been more deceptive than Kerry’s complaints. For all the hubbub that was made over the Hitler submission in the MoveOn Political commercial contest, the winner was a simple understated commercial of Kids doing drudgework which asks the question of who will pay for Bush’s tax cuts. The images are the answer. Legitimate questions about Iraq, legitimate questions about political tactics, and about the war on terrorism.

A recent factcheck article demonstrates just that.

Very interesting how silent Stephen and Al were about using their own logic against one of their own. Partisanship, thou doth wield a spiteful and silent tongue.

Aldaron posted:

HEADS: “We do not need to divide America over who served and how.” Summer of 1992

TAILS: “I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can’t account for his own service in the National Guard, and a vice president who got every deferment in the world and decided he had better things to do, criticizing somebody who fought for their country and served.” - Spring 2004

You need to read this carefully, there is no conflict in these two statements. The first states that we shouldn’t divide america on how people served, the second criticizes the president on trying to devide america and points out that he is doing so by throwing stones from a glass house.

Previously Aldaron posted:

HEADS: “We fought for this nation because we loved it … I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president.” -DNC Convention July 2004

TAILS: “we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom … is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy.” - early 70s tirade

Again these two statements are not in conflict. There is more to defending this country than going to war at the order of the president. Defending this country also requires fighting against bad policy. Kerry was defending this country when he went to war, he was defending this country when he dissented against the war.

prior to that NOTOTH posted:

HEADS: “Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on!”

TAILS: “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry urged President George W. Bush on Saturday to “stand up and stop” what he called personal attacks on him about his combat record in Vietnam.”

Once again there is no logical conflict with these two statements. The first issues a challange to Bush to debate him head on, on an issue. The second scolds him for using secondary groups to issue scurrilious slander.

So Joebagodonuts, when I see logic I’ll respond faster, I just haven’t seen much of it.

(except for Martin’s reasoning on how the coin is likely to be double-headed :)

Al…. nuance equals full of [crap]. Spin it however you want… it’s your thread.

> I’m coming to the belief that perhaps Kerry
> truly had thoughts about helping end the war
> for gallant reasons. But the means he used
> subverted that.

It’s heartening to see that you are entertaining the idea that maybe, just maybe, John Kerry might not be the cowardly conniving Vietcong-loving Communist America-hating traitor that Aldaron, Eric, Martin, the SBVT, Fox News, the GOP, and the rest of the American right want you to think he is. I commend your independent thinking.

> His comments, even if made with the right
> intentions, were used against American POWS
> held in torturous captivity.

I’ve never heard any POW say that they ever heard the name John Kerry while in captivity, although I suppose it’s possible that they may have been exposed to him. On the other hand, it is extremely well documented that Richard Nixon’s comments were quite frequently used against American POWs, as were the words of countless Pentagon and Administration officials. My point is that the people holding our POWs in captivity were brutal f**king liars who’d stoop to absolutely anything, that they would twist the words of even the most patriotic American to break their prisoners… and that blaming John Kerry for even one millionth of an ounce of their suffering is patently ludicrous and partisan.

> Stephen, this is the depth of the veterans’
> anger at Kerry. If Kerry meant well, so be
> it——he did NOT accomplish good for these
> men. His motives may be viewed as honorable
> or dishonorable, but his actions speak
> clearly for themselves.

Indeed “the depth of the veterans’ anger at Kerry”, which is quite real, is something worth discussing. Let’s take your logic one step further. If Kerry was well intentioned, if Kerry meant his fellow vets (and his country) well but, tragically, his methods were devastating to the well-being of our soldiers in Vietnam and veterans at home (a contention which, by the way, I dispute**), then do you not also hold the Johnson/Nixon Administrations and the Pentagon equally (if not more) responsible for creating the situation in the first place, the situation that John Kerry was honorably fighting against?

As far as I can tell from everything I’ve read from Kerry’s antiwar statements and everything I’ve read about the Vietnam War, Kerry didn’t lie. Yes, he repeated allegations from the Wintersoldier meeting, at which there were genuine liars, yet nonetheless nothing that Kerry said has turned out to be false. Kerry was astute enough to know that if he heard hundreds of stories about war crimes in Vietnam, and that those stories were consistent with the orders and strategies he had personally experienced — consistent with the nature of the combat in Vietnam that he had participated in, combat in which the line between civilian and soldier, between morality and immorality, was blurred — then maybe there was some truth to them, and that these allegations needed to be told. And he was right! The atrocities he reported did happen. That’s the part I don’t get. He may not have been 100% certain about his allegations, but he was right!

