Why Kerry doesn't deserve your vote

[minsue]

Karen -

http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/diverse/smileyhug.gif

It's the best I can do from here and I coudn't read your post and not do something.

- Mindy

 

[mcfbridge]

If you recall, the gassing of the Kurds was in response to open rebellion encouraged by Bush I who promised to support them. Saving people and then leaving them worse off runs in the family.

Okay, I'm no Bush fan, but this is pushing it. To blame American policy for the butchery of Saddam Hussein is like blaming someone who sells matches for a forest fire.

Also, Bush II is the only leader in the world who is helping the Israelis fight the monsters that are on their borders. Every leader in the world, except for Blair and Bush, are feeling sorry for the poor Iraqis and Palestinians. Don't forget, if they didn't send out their own children to commit suicide and try to kill as many women and children as they can, these things would not be happening in the first place.

Now, that said, believe it or not, I'm going to vote for Kerry. Not because of foreign policy, but because of economics. I can't support any president who accepts his top economic advisor saying that sending American jobs overseas is a good thing for America.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Take out the word "might," then. John Kerry was dragged across the patriotic coals for asserting that he and his fellow soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam.

It was true. They did. Everybody who was alive during Vietnam and old enough to be aware of the war, knows that there were atrocities. It's true whether you want it to be true or not.

Shoot the messenger.

True or not. Doesn't matter in the context of what I asked. If an author begins to alter T-1 documents that he or she is citing, even if only obliquely citing, then that alteration is bad historiography and bad methodology. It is the same methodology used by Skinhead monographs, for example the Nuremberg laws MIGHT have been discrimatory against jews.

Skinheads have a real advantage, I don't speak & cannot read German. I must rely on a translation of those documents, and very likely I am citing T-3 or even T-4 documents while they are mis-citing a T-1. They can convince some people that the translations offered by history are actually faulty, and have a hidden biase injected by allied translators. It's bunk or course, but they argue it all the time as part of a wider revisionist movement who say the holocaust never happened.

In this case I can read english and I can read the T-1 document, if I have the wherewithal to go find it. This author is counting on people being too lazy to read the T-1. The author not only injects the word might, he decides not to place any of Kerry's specific charges, but places "commited atrocities" in quotes. This is also extremely faulty methodology. Kerry never said that, he enumerated the many atrocities he cliamed were commited. By placing the words in quotes the author is faling back to his Might have inclusion, to provide the reader with the subtle infrence that Kerry did not really say this or to imply there is a dubious nature to the reason he was "raked over the partiotic coals".

It's faulty historiography. It's faulty methodology. It is in fact propaganda, not a monograph. If the author is fully prepared to take such liberties with a T-1 document I can get my hands on, what liberties did he take with quotes from interviews he supposedly conducted? To a good historian, this article has all the credibility of a comic book. To a critical reader it has all the earmarks of A democratic propaganda rag. That is, it has zero credibility.

Does that mean the men he interviewed didn't say those things? I don't now. But I cannot say that they did after seeing the author's willingness to subtly alter a T-1 document to fit his political views. I would have to say that I cannot accept it based on his work. I would need coboboration in the form of interview transcripts or statements by the men being intervied. If such coboration were to be forthcoming, I might accept the atrocities these men claim to have commited as historically factual, but even then, I could not accept work by this author as historically valid.

There is a science to history. For all the playing around with facts people think they can do, the truth is most of it is debunked. While a huge amount of history is open to interpretation, your interpretation must meet very stringent criteria to be taken seriously. If you ever alter, modify, or add interpretation to a T-1 document then you are no longer acting as historian or journalist, you are providing commentary and opinion.

I don't know this author's qualifications. I do know what Doc posted from him is faulty historiography and faulty methodology. Qualified and professional historians are, however, an extremely tiny portion of the voting public. The only reason this article is called into doubt, in this forum, is because I happen to be a qualified historian and I can point out and enumerate the faualty methodology involved. Even then, it is only because I happen to have looked up and quoted the T-1 document for raphy earlier, that I detected the faulty historiography.

The author has a political axe to grind. 99 times out of 100 there won't be someone who can point out the faults in any group of readers. In the realm of historical accuracy this piece wouldn't survive inclusion in any historical journal who cared for their reputation. In the realm of propaganda, aimed at the general public that's pretty good odds.

-Colly

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't understand this. You're arguing over whether Kerry said "there were atrocties" or "there might have been atrocities"? And from there you're going on to impugn the veracity of the entire article? So you're saying there weren't any atrocities?

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly,

I'm addressing this to you because your words moved me. I can feel the anguish and heartache in them.

