 |
Dare To Inquire: Kerry's Anti-War Record |
Category: Articles 15 comments 27 Aug 2004 @ 19:01 by craiglang : Methinksthat those who scream the loudest just need something to scream about. It doesn't matter what the actual facts of the matter are. As long as it is someone who is running against Bush, the screaming will occur, and escalate as we get closer to election day. If it wasn't a war record then it would be something else, regardless of how minor. I made comments earler in my own newslog about politics as usual. IMHO this is a prime example of that. My $0.02. Thanx, -Craig 27 Aug 2004 @ 19:03 by craiglang : Another thought Who better to criticize the war in Vietnam than someone who participated in it? To me that simply makes him the most qualified of anyone to be a protester. I hear the same type of protests from others who are basically offended by anyone who opposed the war. I work with a couple of them in my day job. While I have nothing but admiration for people who are now or have at some time been in the service, To the folks in question, the military is what is at the center of the American ideal - my country right or wrong. And since they served in the war, in that military, it must have been the right thing to do. Thus anyone who opposed it must be "wrong". So in that regard, it doesn't suprise me to see some pretty vocal opposition to Kerry from some of the core of this group. 27 Aug 2004 @ 19:04 by vibrani : This is from the other day... Vietnam veteran and former Sen. Max Cleland said Wednesday that attack ads questioning Sen. John Kerry's combat record in Vietnam were "scurrilous" and "dishonest and dishonorable" and called on President Bush to come out against them. Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in the war, told reporters gathered at a school near Bush's Texas ranch that the commercials run by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were false and that "George Bush is behind it." "The question is, where is George Bush's honor? The question is where is his shame?" Cleland asked. "To attack a fellow veteran who has distinguished himself ... in combat, regardless of the political combat involved, is disgraceful." He said he was unsuccessful in trying to deliver a letter to President Bush urging him to condemn the ads. Cleland was joined by Lt. Jim Rassmann, a former Green Beret who recommended Kerry for the Bronze Star for risking his life to save Rassmann. The letter, which Cleland said was signed by nine members of the Senate -- all veterans -- urged the president to specifically condemn the ads, saying they "represent the worst kind of politics." After Cleland's statement, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, also a Vietnam veteran, said he was instructed by a Bush campaign aide to take Cleland's letter, but the former senator refused to give it to him. Patterson also tried to give Cleland a letter addressed to Kerry and signed by a number of pro-Bush Vietnam veterans, including several GOP congressmen. (Text of letter) The letter accuses Kerry of basing his campaign on his Vietnam service but then criticizing Vietnam veterans who support Bush, Patterson said. "You can't have it both ways," the letter says. The letter signed by pro-Bush veterans said they were angry that he had never apologized for saying that U.S. troops had committed atrocities in Vietnam. Kerry has said those comments were taken out of context and that he had been quoting what veterans had told him. "We're proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home," it said. Kerry became an anti-war activist upon his return from duty. Cleland's active support for Kerry was evident when the veteran introduced the candidate's speech in acceptance of the Democratic Party's nomination in Boston last month. (Special Report: America Votes 2004, the Democratic convention) President Bush has praised Kerry's military record, saying he "served admirably," but has not directly condemned commercials by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that have attacked Kerry's war record. He has called for such tax-exempt organizations, such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the liberal group MoveOn.org and others, to stop airing political ads. The groups are known as 527s after the federal provision that makes them tax-exempt and allows them to accept unlimited donations. (Bush urges Kerry to condemn 527s) The letter Cleland tried to deliver calls the ads attacks on John Kerry's honor, the honor of American veterans and the U.S. Navy. (Kerry alleges 'fear and smear' tactics ) "Our outrage over these advertisements and tactics has nothing to do with the tax code or campaign finance reform efforts of this nation," the letter said. Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson said he was instructed to take Cleland's letter and had a letter for the Kerry campaign. "Our pain from seeing these slanderous attacks stems from something much more fundamental, that if one veteran's record is called into question, the service of all American veterans is questioned." "As you yourself have said, there is nothing complicated about supporting our troops, and the leaders of this nation should make it clear that the members of our military will not only be supported when they wear the uniform, but also when they return home to the land they fought to defend," it said. "Their valor and their wounds, both physical and psychological, make them heroes for as long as they live, a status which should not and must not change simply because they seek to enter public service." 