August 31, 2004
Truth and W’s place in the Guard
So there is a lot of reason to believe that W who is busy this week recalling the ghosts of 9/11 past to help him on his road to reelection lied when he said that he had no help in getting his soft slot in the National Guard during Vietnam. Now of course the Republican Press Machine is too busy this week laundering the war in Iraq and dry cleaning the economic news while pressing a crease in the President’s image as CIC to relate to this news. But they’ll be all over it soon.
Bob Barnes, former Speaker of the House in Texas has expressed his shame in a video. He is ashamed of being involved in helping the sons of wealthy Texan’s get into the National Guard so they could serve in the military and still escape Vietnam and the inconvenience of dying early in life. The Video is clear and available at www.austin4kerry.org , it is a little piece of dynamite. Now those of us who served in the Army or Marines or the Navy at that time knew that there were people getting out of serving for various reasons related to their family or their educational status. Mostly we thought of them as pussy’s or rich little mama’s boys and ignored them, none of us were particularly angry at their favored treatment that I recall. We are still not angry at their treatment, we are angry at their attempts to defame those who served. Using their sycophants who in some cases also served honorably in the war like John O’Neil to lie about John Kerry, Max Cleland and John McCain, and by implication the rest of us, these favored sons of our Republic are again seeking high office. It is time to rise up and vote them out of office. I prefer riding them out of town on a rail but tar is in short supply with the oil crisis and all.
How did I find out about this video? My wife found it on the eighth page of our local newspaper, isn’t that an interesting place for this little bit of news, eighth page inside column. The exposed Swift Boat liars, who are former crew and commanders of other boats in the delta, have bought a lying CIC as their hero and war leader. They abhor Kerry, who told the truth about the fact that there were atrocities committed in Vietnam, but these men are the ones who cannot handle the truth. They want a world in which everyone thinks that anti-war protestors are unpatriotic. They want a world in which they get to ignore the truth about our dirty little wars and their consequences. They want to live out their fantasies of heroic service to our Republic while they consistently support men who only serve our destructive drive toward Empire. They want a world in which W is the hero and John Kerry is the liar and unpatriotic, but that is not the real world.
Vietnam was not the fault of Kerry and the anti-war people in our nation. It was the fault of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and a Congress that failed our young men and women of my generation. It was the fault of those who believed lies rather than examine the truth of the world outside their skin. War itself is an atrocity. All wars beget individual atrocities; it is the nature of war that it will degrade the ethics and morals of some of the people who fight it. Those who return intact enough to face those ugly facts are national treasures, the rest are victims of their own denial.
So W lied when he said he received no help in escaping Vietnam, we all knew that, it is no shock to us when a son of a Congressman escapes service to our nation. It is no shock when he lies about the help he received from the establishment he has always been supported by. It is no shock when a John O’Neil sells his soul to a Richard Nixon or George W Bush and attacks his comrade in arms on their service. That way sometimes lies wealth and success in our society. That way sometimes lies the freedom from service and danger for their children that many families enjoy today. That way often lies kudos and attaboys from those who served without risk or sacrifice or not at all. That way lies unending lies told in service of your ego not your conscience or any higher power or your nation itself.
I am interested in this latest bit of news not because it will change anyone’s mind about this election. I am interested in it because it confirms my cynicism about W’s service as a guardsman and as President. No, he is not an evil man, he always knows evil when he sees it but most of us are less likely to point at any man or society and say they are evil. John O’Neil and his fellow swift boat liars are not evil either. They are symptoms of a Republic at odds with itself about whether or not it wants to be an Empire. They are on the side of an Empire, not our precious Republic. Those lines are drawn and this election is as much about whether we will have an Empire or a Republic as any of the other issues we are voting on this year.
This election is, as always, about which lies people will believe. This election is about the power of money on both sides of the fence. This election is about choosing loyalty to a party over honor in service of an ideal. This election is about the drive of leaders to be honored for service without effort or sacrifice versus the integrity of the truly honorable who voluntarily served and sacrificed. This election is about suppressing black votes in the South, especially in Florida. This election is about stolen votes and cheating the electorate at the polling place. Finally this election is about the survival of our civil rights in the face of terrorism and fear. It is not and should not be about the lies W has told on the way here except as markers of his character or lack thereof. God bless and keep you all safe and involved in this election, that is the only hope this nation has ever had, an involved, aroused electorate. ©Henri Reynard/GoldenBrush Interactive
Posted by Henri Reynard at August 31, 2004 08:55 AMOk, I’ll bite. How can Kerry be honorable by trashing men actively serving the military in ‘71 and O’Neil be a traitor for trashing Kerry. Get over yourself. Those ‘war protestors’ of the ’60s should be totally ashamed of themselves. They should hide their faces from the sun not run around bragging. I’ll say what you accuse the right of saying. They’re un-American, hell Kerry’s a down right traitor.
His war activity was honorable and he can well be proud of it. His anti-war behavior should have bought him a trip to the brig. The idea that now he wants to lead the men he trashed is laughable. Kerry and the rest of those hippies deserve only contempt.