My grandfather was a Japanese POW, captured at Corrigedor. To my knowledge, he only spoke about his war experiences three times in his life, and he asked me to leave the room each time. "This is the kind of things that women and children don't need to hear," he told me. I don't really remember what started the first two conversations, but the last time was when he talked my brother out of joining the Marines. My brother told me that he was sworn to secrecy about their discussion. Like you, I still have a place of honor for his picture, since that is all I have left of him. He was a grand old man, as soft and gentle as only someone with great strength can be. I miss him all the time.

My uncle married a woman from Germany whose father had been a Nazi. She was ashamed of this fact for many years and refused to even speak his name. When my grandpa found out about it, he drove forty miles to visit her and talk to her about what the war meant. He told her how the dictators of Germany and Italy would murder anyone who didn't go along. My aunt is still ashamed of what the Nazi's did, but she was able to get past the biggest part of her hatred for what his job was (he was a clerk, by the way, in Munich, sending out paychecks to soldiers). This is the kind of man my grandpa was - he couldn't stand the idea of someone suffering needlessly.

For reasons I won't go into, I went through a period in my life where I grew very prejudiced against Phillipeanos. It was stupid and small-minded of me, but I hated everyone from the P.I. for no other reason that where they came from. After my grandpa died, I was talking to one of his friends about this. One of the things I hated them for is letting the Japanese set up these death camps in their midst. This man didn't say anything, but he went and got a book off his shelf and gave it to me. "When you've read this, come back and talk to me about what you've told me."

The book was written by a survivor of the Japanese POW camps. I found out that a lot of Phillipeanos had resisted the Japanese. Many of them were tortured and died for it. I realized that my hatred all these years had been a hollow thing, eating me up. I hid myself in my closet and prayed, begging forgiveness.

When I went back to my father's friend, he showed me a picture of my grandfather with his first love, a woman he met in the P.I. before my grandmother. I was so ashamed of myself. In his name, I had hated a whole class of people that he had accepted and loved.

This is why I so strongly argue for what I believe is the best in this country. My grandpa was a warrior and I have to live up to his name. I have to look myself in the mirror and say, "I, too, have fought a good fight."

I'm not sure why I'm sitting here and crying and telling everyone all this, except to say that I think I understand the feeling that you're talking about. It's the feeling of outrage for someone hurting the people you love most. It's a feeling that is multiplied infinite numbers of times because the one you love actually sacrificed himself so that those same people could hurt him without paying that price.

You are right. No logic or words of persuasion can make that pain go away. It cuts so deep into your soul that it defies definition.

I'm a bit too young to remember Viet Nam, but I do have friends who saw their older brothers go away and not come back. I, too, would hate anyone who spit on the soldiers. But I also hate what they had to do and I hate the people that sent them over there to do it because of a blind faith in some ideology that said any Communist government was bad and our enemy.

I feel the same outrage when I see these photos of men and women disgracing their uniform by torturing and humiliating helpless captives. I feel it again when I hear endless backpedaling by an Administration who can'd admit they've made a single mistake. I feel it when I look at my forbidden picture of flag-draped coffins coming home, knowing those men are not getting the heroes welcome they deserve. I feel it when I gather with my Church group and pray for the soldiers over there now. I feel it when I hear our President dodge questions over why he didn't fulfil his service and our Vice-President claims he had other things to do. Yes, I feel it when I hear about Kerry throwing away his medals. At least, he earned them. I feel an incredible shame for my government when the leaders question if someone was injured enough for a purple heart.

I'm sorry I'm rattling on. I just saw that you'd been singled out somewhat and I wanted you to know that I support you and I think I understand your feelings.

I always sign my posts the same way I've signed everything I've ever written. This time, I really wish I could reach out and take you in my arms and love away all the hurt you are carrying inside you.

Hugs,




Kat

Thank you. There is a deep well of anger, of hurt and as is often the case, it can become misplaced, leading to blanket generalization and hatred of a large section of people when the principals involved represent a minority of those people.

If left internal, it only festers & grows. Becoming an obsessive commitment to anger & hate. I bared my soul here and as usual there were some who simply listened, then lifted whatever paragraph they could most easily attack and carried on. Some here, didn't just listen, they heard. And because they heard, I was able to share that pain and anger and by sharing it becomes lessened.

Ken James listened, but he heard and provided the ultimate in paradoxxes. A protestor, but one who proved by his words & compassion to be none of things I had made protestors out to be in my mind.

Dirtman listened, but heard as well. Providing a veteran who held far less enmity for protestors than I did and sent a very moving e.mail to help me better understand his perspective.

Karen, minsue and now you all heard. You did not castigate me for the anger and pain, but shared it with me and in the sharing it became greatly lessened.

My grandfather is gone. I have a few pictures, a rocking horse he made me, a few mementos, among which are his medals. He was a good man and a brave man and he carried his own demons and memories from the war. I do not think he would have wanted me to carry them all my life as well.