27 Aug 2004 @ 22:01 by bkodish : Comments on comments There are vets on both Kerry's and Bush's sides. There are some vets who like Kerry and/or hate Bush. There are others who, whatever their feelings about Bush, remain deeply disturbed by some of the ambiguities, down-right inconsistencies, etc. of Kerry's war and anti-war service. Dismiss them if you wish. I do not dismiss them. And I don't think this issue will go away soon. To argue that Vietnam service qualifies one to protest that war but not to support it, as Craig appears to imply, seems a rather perverse argument to make. Rather it seems to me that one's qualification either to criticise or support depends upon one's facts and logic. Not simply whether one was in the military (in Vietnam or elsewhere) or not. 28 Aug 2004 @ 05:05 by craiglang : Experience Hi Bruce, Thanx for your comments. However, I think you have my argument incorrect. I didn't say anything to imply "...but not to support it". I believe that this would be an incorrect conclusion about what I said (or intended to say). What I did say (or mean) was that being in war uniquely qualifies one to have a more understanding view of what war is all about. And thus it better qualifies one to be a protestor, far more so than if one had not served. I made no comment, and have no view about the other side of that coin. As I said above, I have worked with a number of people who have served in the armed forces. I am not a vet myself (I am a pacifist, actually), but several very dear friends of mine are Vietnam or Desert Storm vets. With regards to the current conflict, these folks hold a very wide range of views. Still, in my view, these folks are the ones to listen to regarding what war is all about. Regardless of whether or not their views agree with my own, it is their opinions that I respect more than any others regarding war. Everyone I know who has been in battle tells me that one can not possibly understand what it is like unless you have been in it. One can argue facts and logic all one wants, but in the end, doing battle is not about facts and logic. Simply put, being in battle is pure emotion. It is all about killing or being killed. Bruce, I don't know your history, so I don't know if you are a vet or not - or have otherwise experienced war in a way that I haven't thought of. If so, then you certainly have my respect and regards. If not, then you probably have the same level of intuitive understanding of the experience of war as I do - which is not much. You may feel free to call the argument I gave above perverse if you want - or anything else. But in the end, I believe that the experience of shooting and being shot at is emotional, not rational. And any of us who were not there can not possibly understand that experience. Well, that's my $0.02 on that. Thanx, -Craig 28 Aug 2004 @ 05:20 by craiglang : Comparing war records Another take on this is perhaps to compare the Kerry and Bush war records. Kerry fought, Bush didn't. I think that says enough in itself. 28 Aug 2004 @ 08:41 by jazzolog : The "War" Record Of Our War President This just in from Molly Ivins...who's known Bush since high school~~~ RELEASE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 2004, AND THEREAFTER AUSTIN, Texas -- We were bound to get at least one good laugh out of Swift Boat Veterans for Humongous Lies, and what a pip it is. Upon being identified as the lawyer both for the Bush-Cheney campaign and the Swift Boat Liars, Benjamin Ginsberg bravely offered his resignation to the campaign, which has said repeatedly it has NO connection to the Liars. He made the following poignant argument in a letter to the president, which I know will touch you as deeply as it did me (emphasis added): "I cannot begin to express my sadness that my legal representations have become a distraction for the critical issues at hand in this election. I feel I cannot let that continue, so I have decided to resign as national counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn't distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focused." Do you love it? The Swift Boat Liars are of interest only as a perfect case for those in media studies to see exactly how this stuff spreads, although it does dig up yet again the issue of how George W. Bush spent the Vietnam War. Here's a review of the state of play on that story. USA Today recently rehashed the remaining questions: -- Why did Bush, described by some of his fellow officers as a talented and enthusiastic pilot, stop flying fighter jets in the spring of 1972 and fail to take the annual physical exam required by all pilots? -- What explains the gap in the president's Guard service in 1972-73, a period when commanders in Texas and Alabama say they never saw him report for duty