As for the new generation of war protestors, the ones marching in New York this week, these nuts think the War in Afghanistan is wrong. These guys would be just as despicable if there weren’t so laughable.
Sure dissent is part of America, but to put service men’s lives in danger as Kerry did in ‘71 is not dissent, it’s treachery. Kerry’s words were used to demoralize POW’s in Vietnam, he had no know that would happen, but he didn’t care. He didn’t care about anyone else but himself and the political power he could get by turning on the war.
-D
To boomers:
The 1960s were a long time ago. To a person starting college this year, they are as far back as the Great Depression or even the roaring twenties for a boomer. Didn’t you hate it when your father would insist on eating stale bread because of the Depression that happened well before you were born? The sixties are stale bread. There are better things on the menu.
Anyone who remembers the Vietnam era (without seeing it through a purple haze) knows that it was a horribly divisive and unhappy period. Those too young to participate don’t understand the passions it provoked and wish boomers would just move on. The young people are right. His friend John McCain warned Kerry that it was a mistake to reopen old wounds. But Kerry made it the center of run for president. I wish he hadn’t. John Kerry was a war hero; George Bush was not. This is true, but it is not very important for the vote today. Most Americans believe John Kerry’s version of his story (with the caveat about Cambodia). He could lay the controversy to rest by simply coming out and saying “I did my duty. I served in the company of heroes. I regret that some now questions my service. They are mistaken and angry, not about what I did in Vietnam, but what I said when I returned. I came back from Vietnam an angry young man. I believed what I said at the time, but some of the things I said were not true. I am sorry if my words hurt the very veterans I love. That was not my intention. I will not address this subject again, except to repeat what I just said.” This would be a lot more effective whining that George Bush should stop ad against him. George Bush can point to the ads by folks like moveon.org and a whole movie by Michael Moore slandering his character.
Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, but attacking Bush because he served in the National Guard dishonors every man and woman who has ever served in the Guard, the Coast Guard, etc. during time of war. All of those functions are necessary during times of war. If people are comfortable with continuing that line of attack, I can’t help them.
Posted by: Aldaron at August 31, 2004 10:37 AMJack - “I believed what I said at the time, but some of the things I said were not true.”
What did Kerry say that was untrue? You sound very sure of yourself, so I’d like a reference to look up please.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at August 31, 2004 11:05 AMAldaron - “attacking Bush because he served in the National Guard dishonors every man and woman who has ever served in the Guard”
Excuse me, but I thought this post was attacking the fact that Bush lied about saying that no one in his family asked for special treatment in order to get into the Guard. Bush says he was just “in the right place at the right time.”
I don’t see how that’s attacking the Gaurd itself at all. Wouldn’t you agree?
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at August 31, 2004 11:13 AMWhat did Kerry say that was untrue?
Good question. I haven’t heard anyone answer that one. This debate is getting tiresome:
Right winger: Kerry lied and hurt our troops in Vietnam!
Left winger: Oh yeah? Prove it.
Right winger: Kerry’s a jerk.
Come on guys, please bring some evidence to the table if you’re going to call Kerry a liar.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 31, 2004 11:42 AMMy impression was that Kerry, if he attacked Bush’s service at all, always targeted the “gap” in Bush’s service.
Also, what is with this admonition from on high that war protesters are un-American and John Kerry is a traitor for trashing the war? What makes this person so qualified to make such a declaration? Do we not have a right to dissent in this country? I believe we do. And I believe John Kerry was trashing the war not to do damage to his fellow soldiers, but to save their lives from being wasted in a pointless war.
This “shut up because you should be ashamed and you’re a traitor” approach to political discourse is really frustrating. To people using it: you are not omniscient. Your positions are not “the truth.” The conversations you are trying to mute are not settled issues where further discussion is pointless. Do not try to shout down opposition from your self-constructed pulpit, for fear of hearing something you don’t like.
So I ask you, please refrain from trying to intimidate your political opponents into silence. I realize that it makes your lives easier, and makes your little cocoons tha much cozier, but it isn’t very productive.
Many thanks.
Posted by: Wallisam at August 31, 2004 11:43 AMI’ll answer the ‘prove it’. Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, telling the Senators and a national audience that the U.S. military was committing war crimes “on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” Sure there were atrocities that were committed, but the idea that they were a day-to-day occurrence that was fully sanctioned by the chain of command is both preposterous and a demonstrated fallacy.
Dissent is a great part of America. One can dissent against a war for many rational reasons. To decent by accusing soldiers of ‘day-to-day’ atrocities when you know the statement to be an exaggeration at best is problematic. To attack vets coming back as ‘baby killers’ is not dissent. John Kerry wasn’t trashing the war, he was trashing the warriors. Honorable men that weren’t able to leave after five months were stuck in POW camps listening to Kerry trash them. John Kerry’s statements didn’t stop the war. The war stopped because the cost was greater than the potential benefit. All Kerry did was to help foster a generation of distrust and loathing of our military. He should be embarrassed of that.