I will never see protesting as patriotic. I will never forget what some protestors did nor will I forgive it. But I do recognize now that I let the actions of a few become represenative in my head of all, and that's not something I wish to carry around.

Thank you for sharing. Thank you for hearing. It means so very much.

*HUGS*

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, there was nothing to tell on Whitewater so what should he have told? You keep saying the Clintons "appeared to be hiding something," but you haven't said what they were hiding that it was important to know. Whitewater kept being made an issue by Republicans who hated Hillary and wanted to embarrass her, so Clinton - against the advice of his aides who knew the Repubs were out to get him - asked the Justice Dept. to appoint a special investigator to clear the air. What should he have told Starr at the beginning to save us the 6 years and $40 million? "We aren't guilty of any criminal activity regarding Whitewater, so don't bother." Or, "If you stick around long enough, you can catch me having sex with a woman who's not my wife."

It has to be one of those two, because otherwise there was nothing for Starr to turn up. Which is it? What did we need to know that Bill didn't tell us, that justified that witch hunt?

You still haven't explained what he was hiding that we needed to know. If it wasn't the criminal activity that Republicans had hoped to find but didn't, then what was it? I never said, "he had the right to lie under oath." I said that your side had no right to ask the question. You didn't have that right. He should have said, "yes, I banged her." But he was embarrassed, like anybody would have been, and angry, too, as he should have been. It was none of your business.

Btw, I don't care if GWB dresses up in his mother's underwear and dances the tarantella in the White House Rose Garden. There are so many things I don't want to know about his sex life, I couldn't begin to list them. Thank God it's none of my business.

But lie to me about how you're conducting foreign policy and governing the country, and you ought to be held accountable.

Those are things we have a right to know about.

A lie is a lie. A lie told under oath is perjury. A lie about the size of your cock here on the boards is no less a lie than saying Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. What you are doing is quibbling over the Magnitude of the lie told.

If you tell me you look like a young gretta Garbo and I tell you cool, I have a twelve inch cock lets cyber, we are both lying. The magnitude of my lie is several times the magnitude of yours, but because mine is bigger does that mean you look like a young Garbo?

I hesitate to use such mundane, even farcical examples when the lies being discussed are so very serious, but I think a little humor is called for, at least from me, because I need it.

You can easily explain away the lies Clinton told. They were trivial compared to Bush's. They weren't even things people had a right to ask. Etc.etc. ad infinitum. He was still lying. Any you and your party were still defending him and his lies.

As I said in my first post, at the time it probably seemed very trivial to you. Where he was dipping his wick & the details of a possibly crooked bussiness deal he was involved in years before he came to office. But he was lying and he did Lie under oath, and you still supported him, defended him and in doing so you supported his lies & lying.

Now another lair is sitting in the white house. And he is telling whopers that put Peckergate to shame. And you want the truth, honesty and accountability. Sorry. You already stood up for lies & lying.

The statement Democrats made, vis-a-vis Clinton's lies is that you support lying. Now you scream for the truth. Perception being as importatnt as reality, the perception is Democrats are saying lying is fine when it's our guy spinning yarns, but when the other guys are in office we demand honesty, full disclosure and accountability. It comes off to anyone who isn't partial to your new man as politics as usual.

Bill's lies may have been small. In comparrison, perhaps even insignificant. But when he was accused of lying you and your party took the politically expedient route and defended him. Had you taken a pragmatic and more long term view, you could have demanded accountability from your own man, when the lies were so small and your calls today for the truth would have resonance.

When Bill's pecker and it's more recent residing places were the issue of the day a few years back, you chose to support & defend lying about it. Now, a few years down the road, when the GOP is in power, the lies are hugely more siginificant and you desperatly want the populace to take up the call for truth. But no one seems to listen and you can't understand why.

The simple answer is because the proven liars and defenders of lies are now calling for the turth. What changed in six years that has made you so suddenly concerned with the truth? Al Gore lost in 2000.

So now the GOP holds the white house and suddenly lies are bad.

I understand your concern is very real. I understand too that the magnitude & repurcussions of the current administration's untruths are nothing less than life & death. But the question here isn't what I think, or what i know of you. the question is of the broader nature why no one who is republican seems to care. i will answer that question for you yet again. It's because the perception here is that you are playing partisan politics.

Republicans continue to fall back on Clinton and Peckergate because it works. Six years ago the Dems were defending a liar, a proven purjurer even, now they are calling for the turth? It dosen't take a genius to see where the inate hypocracy in that is blatant.