Are you saying he lied about the very existence of American atrocities, that the atrocities simply did not happen?

Are you saying that he was not lying, but that he was exaggerating for rhetorical effect? If so, was the objective of that rhetoric not a valid objective (stopping the war)? Or do you think the objective was simply so that he could get laid? Or was it something so devious as setting himself up to run for the Presidency 35 years later?

Or are you saying that he was not lying at all but that he should have kept silent about this stuff and let it continue? I suspect that this is the feeling many Kerry-bashers really harbor.

Frankly, I don’t get it.

You may be surprised to hear it, but I do try to put myself in the shoes of the vets who today hold grudges against John Kerry, and believe me I have a lot of sympathy for them. Let me prove it.

Imagine this: You are a Vietnam veteran, maybe even a Swift Boat veteran. In Vietnam you may not have seen combat at all, or perhaps you did and it was awful but no more awful than most wars. Maybe you participated in some strategies you didn’t approve of, like burning an abandoned village because the VC might use it after you leave, or shooting people you aren’t 100% sure are guerillas because your commanders told you you were in a “free-fire” zone where the top brass guaranteed you no civilians were present. Or, perhaps you were among the rare few who witnessed actual atrocities committed by out of control soldiers and units.

Now, after a 1-year tour of duty in Vietnam, you come home. You are probably traumatized by the experience, maybe only a little, but maybe quite a bit. Maybe, even, you are injured. Maybe there are some aspects of your war experience you’d rather not talk about. (Neither of my WWII vet grandparents ever talked about their war experience. I have little doubt as to why.) Most likely you are anxious to get back to your life, and perhaps you are hoping that your fellow citizens will be at least a little grateful to you for your service.

But when you come home you see John Kerry on TV saying that American soldiers are committing war crimes in Vietnam. Sure, he’s placing responsibility for those crimes on the government, but you feel as if he is impugning you personally. Your friends, colleagues, family, and your children are hearing Kerry’s stories as well, and they clearly might be wondering if you, too, were committing these crimes. You may try to tell people that you did not, that you behaved admirably and even heroically. But the suspicion remains. You feel like there’s a shadow over you. Later on, movies like the Deer Hunter, Coming Home, Tracks, and even the right-wing favorite First Blood, portray Vietnam vets as violent psychopaths. You can’t escape the stigma. It haunts you year after year. It’s not fair, not at all. You should be respected, but instead you feel mistrusted.

I think I can understand to some tiny degree the frustration and pain these men might have gone through and may still endure. And I can understand why they would blame John Kerry for it.

But, as understandable as their anger may be, they are not being rational. It is not John Kerry’s fault. The Vietnam war was a grand strategic mistake on the part of several United States governments, and our military tactics in prosecuting that war were likewise very poor. The strategy was often so flawed and chaotic that war crimes by rogue units were inevitable. In many cases, the war crimes were by direct order from the Pentagon (such as the “free-fire” zones) because traditional legal/ethical military strategies were not working. So we got desperate and forced our soldiers into desperate tactics. That’s the fact. If John Kerry told this truth and veterans were hurt by it, then it is not Kerry’s fault - it’s the fault of the Johnson & Nixon administrations, and it is the fault of the top brass at the Pentagon.

That’s how I see it at least.

-Cf

** PS: With regards to the “Veterans were spat at” allegation: Historians have looked into it and have only documented one instance of Veterans being spat upon. Ironically, the incident was the 1972 Republican convention where angry pro-war Republicans spat on Ron Kovic and other veterans who were protesting the war. There are literally thousands and thousands of photographs from protests during the Vietnam era, but none of veterans being spat upon. There are hundreds of news articles from the period, but none refer to anti-war protesters spitting on veterans. None. The protesters saw the soldiers as victims, not villans, that’s why they were protesting in the first place! Returning soldiers were welcomed by the thousands into the ranks of the anti-war movement, for crying out loud.

“John Kerry might not be the cowardly conniving Vietcong-loving Communist America-hating traitor…..”

You misrepresented my opinion of Kerry, but it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.

Some people are never going to understand the contempt veterans feel towards Kerry for presenting what he was saying as the norm, not the exception.