Your welcome to your opinion of Kerry, but don’t tell me the shit he took on the military smells like roses. I’m sick of the left standing on their pulpit yelling that I can’t think Kerry was wrong for his testimony.
- D
Sorry, I’m combative today.
Posted by: Delzario at August 31, 2004 12:18 PMGaelen:
To answer your question. Below is part of Kerry’s testimony. The part that veterans object to is the casual use of terms like “not isolated incidents”, “day-to-day”, “full awareness of officers at all levels or command” Atrocities happen in war, but there is no evidence of the systematic abuses John Kerry mentioned. I am sure he was aware of the impression his powerful examples would make. Genghis Khan left nothing alive in his wake. He also implies that the U.S. forces are worse than most armies when he says “generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravages of war.” It sounds like Nazi occupation. John Kerry could nuance this by saying that he was merely reporting what he heard, but if he did not believe it, why did he consent to be the messenger?
Read it for yourself. If John Kerry thinks he was telling the whole truth, he could say that too, but he should address it. He made a premeditated statement with purpose and forethought. Either he still believes it or not.
“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….
“They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”
My name is Scott Camile. I was a Sgt. attached to Charley 1/1. I was a forward observer in Vietnam. I went in right after high school and I’m a student now. My testimony involves burning of villages with civilians in them, the cutting off of ears, cutting off of heads, torturing of prisoners, calling in of artillery on villages for games, corpsmen killing wounded prisoners, napalm dropped on villages, women being raped, women and children being massacred, CS gas used on people, animals slaughtered, Chieu Hoi passes rejected and the people holding them shot, bodies shoved out of helicopters, tear-gassing people for fun and running civilian vehicles off the road. source
Elite unit savaged civilians in Vietnam
Ex-G.I.’s tell of Vietnam brutality
The My Lai Massacre: A Case Study
The Collapse of the Armed Forces
Distorting History (pdf)
Grover Furr’s Vietnam War Page
[via y2karl at MetaFilter]
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 31, 2004 12:44 PMYou’re right, I didn’t read anything but the title. I just assumed it would be another hatchet-job thread on the issue. You’re excused by the way.
The underlying message here is still that serving in the national guard is a way to “get out of service”. His unit could have been called up at any time. Again, it disparages men and women serving in necessary jobs during times of war.
For the Bush supporters like me I say this… forget about arguing with these guys on issues about Vietnam. You are never going to be able to reason with the left-wing types who think there is no greater evil in this world than an armed American soldier. There are plenty of other reasons to cast a vote against Kerry in Nov.
Posted by: Aldaron at August 31, 2004 12:58 PMDelzario, a little research into the Viet Nam war proves Kerry’s comments absolutely correct. The DAILY bombings of Cambodia were by all definitions a war crime. We laid waste to hundreds of thousands of innocent Cambodians with our bombing runs. And we destablized Cambodia’s government paving the way for the Khmer Rouge to take over and murder another 3 million or so.
Really, a little research is all that is needed to acquire an informed opinion, rather than simply a biased one.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 12:59 PMAldaron said: “You are never going to be able to reason with the left-wing types who think there is no greater evil in this world than an armed American soldier.”
You do realize, Aldaron, that this comment refers to an extremely small minority of those on the left, don’t you?
And what of another view held by Buddhists, the Pope, the Amish and Quakers, who all believe war is an evil, and those who serve the cause of war, do nothing to fight evil? All quacks? All commie pinko-sympathizers? The Pope among 100’s of millions of others would argue differently, myself included.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 01:06 PMHenri and Joseph,
Thank you for helping seating the record right. As a 10 year old boy, I supported the troops although I even to this date strongly disagreed with the Nixon administrations policies.
For those of you above that are not old enough or are unwilling to accept the truth of that time, let my explain a few details that these two Nam Viets left out.
First, in the summer of 69, the public was lead to believe that the anti-war youth was fixing to gather in huge numbers on a farm outside a small town in upper New York. So scared was the Republican leadership about this assembly that they issued travel advisories and put the US Troops in that area on alert. The time and place would later become known as Woodstock. Where in three days of music and protest no a single crime took place.
Fall of 69; A reporter just back from Vietnam took his story to the news stations and told the world what he wittnessed first hand while on partol which lead to Congress opening up hearings on the way the Vietnam war was being conducted. The reports name was none other than FoxTV’s Harodo. So explosive and shocking were the films that the FCC forbidded them from being aired on the regular news. They showed first hand that the charges levyed by many outsiders were in fact true. Why do you think Bush ordered that all news reporters be imbedded with the troops and their newscast be limited?
Spring of 71; Kent State University, Ohio
4 Died in Ohio read the newspapers headlines. That was and is the turning point for the Nixon’s administration support of the war. Even today you still feel the effects of that day and the problems it caused due to the fact that the Republican leadership was hell bent on controlling the rights of a few by the means of a gun.