It's like P.T. Barnum telling you that the Ringling Bros.'s freak is a fake. He's probably right, but come on, P.T. is the biggest liar on the face of the earth. Then ringling Bros. merges with Barnum & Baily and now P.T. is extolling you to come see this amazing human oddity. Wha? You were calling it a fake three months ago. Now that it's your money maker it's no longer a fake but an amazing human oddity? Gimme a break. Oh, Here's your nickle I wanna see just to be sure. And there is a sucker born every mintue continues to be true.

-Colly

 

[KarenAM]

Thanks, minisue!

Okay, I'm no Bush fan, but this is pushing it. To blame American policy for the butchery of Saddam Hussein is like blaming someone who sells matches for a forest fire.

Sadly, mcfbridge, American policy toward Iraq and Saddam has a shameful past. In the 1980s the Reagan and Bush I administrations were openly supportive of his regime and supplied him with vast amounts of aid, including military intelligence, because he had attacked Iran. Both those administrations ignored his atrocities against his own people and I seem to recall that Bush I once argued that Saddam was our best hope for peace in the Middle East. Only a few days before the invasion of Kuwait, the Bush I administration was arguing with congress to give him more aid, over the objections of some congressmen who were worried that he might be dangerous.

After the Gulf War, Bush I went on national television and promised American aid to Iraqis who rebelled against Saddam. When they did rebel (coming withing a few days of succeeding, according to an Iraqi general who later defected and told us that Saddam's army was running out of ammunition), Bush I then changed his mind and left the Iraqi insurgents to Saddam's tender mercies, preferring instead to pressure Saddam with sanctions that by all accounts merely reinforced his rule while costing the lives of over a million Iraqi civilians during the Bush I and Clinton administrations.

I've been quite the hawk for ten years, you see, on getting rid of Saddam, but I saw from the outset that a military invasion of Iraq would not work, and it hasn't. This is why I have opposed this war from the beginning. The Iraqi people simply have no good reason to trust American intentions. Had we sincerely backed an effective uprising against Saddam, we could, I believe, have put ourselves in a position of friends of the Iraqi people, and whatever government emerged from the chaos would have been more likely favorably disposed towards us and willing to forgive our past failings. As it stands now, it's hard to imagine the situation being any worse for our interests than it currently is.

Also, Bush II is the only leader in the world who is helping the Israelis fight the monsters that are on their borders. Every leader in the world, except for Blair and Bush, are feeling sorry for the poor Iraqis and Palestinians. Don't forget, if they didn't send out their own children to commit suicide and try to kill as many women and children as they can, these things would not be happening in the first place.

The monsters, however, are not on Israel's borders; they are within Israel itself; this is not a war with clearly defined boundaries or combatants. Had Arafat not been an idiot and accepted Barak's peace offer some years ago, there would be an independent Palestinan state right now, and I feel that the lion's share of the responsibility for the mess there must be placed on Arafat's shoulders. But it's also true that the suicide bombings have not occurred in isolation; there are extremists on both sides, and having millions of Palestinians living in hopeless squalor in the occupied territories is a time-bomb waiting to go off against Israel; the Palestinians in those camps have a lot of legitimate complaints that have been unaddressed for too long, and so are acting desperately. The fact that what they are doing is actually hurting the Palestinian cause more than it could ever help it does not matter; there is too much rage in them right now, and the Israeli response is only fueling that rage, as is what they regard as America's one-sidedness on the issue (which I see continuing with Kerry). This is hard for those of us who haven't lived in such conditions to fully understand. A lot of Israelis realize this and are sick of living in fear and violence, but haven't been able to do anything about it as the situation spirals out of control.

It's a tragedy for which I see no near-term solution.

Now, that said, believe it or not, I'm going to vote for Kerry. Not because of foreign policy, but because of economics. I can't support any president who accepts his top economic advisor saying that sending American jobs overseas is a good thing for America.

Well, on this we agree. I'm not certain the loss of jobs can be fully prevented, but to argue that it is good is something I can't buy. For me, Bush's major failing is his runaway deficit spending. I don't care if your tax cuts are for the rich, the poor, or only left-handed people from Paraguay, you simply shouldn't cut taxes while increasing spending. Six trillion dollars in debt is too much. Period.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't understand this. You're arguing over whether Kerry said "there were atrocties" or "there might have been atrocities"? And from there you're going on to impugn the veracity of the entire article? So you're saying there weren't any atrocities?

---dr.M.

No Doc. I never mentioned the atrocities, nor the veractiy of the historical record that they were commmited. The fact of atrocities is supported by mountains of evidence and there are many books which discus them. Books without a political biase, which conform to sound methodology and historiography.

This article is not one of them. The author, intentionally altered evidence from a T-1 document. That is to say the author injected his own political biase into a primary document where that biase does not exist. If the author is willing to inject that biase into an extant document, how much of his biase was injected into the interviews he conducted? You can't answer that and neither can I. The fact that he would inject it into a T-1 or primary source makes any further statements by him simply opinion. There is no veracity to the article because he injected himself as historian or journalist into the article. The entire article must be taken then as opinion or political commentary. It has no historical value because the biase of the author can be shown.