and records show no pay to Bush when he was supposed to be on duty in Alabama? -- A third question from USAT -- did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting into the Guard and getting a coveted pilot slot -- is a non-question. Of course he did. It was the peak of the Vietnam War, and there was waiting list of over 100,000 men to get into the Air National Guard. A friend of Daddy Bush named Sid Adger called the then-lieutenant governor of Texas, Ben Barnes, and asked him to get Rep. Bush's son George into the section of the Texas Guard known as the "champagne unit." Adger was a prominent Houston businessman who belonged to the same clubs as Poppy, sent his kids to the same schools and had sons in the champagne unit. The son of former Texas Gov. John Connally had joined, the son of Sen. Lloyd Bentsen joined, as did some players for the Dallas Cowboys. Barnes called Brig. Gen. James Rose of the Guard and recommended Bush for a pilot position. Bush got a direct commission and was assigned one of the last two pilot slots in the state after scoring the absolute numerical minimum (25) on the qualifying test. For years, Bush claimed a friend whose name he didn't remember had told him of an opening in the Guard, that he applied through regular channels and was accepted. The 72-73 gap in Bush's Guard record might have been explained by old Pentagon records but -- gosh darn it, those very records turn out to have been destroyed by mistake. Don't you know Bush was upset that the records that could have proven his story turned out to be gone? Several newspapers have put in freedom-of-information requests for still other records, but nothing has been forthcoming so far. Meanwhile, in a war of somewhat more immediate relevance in a place called Iraq, things are going so badly we find deserters from the ranks. Not the military ranks -- the political ranks. The latest defector -- a.k.a., person recognizing reality and showing some common sense -- is Republican Rep. Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, who said "it was a mistake" to go into Iraq. William F. Buckley, the conservative godfather, has also concluded that had he known in February 2003 what we know now, "I would not have counseled war against Iraq." Among those who are seeing the light, Max Boot, a noted neocon, thinks Donald Rumsfeld should resign over Abu Ghraib. The editors of The National Review blame the administration for being unprepared for the occupation. Tucker Carlson of "Crossfire" repents, as does Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek. Thomas Friedman and David Brooks of The New York Times are both big enough to say they were wrong. According to those who understand politics on the right better than I, the neo-cons are now in disgrace with the conservatives OR the "paleo-conservatives" are about to be chucked out of the party by the neo-cons. To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2004 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv 28 Aug 2004 @ 18:24 by bkodish : More Comments One strategy of dealing with Kerry's Vietnam war and anti-war record--attack Bush. By doing this, however, the original issue I brought up--the problems with Kerry's record, is evaded and avoided. 28 Aug 2004 @ 18:52 by bkodish : And Then Some Craig's comments on experience in war have certainly given me some things to 'chew on'. I don't see 'fact', 'logic', or 'emotion' as mutually exclusive, even in the live or death atmosphere of combat. One's personal experiences in a particular war will constitute a major life-fact to be taken into account in assessing that war (protest, support, or somewhere in between) that someone not there (say only reading about it) will not have. Furthermore, my own experiences in a war will not necessarily be what others experienced in the same war, let alone show me (in itself) what "war is all about." Different WWI Vets in different theatres of that war had different experiences from each other. The generalized typical experience of the WWI Vets (trench war, etc.) was different from that of WWII vets,who in turn, had different experiences depending on whether they were on submarines in the Pacific, Bomber crews over Germany, etc. And so, the fact that someone served in combat in a particular war, does not necessarily mean that he will evaluate about that particular war or any other particular war in a comprehensive or valid way. The fact that someone has not served in combat, does not necessarily disqualify that person from criticizing, etc., a particular war in a valid way. It all depends on what is said and how it is done. I don't believe that because, say John Kerry had certain experiences in Vietnam, that that made him necessarily better qualified to protest it. It depends what he did with that experience, how he evaluated it, claims he made on the basis of that experience, etc. However, from the rhetorical point of view it was surely very effective for Vietnam protestors to have Vets like Kerry speaking for their side. The problem some (not all) Vietnam vets have with this is with how Kerry went beyond his own experience with, in their opinion, unsubstantiated claims which besmirched