Within weeks the newspaper headlines would read “Vietnam Vets March on the Whitehouse.” For the first time you heard the concern of the reporters as they stood by and watched a gathering of thousands of Veterns from WWI,WWII, Korea, and Vietnam march into DC with one solid vioce. There question was not in anger, but laid at the foundation of our very country. Does our government have the right to use our armed troops to shoot our citizens who are peacefully assembling to protest the war? If you don’t know the answer read your history. Congress, The Whitehouse, and even the Commanders of our Military was not ready to confront the emotions of the public which was ready to take up arms against the “Establishment.”
Where was GW Bush at this time? According to his own records and interviews he was lost in a bottle. Now that shows real charactor and courage.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 31, 2004 01:55 PMI honestly believe that many on the far-left think that the US is equally culpable in the terrorist attack on September 11th and that our “military imperialism” has been the cause of many problems in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. This country is not imperialistic else we would still be ruling most of Europe, Japan, South Korea, the Philipines, etc. People that even hint at that are beyond contempt. This idea that we need to look within ourselves to change so fanatics won’t hate us is naive, dove-ishness at best, moronic self-loathing at worst. Placing the greatest nation in the history of the planet on the same level as barbarians who want to kill as many people possible is beyond my capability to understand. People that insist on even coming near that stance have no grasp of perspective or the history of this nation. I don’t indict the entire Democratic party for having that stance by any means, but it is an element of the Democratic party that it must deal with.
“War is evil” is such a naive and myopic view no matter who says it. Of course it is tragic for the people involved, but I think you would have a hard time convincing the people we liberated all over the world in the last 60 years that “war is evil”. What are you going to do if someone kicks you in the balls? Lay there and think, “if I hit him back, that would be evil.”… or… “if I hit him back, that will only bring more violence”. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to fight, but if left up to some in this country, we would all just bend over….
Well said, Henri Reynard.
Be aware though, that the right is currently accusing Barnes of raising money for the DNC to the tune of a half a million dollars. So even though it is true that he unfairly pushed a great many less weathy young men out of the way in order to help Dubya and the sons of other filthy rich Texans escape the war by helping them into what they called “The Champagne Unit” of the Texas Air Guard, they will be saying that he didn’t come out now because he actually is ashamed to have done so (though he certainly should be - and so should Dubya and the rest of those silver spooners) but because he is a Democrat who wants John Kerry to win in November.
Jack wrote:
“John Kerry was a war hero; George Bush was not. This is true, but it is not very important for the vote today.”
I don’t agree. The fact that both were the sons of rich men and the fact that one went to war, putting his life on the line beside Average American’s, while the other thought that there was nothing wrong in pushing Average American’s out of his way so he could escape having to go, seems very important to me in assessing the mindset of these two men.
And GWB has proven during his years in office that he has not changed from the person he was back in the days of Vietnam.
After all…
1. Forty percent of his tax cuts have gone to the Wealthiest One Percent of American taxpayers - surrending a total of 2.4 trillion dollars of federal revenue.
2. He has let Big Pharma rule regarding the costs of drugs
American’s must pay in order to be healthy or merely remain alive.
3. He has let the Big Polluters dictate standards to the EPA (the reason Christie Todd Whitman - a Republican - quit in disgust), putting Americans health and the environment at risk by rolling back safeguards implemented in the 1970’s.
4. He has let Big Energy Corporations form his energy policies. And with Enron (CEO “Kenny Boy” Lay one of his largest campaign contributors during both his run for governor and president) watched while: the life savings of many, many Americans disappeared, States who were heavily invested in Enron went bankrupt, and Californians were ripped off in the largest energy scam ever perpetrated - and did NOTHING to stop it.
5. Has allowed no-bid contracts to his Crooked Corporate friends in Iraq.
6. Has publicly admitted that “Wealthy Elites” are his base.
Pushing Average Americans out of his way is what Dubya seems to do best - back then and for the past four years.
John Kerry stood beside average Americans back then, and with the chance, will do so again. Fighting _in_ that war, and fighting _against_ it when he returned home, “armed” him so to speak, with the understanding that American strength comes from every income bracket and from all walks of life, despite the fact that he was born into wealth.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 31, 2004 02:02 PMOne more thing… I encourage everyone to read my “Saddamized in San Francisco posted on my site written by some guys who crashed an anti-war demonstration last year in SF. It’s damn funny.
Posted by: Aldaron at August 31, 2004 02:02 PMIt would be really nice if they held a war and nobody came. Pacifism is a good ideology if (1) you are dealing with a civilized enemy who has some qualms about killing you (Gandhi, King), (2) you have someone else who will defend you even as you berate them for it (pacifists in the U.S. and Europe) or (3) you expect soon to enter a place not in this earthly realm (Christian martyrs). The opposite of being a pacifist is not a warmonger. Those who maintain the capacity for war, (and sometimes fight wars with appalling lethality) but seek peace create the longest periods of peace and stability. The U.S. falls in this category.