In one of the stranger twists or historiography in fifty years the article may gain historical significance as a T-1 document, showing how author biase was injected into articles produced during a contentious campaign. As long as the author quoting it dosen't alter it to fit his own biase in that far future time, the document itself will become T-1.

-Colly

 

[KarenAM]

Karen, minsue and now you all heard. You did not castigate me for the anger and pain, but shared it with me and in the sharing it became greatly lessened.

My grandfather is gone. I have a few pictures, a rocking horse he made me, a few mementos, among which are his medals. He was a good man and a brave man and he carried his own demons and memories from the war. I do not think he would have wanted me to carry them all my life as well.

I will never see protesting as patriotic. I will never forget what some protestors did nor will I forgive it. But I do recognize now that I let the actions of a few become represenative in my head of all, and that's not something I wish to carry around.

Thank you for sharing. Thank you for hearing. It means so very much.

*HUGS*

-Colly

And HUGS to you, Colly. I wish I could have met your grandfather; he sounds like an extraordinary man. My own grandfather did weapons research in WW II, and carried his own demons. He too is gone, and I miss him.

I'm a better person than I was for having known my grandfather and having heard about yours. Thank you for sharing as well.

Karen

 

[mcfbridge]

Thanks, minisue!



Sadly, mcfbridge, American policy toward Iraq and Saddam has a shameful past. In the 1980s the Reagan and Bush I administrations were openly supportive of his regime and supplied him with vast amounts of aid, including military intelligence, because he had attacked Iran. Both those administrations ignored his atrocities against his own people and I seem to recall that Bush I once argued that Saddam was our best hope for peace in the Middle East. Only a few days before the invasion of Kuwait, the Bush I administration was arguing with congress to give him more aid, over the objections of some congressmen who were worried that he might be dangerous.

After the Gulf War, Bush I went on national television and promised American aid to Iraqis who rebelled against Saddam. When they did rebel (coming withing a few days of succeeding, according to an Iraqi general who later defected and told us that Saddam's army was running out of ammunition), Bush I then changed his mind and left the Iraqi insurgents to Saddam's tender mercies, preferring instead to pressure Saddam with sanctions that by all accounts merely reinforced his rule while costing the lives of over a million Iraqi civilians during the Bush I and Clinton administrations.

I've been quite the hawk for ten years, you see, on getting rid of Saddam, but I saw from the outset that a military invasion of Iraq would not work, and it hasn't. This is why I have opposed this war from the beginning. The Iraqi people simply have no good reason to trust American intentions. Had we sincerely backed an effective uprising against Saddam, we could, I believe, have put ourselves in a position of friends of the Iraqi people, and whatever government emerged from the chaos would have been more likely favorably disposed towards us and willing to forgive our past failings. As it stands now, it's hard to imagine the situation being any worse for our interests than it currently is.



The monsters, however, are not on Israel's borders; they are within Israel itself; this is not a war with clearly defined boundaries or combatants. Had Arafat not been an idiot and accepted Barak's peace offer some years ago, there would be an independent Palestinan state right now, and I feel that the lion's share of the responsibility for the mess there must be placed on Arafat's shoulders. But it's also true that the suicide bombings have not occurred in isolation; there are extremists on both sides, and having millions of Palestinians living in hopeless squalor in the occupied territories is a time-bomb waiting to go off against Israel; the Palestinians in those camps have a lot of legitimate complaints that have been unaddressed for too long, and so are acting desperately. The fact that what they are doing is actually hurting the Palestinian cause more than it could ever help it does not matter; there is too much rage in them right now, and the Israeli response is only fueling that rage, as is what they regard as America's one-sidedness on the issue (which I see continuing with Kerry). This is hard for those of us who haven't lived in such conditions to fully understand. A lot of Israelis realize this and are sick of living in fear and violence, but haven't been able to do anything about it as the situation spirals out of control.

It's a tragedy for which I see no near-term solution.



Well, on this we agree. I'm not certain the loss of jobs can be fully prevented, but to argue that it is good is something I can't buy. For me, Bush's major failing is his runaway deficit spending. I don't care if your tax cuts are for the rich, the poor, or only left-handed people from Paraguay, you simply shouldn't cut taxes while increasing spending. Six trillion dollars in debt is too much. Period.

First, you are correct. America, like most countries has a history of pragmatism. We supported the Shah or Iran, Iraq's Hussein, and other dictators when it suited our purpose.