the reputations of many soldiers who just did their jobs and did not commit 'war crimes'. Some feel that Kerry has never taken adequate responsibility for doing that. 29 Aug 2004 @ 08:28 by vibrani : Maybe this puts it in perspective? {http://images.shockwave.com/afassets/flash/this_land.swf } 29 Aug 2004 @ 09:14 by jazzolog : See For Yourself The Internet is screaming with rightwing rage about Moveon.org of course, and especially the Kerry Kit which they're giving away free. Well, there is a 4 dollar charge to ship it to you. Inside is a DVD which includes, with a couple hours of other stuff, John Kerry's 1971 testimony before William Fullbright, Jacob Javits, and a packed conference room. There's about 30 seconds from the testimony you can see right now at the order site {link:https://www.kerrykit.com/} . My opinion is he verbalized the views that brought the majority of this nation to confess at least a "miscalculation" about that "war." The majority in this case means something more than the usual caricature of a hippy-type that neocons think is representative of hilarity. Anyone who decides John Kerry is unfit for the presidency based on that testimony ought, at least, to see it. Many of you may not know that there was no draft by which to get soldiers for Viet Nam. With a draft at least there is a list you're on...and you can find out where you are on it and when you're likely to be called. At least there was when I went 1-A all through college. For Viet Nam there was a lottery. You had no way to find out when your "number was up." Many boys volunteered rather than go through the anxiety of trying to plan a life that could collapse with a letter in the mail. The lottery added to the very edgy feeling about the whole Viet Nam fiasco. 29 Aug 2004 @ 09:20 by vibrani : Or you can read Kerry's 1971 speech in my log. {http://www.newciv.org/mem/persnewslog.php?did=299&vid=299&xmode=show_article&amode=standard&aoffset=0&artid=000299-000149&time=1093771242} 29 Aug 2004 @ 13:24 by jmarc : release your records John the mantra repeated by the moveon types, Release your records George, goes just as well for Kerry. John could have ended this controversy long ago by releasing his records, which he still refuses to do. The fact that his honorable discharge didn't come through til 1978, certainly does raise questions that need answering, as do the almost 100 pages of records yet to be released. What is he hiding, other than some covert trips into Cambodia," burnt into his mind", that never actually occured? 29 Aug 2004 @ 20:38 by bkodish : I Marched With the Vietnam Veterans I marched with the Vietnam Veterans Against The War and now, 2004, I regret it. I can no longer dismiss and discount what Jamie Glazov writes in the article {Link:http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=185 |The Left's Ongoing Lies About Vietnam}: "After Saigon fell to North Vietnam in 1975, the summary executions of tens of thousands of innocent South Vietnamese began. There were to be two million refugees and more than a million people thrown into the new communist gulags and "re-education camps." Tens of thousands of South Vietnamese boat people perished in the Gulf of Thailand and in the South China Sea in their attempt to escape..." "The anti-war movement in America also facilitated the communist takeovers of Laos and Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge victory in Cambodia led to a killing field in which some three million Cambodians were exterminated. Paul Johnson has given a succinct, detailed and gut-wrenching account of this tragedy in his classic work Modern Times." "The Black Book of Communism, meanwhile, provides a meticulous and comprehensive account." "In just a few years after the communist takeovers in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, more Indochinese citizens were killed by the communists than had died on both sides in the whole Vietnam war." I want to add here that my re-evaluation of my previous views about the war in Vietnam have caused me personal pain, as I have many friends and loved ones who still cannot accept that the American government had considerable justice on its side in supporting South Vietnamese in their fight against the Vietcong and North Vietnamese, whatever problems there may have existed in execution. 29 Aug 2004 @ 23:22 by jazzolog : Release This Campaign! Right down the toilet and flush. As is, anyway. I look forward to the elevation and transcendence of the Convention beginning tomorrow. Tell me it won't be showbiz as usual. Swift Boat Liars For AWOL Fliers Yay! Other entries in Articles 24 Jan 2009 @ 00:36: History's Tragic Farce 22 Jan 2009 @ 19:56: Sowell On Our New President 20 Jan 2009 @ 02:53: The Bush Legacy 4 Jan 2009 @ 19:56: Israel' Response Is Disproportionate! 13 Nov 2008 @ 04:09: I'm Goin' To New York... 10 Nov 2008 @ 17:33: "A letter to the president-elect from a Middle East realist" by Barry Rubin 31 Oct 2008 @ 18:02: Running against Bush by Caroline B. Glick 8 Oct 2008 @ 19:18: Yom Kippur Greetings 6 Oct 2008 @ 22:10: One Reason That I'm Voting For McCain 7 May 2008 @ 22:51: Happy Birthday, Israel!
|
27 Aug 2004 @ 18:02, by Bruce Kodish