If people don’t like the world with U.S. power, imagine the world without it. You don’t have to imagine too hard. Think of the victorious Nazis, or Communism covering Europe. Or just think of places where the U.S. could have, maybe should have acted and didn’t – Rwanda or Darfur (in the making). Or the places beyond our effective influence like the Soviet Union during the terror famines that cost ten million plus lives or China during the Cultural Revolution, where perhaps as many as fifty million died. Think of the places we were driven from – Vietnam and Cambodia. People were willing to venture out on the vast ocean to reach where? The U.S. if they were lucky. Those liberated from the Nazis or Communists never tried to get back into these collectivist paradises. I know that traditional answer to all this is something on the order of the U.S. made them brutal. That excuses a lot and could be as easily used as an excuse by the U.S. Besides, the great murders of history (Holocaust, Stalin’s activities, the Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s Cambodia) all happened where U.S. power was weak. Where the U.S. was strong (post war Japan, W. Europe) things worked out a lot better.
History seems to indicate that the U.S. could not win in Vietnam, at least not with our level of commitment. But does anyone doubt that the people of SE Asia would have been better off if we had.
Aldaron, in the big scheme of things, war is evil. However, self-defense is justified by most of the world’s religions, and all of its governing bodies and leaders.
War represents the basest instincts in the human species. If we were not intelligent with language, and the ability to experience situations from another’s point of view, there would be no morality attached to war. War represents our inability to use the greatest of our faculties to resolve our differences and to shield our welfare from those who either do not have or choose not to use those higher faculties.
But, both at the instinctual level and the highest of non-religious ethical standards, self-defense is justified. And measures of self-defense which are sufficient to defend without causing greater harm than is necessary, is the highest ethical order of self-defense. Cutting of orphans hands as a means of defending one’s property from theft can hardly be held as ethical. Both locking one’s property from easy grasp and giving homes and responsible parenting to orphans is of the highest ethical order of self defense of one’s property.
I hope I have impressed upon you with the above how very NOT black and white, good and bad, human affairs can and should be. To be intolerant of any who would posit that war is evil, is a weakness of perspective that needs exercise and strengthening. War is evil. Self-defense is justified. These notions are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to perceive them to be.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 02:20 PMI think it is a misnomer to claim that so many believe the US is “equally culpable” for the attacks of 9/11. However, to argue that the US has no role in fueling international terrorism, and is not an imperial power, is not an argument that can hold water.
First off, imperialism has many forms, and it’s not just “controlling” another nation via occupation or puppet regimes. Imperialism in this day and age - I would argue - can be much more subtle, and has more to do with “heavily influencing” foreign governments to act in ways that are in our best interests. Given the unequal bargaining power, there really is no negotiation, and we get our way. It’s not imperialism, but what is it then? I would argue that it is certainly not right, at the very least.
Secondly, where is our magic certificate that says “we are the greatest nation in the world … hell, the universe”? This “world-view”, were we are paramount and everyone else grovels at our feet is what pisses of everyone else. Only when we realize that we are one nation among many, will we be able to live peacefully as one nation among many.
Imagine if you will a family with 9 children. One child is much older, and thus much larger, than the rest. If the eldest child does nothing but trample all over the other children, why would the younger children have any reason to respect him? Just because the eldest child is more powerful, does not mean that he has any greater entitlement than the other children.
Thirdly, there is nothing wrong with looking within to found a possible source of one’s problems. This “blame the other guy” attitude is rampant in American society, and it needs to stop. What happened with accountability? Reflection is not the same as self-loathing. It just means that before you start screaming bloody murder when something bad happens to you, it makes sense to pause for a moment and see if there was something you did to bring it upon yourself. If you’re smoking in bed, fall asleep, and your house burns down, is it “self-loathing” to acknowledge that you probably shouldn’t have been smoking in bed? True, the acts of terrorists are loathsome and atrocious, but they are driven by something. It is a worthwhile endeavor - in my opinon - to consider for a moment that we may be doing something to fuel their hate. Whether we should consider stopping what we are doing is another issue - self-examination does not mean automatic capitulation. It just helps clarify things.
Finally, I take it from your stance on war that you are not a Christian (in the true sense of the word). To answer your question, if Jesus was kicked in the balls, he would offer them to be kicked again and again until they were so black
and blue they fell off.
So this is my stance on things … what perspective of the history of our nation am I failing to grasp?
Posted by: wallisam at August 31, 2004 02:26 PMBush (#43) is the only President this country has ever had that can’t make a decent decision in spite of an army of experts holding his hand. Bush’s agenda and media image is carefully managed by Karl Rove. Example: He is incapable of speaking coherently on his own, yet we get an endless barrage of sound bites and video clips that pound the idea into peoples heads that he is a “great leader”. Similarly, “decisive” is confused with “wreckless”. The two key ingredients are TV dollars and people who don’t think skeptically. Jim Jones, Reverend Moon, Joseph Smith and Pat Robertson (to name a few), preyed on people like this throughout their lives and got mighty rich in the process. Jesus denounced wealth, war, torture and corruption. But that’s all Bush has to offer. Yet he claims to love and admire Jesus. Give me a break, how stupid can people be to believe anything this clown says. This election is not about Kerry, it’s about Bush(Co). Kerry could be a ham sandwich and I’d still vote for him.