Frankly, the first responsibility of any government is to look out for the well being of its own citizens. Bush's first responsibility right now is to defend the lives of American citizens no matter what it takes or what the cost. To the president of the U.S. American lives must come first. People look back at WWII when Truman dropped two nukes on Japan. Truman was asked how many night's sleep he lost over that decision and he said none. He was absolutely correct. We had been attacked by Japan and his responsibility was to preserve every American life possible no matter the cost in Japanese lives. The same situation applies here. We were attacked by terrorists. It is the president's responsibility to preserve every American life threatened by this situation, no matter how many terrorists and their supporters are killed.

As cold as that sounds, it is not necessarily evil For example, look at Iran. As bad as the Shah may have been, he was nowhere near as horrible as the fanatics that replaced him. Before he left, Iran was a modernizing country, now it is a third world disaster ruled by religious fanatics.

For that matter, look at Yugoslavia. Certainly, Tito was a dictator. But at least under his rule, the factions within that nation didn't simply destroy every major city within it just to kill those of a different ethnic background.

Yes, dictatorship is not the best form of government, but before you decide to replace it, or any other form of government for that matter, you better be sure that you are bringing in something better.


As to the Isrealis. You are also correct that the enemy is within their borders and that Arafat is a fool and responsible for a great deal of it. However, I don't believe that it would have solved the problem if he had accepted Barak's plan. Unfortunately, I truly believe that the fanatics on his side would have simply killed him, immediately. All you have to do is look at the case of Anwar Sadat.

Finally, I can't accept the comparison of the Israeli anger and the Palestinian fanaticism. While the Israelis certainly do take miliatary action, there is no religious group in Israel telling children that if the die killing other men, women, and children they will go to paradise. As to the squalor the Palestinians live in, unfortunately it was their parents and grandparents who caused it. If they have been willing to live in piece when Israel was first formed in 1948, there would be no camps now.

This is not to say that either side is blameless. Sadly, there are many caused for war. But I'm not sure there is any solution to the problem when two groups of people believe that God gives a rat's ass as to who owns a particular piece of real estate.

 

[shereads]

Yes, being heard must be a good feeling.

Being accused of betraying your country because you protest when it's in the wrong is every bit as painful as your belief that your grandfather was insulted in this thread. I don't see that anywhere, but I understand that you bring those emotions to discussions like this and I'm sorry it hurts you. It's equally painful to be accused of betraying your country because you want its leaders to lead rather than manipulate. It's painful to remember how awful it was to grow up patriotic and see your illusions shattered by Vietnam and Watergate, both of which you are lucky to have missed.

The generation who didn't live through Vietnam can't remember what it was like to know that young men who were against the war had no choice when they were drafted. Unless they could afford a college deferment or could get into the Guard, they had to shoot when told to shoot, and if they considered it murder to do so, that was too bad. If they died fighting a cause that they knew was wrong, we "honored" them with military burials. If they lived through it, we gave them lousy medical care, or virtually none if they suffered from Agent Orange exposure. We gave lots of press coverage to a few people who spit on soldiers, while our government spit on the entire lot of them, insulting them in every way except verbally - shortchanging them on post-war benefits; giving them crowded, second-rate hospitals; denying their claims when they got cancer from Agent Orange exposure and fathered deformed children - while we enriched, as we still do, the industries that provided the hardware of war.

Worst of all, when some of them had the guts to try to stop the war, and to tell the truth about how sick the war had become, we called them traitors. Which was every bit as twisted as calling them baby killers.

I thought we had outgrown that part. I really believed, when John Kerry announced he would run for president, that whatever else anyone thought of him, the whole country would honor his Vietnam service AND respect him for having tried to end the war when he came back.

Learning that's not the case - that so many patriots believe that a soldier loses the right to call himself a patriot if he tells us things about our country that we don't want to hear - has been deeply disheartening. I didn't know, after Watergate, that I could still be disillusioned. I was beyond wrong.

Since you know history, you'll know that Richard Nixon never had to swear an oath before Congress and confirm or deny that he lied to them and illegally bombed Cambodia, fueling the anti-American sentiment that ultimately strengthene the Khmer Rouge and led to the Killing Fields. He never had to take an oath and answer questions about the burglary he ordered at the Watergate, or about the Enemies List he gave to Herbert Hoover, so that people who spoke out against Nixon's policies could be spied on and persecuted as traitors. Just as no one suffered repercussions from Iran Contra except for the hostages.

Maybe that's why so many of us were so appalled at the treatment of the Clintons. Maybe those who don't remember Vietnam and Watergate and Iran-Contra would have seen the Starr investigation and the Clinton impeachment in an entirely different light if they had lived through some serious "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Pain is pain. Yours, for which I'm sorry. And John Kerry's and DirtMan's, for what they endured. And the pain of another disillusionment, for all of us who lived through Vietnam and thought it couldn't happen again in our lifetimes. We thought America had learned a lesson it would never forgot: to demand that our leaders provide compelling and irrefutable reasons before we allowed them to expose another generation of young men and women to something so poisonous...They did though, didn't they? They told us there was irrefutable proof.