Posted by: bayviking at August 31, 2004 02:41 PMDavid-
So would you stand and watch some weak kid get the shit beat out of him by a stronger one? After all, their not attacking you. You know that you can stop him from hurting the kid. Maybe you’d even get a black eye trying, but you know that you’d save the kid. So would you start the ‘war’ to save the weak kid? The bully just likes beating up weak kids, he thinks it’s fun. If you don’t stop him, he might beat the weak kid to death. Still, your in no danger, attacking the bully is definitely not self-defense. So would you save him?
walisam-
The only land the United States ever asked for in war was a place to burry their dead (Normandy). The first thing the United States asks when we go into battle is ‘how will we get out’ (Iraq, Vietnam…). The only demand we’ve made to the world is to let us play fair (WTO, NAFTA). We don’t bully people for favorable trade agreements (or we wouldn’t have such a big trade deficit). We send food and aid where ever there is tragedy. We bend over backwards to be honorable (Najaf), and beat ourselves up when were not (Abu Ghraib). This is what makes us the greatest country in the world.
- D
Posted by: Delzario at August 31, 2004 02:59 PMAldaron you asked,
What are you going to do if someone kicks you in the balls? It depends on how big of a man you are. Would I let someone try it again, I’m not Jesus. However, neither am I a violent person that has to prove my manhood by beating up some one who can not defend themselve. Using reasonable intellegence and the knowledge of the human body, it is easier and more effective to bring a man down to his knees and use the philosphey of the Samuria warrior which is “Live or Die”.
War is hell only for those few souls that are not directly involved in the combat or whos lifes are not at risk. Anyone that is under fire and has the means to defend themselves is on equal terms. It is kill or be killed that is not a problem. The funny part (if there is one) about all wars is that they end by talking which is the very reason they started in the first place.
Do most left minded people want war? the answer is no. But if as a last resort you have to go to war than all gloves come off and you use overwhleming force to destory your enemy period. You do not follow the leadership that the Bush policies have done and let your enemy off the hook only to fight them another day. This same policy was followed in Vietnam also and we know what history has to say about that.
As far as 9/11 goes and American involvement in using the same tactics to defeat our enemies. Where on gods green earth do you think UBL learned them from? Yes, the US taught him almost everything he knows. And being in bed with the same person does make us responsible.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 31, 2004 03:02 PMwallisam, sorry, your argument will not resonate with those who demand black and white terminology simple enough to be grasped without effort. You must be one of the liberal intellectuals who nuances everything into yellows, greens, pinks, and tans. Welcome to the club, my friend.
Some say a mind is a terrible thing to waste. I would add in your defense, and many others present here, that a good education is also a terrible thing to waste.
You are well spoken in your comment above.
The word rational is a fascinating word coming from the root word ‘ratio’: the comparing of equal and unequal quantities. While every American is entitled to an opinion and certainly all have some, rational ones are not so prevalent. And of those which are, far more than half of them are wrong, given enough time and hindsight. It is amazing that nations of people survive as a unified entity for any length of time at all, especially democracies. Ancient Greece was a democracy, well, for less than 200 years, anyway.
It will be interesting to see if our democracy has a chance of surviving twice that long. It will be a wonder to behold if it does. And if it does, I’d wager a lifetime of wages that liberal education is the key to such longevity.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 03:09 PM“The only land the United States ever asked for in war was a place to burry their dead (Normandy).”
So apparently the Mexican’s gave up California because they just didn’t want it anymore. See:
http://www.historyguy.com/Mexican-American_War.html
The first thing the United States asks when we go into battle is ‘how will we get out’ (Iraq, Vietnam…).
It’s interesting that you say that, since we had a helluva time getting out of Vietnam (LBJ even conceded that he could not legitimize the death of a single U.S. soldier, yet still did not bring them home). Further, we still have no freakin’ idea how we are going to get our troops out of Iraq. What is the endgame? We’ve already handed over “sovereignty.” So what marks the occassion that our mission is truly “accomplished,” putting aside for the moment that Bush declared our “mission accomplished” over a year ago?
The only demand we’ve made to the world is to let us play fair (WTO, NAFTA).
Again, interesting comment. This time, it was just decided recently that the U.S. was engaging in unfair tactics by charging foreign companies we believe are “dumping” on the U.S. market. Who made that decision? The WTO.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-WTO-US-Trade-Sanctions.html
We don’t bully people for favorable trade agreements (or we wouldn’t have such a big trade deficit).
There is a failure of logic here. Having a big trade deficit does not mean that we per se have fair trade agreements. We have a huge trade deficit for many reasons, among them the fact that the dollar is much stronger than the currency of many nations we trade with, so they can’t afford our goods, along with the fact that as a nation we have an ENORMOUS consumer appetite.
We send food and aid where ever there is tragedy.
Well, we should pat ourselves on the back for that one, but in the scheme of things, big deal. As far as per capita international aid goes, we rank far behind nations like Japan and Norway. Giving aid where there is tragedy is the LEAST we can do — especially when our foreign policies play some role in creating the tragedies. For example, East African nation can’t afford to buy food for its starving population. Part of the reason why? We loaned them massive amounts of money to purchase fighter planes, guns, and missiles from who? U.S. defense corporations. If you think about it, it’s kind of like punching a guy in the face, and then asking for a commendation when you offer him a bag of ice to stop the swelling.
We bend over backwards to be honorable (Najaf), and beat ourselves up when were not (Abu Ghraib).
Being honorable is its own reward. It is true that our actions to protect holy sites, etc. should weigh in our favor, and prevent people from believe that we ONLY commit acts like those seen in Abu Grahib. However, our honorable acts elsewhere do not excuse our behavior at Abu Grahib, and do not lessen our responsibility to hold ourselves accountable.
This is what makes us the greatest country in the world.
I agree our country is great — but for the opportunities it affords its citizens, and the pillars it was founded upon. We are certainly not “great” for the way in which we have been conducting ourselves as a nation for the past 3 1/2 years. And besides, what is the big deal about being “the greatest?” To me, it sounds like some testosterone-ladden pissing contest that is a complete waste of time. Perhaps if we were less worried about who was the “best,” we could spend more time focussing on just being “good.”
Posted by: wallisam at August 31, 2004 03:26 PMIt’s easy to believe anything if you dismiss the other side’s evidence without even an examination of it. People talk about Kerry’s lies, but they never go through the trouble of finding the facts that Kerry actually presented, and determining on the basis of the evidence whether the accounts he’s brought out are true. To some extent, this is forgiveable, given the fact that few of us are career researchers with the time and resources to look all this up. But other, more secondary sources exist that can point us to the evidence we need to exercise discretion and good judgment.
That often means publications. Newspaper, magaziness, and blogs. In reviewing these sources, the frequency of mistakes and the neatness of their sources are an issue. Newsmax and some liberal blogs get crossed off my list as dependable source because of precisely that kind of sloppiness. If you’re going to accuse Kerry of lying about his medals, for example, it helps to find out if the form you’re using as evidence was written up by him, or somebody else. In that recent case, it turns out to be another man. That changes it from a Kerry lie, to a Navy clerical error. If I see too many errors of that kind, to many cases in which talking points are accepted without question.
I don’t usually trust Fox News in part because they were too quick several times to declare that chemical weapons had been found, when tests would later refute it. Additionally they take the administrations word on things when other independent sources disagree substantively on the facts and interpretation. It’s nice to have an alternative point of view on things, but unlike some, I do not feel comfortable being fed my opinion. I guess that’s a result of having a president who lied about being given oral sex, and being one of those persons who defended him for so many years. I don’t wish to be beholden to anybody’s lies. Of course, I will be biased towards the liberal interpretation of things, take the Democrat’s side first on issues, but I don’t want to support my candidates on a counter factual basis. It’s just not worth it.
I believe war is an evil, but sometimes a necessary one. Being a necessary evil, it is something that should be kept to the minimum, which should be carried out in as disciplined and honorable fashion as possible. Otherwise it becomes a cancer on our society, diluting our morals, and weakening our respect for our own lives and others.
War is also a human enterprise, which means complex emotional cultural, and psychological phenomena are in play. Those who simplistically suggest that criticism of the manner in which a war is being carried out lowers morale forget that the psychological impact of failed missions and objectives, of constant bitter fighting without result can be equally discouraging, and much more immediate in their corrosive effect. I would bet you that those stationed away from combat zones feel infinitely better about the war than those who are having to fend off ambushes and be wary of IEDs. So too will civilians in the conflict guage the US troops. I would submit that a similar effect was at work in Vietnam.
The price of not examining the evidence from all sides, of trusting one own perceptions alone will be an isolation of this nation and fellow troops from the consequences of policies, and the evil effects of incompetence and atrocity.
The further price is the price claimed by the degeneration of our reputation, a degeneration that saturates the image of all soldiers, not just the war criminals, and that degeneration has more to do with what is passed on by our actions, than by the words of any one veteran coming home. We must take seriously and remain aware of the problems in the manner the war is being waged, and take care of the problems in discipline and adherence to the rules of war, before the problem grows bad enough to take care of us.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2004 03:32 PMdelzario asked: “So would you save him?”
My reply: it depends. If the weak kid taunted the bully into attacking him, I might just let the weak kid take his licks in the hopes of learning something valuable about instigation.
If the bigger kid were attacking the little kid for his lunch money, I would definitely intercede. Does that mean I would physically assault the bigger kid? Not necessarily. I would make my defense of the little kid known to the big kid, and await the big kids response. If he walked away seeing a two against one scenario, I would let him go, and perhaps call the police. It is in my own self interest and that of my children to intercede and prevent the big kid from being rewarded for his aggression.