 

[shereads]

No Doc. I never mentioned the atrocities, nor the veractiy of the historical record that they were commmited. The fact of atrocities is supported by mountains of evidence and there are many books which discus them. Books without a political biase, which conform to sound methodology and historiography.

This article is not one of them. The author, intentionally altered evidence from a T-1 document. That is to say the author injected his own political biase into a primary document where that biase does not exist. If the author is willing to inject that biase into an extant document, how much of his biase was injected into the interviews he conducted? You can't answer that and neither can I. The fact that he would inject it into a T-1 or primary source makes any further statements by him simply opinion. There is no veracity to the article because he injected himself as historian or journalist into the article. The entire article must be taken then as opinion or political commentary. It has no historical value because the biase of the author can be shown.

In one of the stranger twists or historiography in fifty years the article may gain historical significance as a T-1 document, showing how author biase was injected into articles produced during a contentious campaign. As long as the author quoting it dosen't alter it to fit his own biase in that far future time, the document itself will become T-1.

-Colly

I think Dr. M posted the article as a defense of John Kerry. I can't see much difference between defending him with this article, or defending him with the mountain of evidence, if people think he lost the right to be called a patriotic American by telling the truth.

 

[KarenAM]

First, you are correct. America, like most countries has a history of pragmatism. We supported the Shah or Iran, Iraq's Hussein, and other dictators when it suited our purpose.

Frankly, the first responsibility of any government is to look out for the well being of its own citizens. Bush's first responsibility right now is to defend the lives of American citizens no matter what it takes or what the cost. To the president of the U.S. American lives must come first. People look back at WWII when Truman dropped two nukes on Japan. Truman was asked how many night's sleep he lost over that decision and he said none. He was absolutely correct. We had been attacked by Japan and his responsibility was to preserve every American life possible no matter the cost in Japanese lives. The same situation applies here. We were attacked by terrorists. It is the president's responsibility to preserve every American life threatened by this situation, no matter how many terrorists and their supporters are killed.

As cold as that sounds, it is not necessarily evil For example, look at Iran. As bad as the Shah may have been, he was nowhere near as horrible as the fanatics that replaced him. Before he left, Iran was a modernizing country, now it is a third world disaster ruled by religious fanatics.

For that matter, look at Yugoslavia. Certainly, Tito was a dictator. But at least under his rule, the factions within that nation didn't simply destroy every major city within it just to kill those of a different ethnic background.

Yes, dictatorship is not the best form of government, but before you decide to replace it, or any other form of government for that matter, you better be sure that you are bringing in something better.


As to the Isrealis. You are also correct that the enemy is within their borders and that Arafat is a fool and responsible for a great deal of it. However, I don't believe that it would have solved the problem if he had accepted Barak's plan. Unfortunately, I truly believe that the fanatics on his side would have simply killed him, immediately. All you have to do is look at the case of Anwar Sadat.

Finally, I can't accept the comparison of the Israeli anger and the Palestinian fanaticism. While the Israelis certainly do take miliatary action, there is no religious group in Israel telling children that if the die killing other men, women, and children they will go to paradise. As to the squalor the Palestinians live in, unfortunately it was their parents and grandparents who caused it. If they have been willing to live in piece when Israel was first formed in 1948, there would be no camps now.

This is not to say that either side is blameless. Sadly, there are many caused for war. But I'm not sure there is any solution to the problem when two groups of people believe that God gives a rat's ass as to who owns a particular piece of real estate.

There's a lot here, so I'll try and address it one part at a time.

Pragmatism is a tricky thing, and it is based on one's interpretation of the situation. I agree that it is the responsibility of government to look out for its citizens, but I don't see how in the long run our backing of dictators has done this. By backing the Shah, we set ourselves up to back Saddam, and now as a result we are trapped in an Iraq policy that is not in the best interests of the citizens of the US. We continue to back the rulers of Saudi Arabia even though it is clearly not in our best interests to do so. We have failed, in other words, to distinguish between long term and short term pragmatism, and it's catching up with us.

Bush does have the responsibility to protect the citizens of this country, and I have supported many of his actions against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. I support our involvement in the war in Afghanistan as well as the rehabilitation of that country, because I feel it is in the best interests of the citizens of America as well as the world. But attacking Iraq has not served that interest. It has created a situation that I feel is more dangerous to American citizens than we had before.