Now, if the big kid is attacking a little kid in California while I am living in Michigan, well, I am not going to buy a plane ticket to go intercede. No!
You see, this is what I am talking about. These issues do not exist in a vacuum, and there are no black and white, right and wrong, good and bad, simplistic answers. Many folks on both the right and left, want simplicity and are willing to sacrifice the good and right to get it.
Good and evil, right and wrong, are not simple. They are the most complex ideas ever wrought upon a species in this planets history. If Saddam ruled Mexico and threatened our border with his regime, as he has with Kuwait and Iran, it would be justified for the U.S. to bring about the toppling of his regime.
But like the the kids in Calif. with me in Michigan, the question of whether the U.S. was justified in invading Iraq is not so black and white when Iraq is 4,500 miles away and lacking the means to reach our shores. If by invading, we destablize the entire region, if by invading we cause the death and destruction of far more humans that would have otherwise died and been destroyed had Saddam remained in power, then the justification for invading is not so clearly good, not so clearly right, and not so clearly justified. In fact, in the end, it may prove to be the most wrong decision that could have been made.
The invasion is over. The deed done. The question now is how do we act from here to insure the greatest good for the greatest number of human beings, theirs and ours? Will occupation create greater conflicts and deaths and destruction than leaving Iraq? Would it be in our best interest to do what is necessary, including admitting error, to motivate regional governments to take over the support and occupation of Iraq to help it secure its own autonomous government?
These are questions of vital importance if the U.S. is to discern the best and most justified course of action from here. And these questions are not being asked by this administration. It made a committment to occupy before the invasion and has, to my knowledge, never questioned its course since then. This, to me is a prescription for disaster as far as our leadership role in the world is concerned.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 03:38 PMThis is pointless. It’s the same arguments over and over again, only in different threads. We’ve all made up our minds. If you want to think you are changing minds, dream on.
I’m retiring to my site. Have a blast!
Posted by: Aldaron at August 31, 2004 06:42 PMThough a moderate Republican myself (and perhaps even a “liberal” one considering my views on gay marriage and some other social issues), I think that the moderate American voter is actually a lot more conservative than the media represents.
Gay marriage? Most are against it. So where is the actual middle?
The media portrays opposition to gay marriage (to offer just one example) as some far right position, but it’s actually in line not only with the middle but the majority.
Having said that, it’s obvious why the Republicans aren’t going to put forth their farthest to the right set on prime time. It’s the same reason the Democrats didn’t fill their convention slate with radical lefties.
Posted by: Martin at August 31, 2004 11:26 PMIt’s easier sending men and women to war if you’ve never been in war.
Young Jenna and Barbara Bush have just graduated from college. Speaking at the RNC convention they commented they were looking for something to do for the next few years! I challenge George and Laura to show their commitment to the war on terror by encouraging their daughters to sign up in the National Guard (not the soft spot) to go to Iraq. As both the President and First Lady have said, these are tough times that require tough choices, by an especially strong and determined leader. Nothing could reinforce their commitment and determination than having their own daughters put in harms way along with the 150,000 other men and women in uniform who have been sent to Iraq by Bush and the current regime.
Please, folks today’s national gaurd has little resemblance to the guard of the 60’s. The then commander-in-chief used active duty and darftees to wage the war in southeast asia. Going in the guard was to much like going to Canada, college or what ever else could get you exempted from serving. Based on my research less than 7000-8000 guards actually servered and most where in a supportive role.
The war was wrong then just as it is today. We lost 56,000 men for what? How many children( that is what the lion share of the militray is made up) do we kill for what? We did not stop commuissim and we will not change those that hate with more hate. We are called Anti-war, pacifist, un-american. I have served my country, during vietnam, I did not agree with the war but the powers to be, those in control do not care who is cannon fautter, as long as it is not them or thiers. We truly need to re asset our stnading as a super-power. because if we continue down this road we will be like all the X-super powers( ROME, ENGLAND, FRANCE, SPAIN). We have the chance to be real world leaders that will have great impact on the way man deals with contriverse globily or do we fllow the pack— to be a has been?
Russell is wrong. When Bush joined in May of ‘68, the president had called up 9,343 from the Air National Gaurd in January. He called up another 1333 in May. That summer he called up two more squadrons. So, Bush joined the ANG right when many of them were being called up. Russell seems to have done little or no research.
Yes, we lost lots of good men in Vietnam. But much of that is because it was a poorly executed war, by Presidents who didn’t go in to really win. It was, after all, a “police action.”
Going into Nam only appears a mistake in current retrospect from a forfieted bad war. Every lost war does to the nation that loses. But should we have fought in Korea to stop communism from spreading there? Should we have done the Berlin airlift? Should Kennedy have stood firm during the Cuban missile crisis? Should we have supported anti-Communist forces in Central America? At the time, the expansion of Communism was a serious threat.
However, I’m sure the 1.7 MILLION who died under Pol Pok after we pulled out would have been much happier if we had fought to win.