As to Iran, one of the very problems that led to the current theocracy was the perception among Iranians that their culture was being undermined by western modernization. The Shah was widely reviled by Iranians, and I see no evidence that even those who oppose the theocrats would have preferred him to them. Iran is also experimenting more and more with democracy, quite without outside prodding. They've still got a long way to go, but I find it encouraging that the theocrats are increasingly having to accomidate the demands of a generation that does not remember the Shah. Having actually lived under a theocracy, Iranians seem less enthusiastic about bin Laden and his ilk than many Muslims who still live under dictatorships. Iran, despite its flaws, may be the best hope for the Middle East yet, in the long term.

I think we agree on how bad the Israeli/Palestinian situation is. It's possible that the extremists would have killed Arafat had he signed the deal with Barak (though the comparison with Sadat is not entirely accurate; he was highly repressive and unpopular, particularly near the end of his rule, and this I think is more the reason the Islamists assassinated him than his decision to make peace with Israel, an enemy that the Egyptians were quite frankly tired of fighting with.). And while at the moment there are no religious groups in Israel telling people that they should send their children out to be suicide bombers, there are religious groups in Israel that are demanding that Israeli soldiers protect settlements that are stratigically untenable simply because those settlers believe that God gave them some piece of land and those "other" people should either leave or die without protesting. Many of these Israeli solders are dying and a lot of Israelis are mad about it. Like the leaders of Hamas, these small numbers of settlers don't seem to care that other people's children are dying for their cause.

I agree that no solution to this comes to mind.

The fact that the Palestinians in 1948 were foolish does not change the facts on the ground now, any more than the fact that Reagan and Bush in the 1980's were foolish changes the fact that we have to deal with our mistaken invasion of Iraq now. Pragmatism, I would hope, takes the past into account but also works with the now and the future. Not just this year or next, but ten years from now, and twenty, and so on. In that long term perspective, I just don't see how backing dictators, particularly those who are clearly unpopular (like the Saudi royal family) helps us. Are we prepared if a violent revolution sweeps over the entire Middle East? Or have we hitched our horse to a losing group of despots?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think Dr. M posted the article as a defense of John Kerry. I can't see much difference between defending him with this article, or defending him with the mountain of evidence, if people think he lost the right to be called a patriotic American by telling the truth.

The article is a political tract, with an extremely strong pro Kerry biase. That's acceptable, there is no reason to immediatly discredit facts presented by someone with a strong biase.

If however, the presentor lets his biase infect the facts he is presenting, rather than the interpretation of those facts, then the article is useless in a historical or critical thinking context. Although it may still have great value as a propaganda item.

This article is no more useful to a critical thinker in making a judgement on Kerry's accusations or actions than Superman #3, where he drags Hitler & Musilini before the world court and WWII is averted is in determining what happened in Eurpoe in 1938 is.

This author is presenting interviews with people who are detailing their own atrocities, and these interviews are intened as coboration of Kerry's accusations. The interviews are useless, because the interviewer has already shown he is willing to play fast & loose with the facts to support his agenda.

I am not saying Kerry lied. I am not saying there were no atrocities. I am not even saying these men did not, in fact, detail their own atrocities. I am simply saying this article is political propaganda dressed up as fact and has no bearing on the question in a factual sense.

-Colly

Edited to add: From a political perspectve this article actually does more harm than good. A savy republican reader might very well ask, if Kerry did nothing wrong, why do his defenders feel the need to lie about what he said? that leavces the presenter, in this case the author, standing over a barrel where he cannot win. Because he has been caught in an intellectual lie and now his defense of anything he has said previously becomes suspect.

 

[shereads]

mcfbridge:

An interesting post, mcf, and I agree with a lot of what you said although I disagree about the degree of Israel's complicity in the Palestinian mess. No, they don't tell their children that God will reward them for killing Palestinians; on the other hand, they have the support of the United States, they have a military, and their children don't live in squalor. If the situation were equal on both sides, God's name might very well be invoked.

The point that troubles me - not because you posted it, but because it seems to have become a common assumption, is this one:

Frankly, the first responsibility of any government is to look out for the well being of its own citizens. Bush's first responsibility right now is to defend the lives of American citizens no matter what it takes or what the cost.

When a president takes the oath of office, he swears to preserve and protect the Constitution.

Nowhere in the oath does it say, "I swear to protect American lives even if it means taking away some of their rights under the Constitution."

I first thought of that disconnect a few months ago, when a journalist at a press conference asked about the constitutionality of the Patriot Act and was told, in pretty much the same words, that the president's first duty is to protect American lives, whatever the cost.

That being the case, we should rewrite the oath of office. Because a president who doesn't believe that his sworn duty is to protect our Constitutional rights - whatever the cost - is taking the oath under false pretenses. One who is willing to suspend some of our rights for the duration of the existence of terrorism, might fairly be said to have lied under oath.

 

[shereads]

The article is a political tract, with an extremely strong pro Kerry biase. That's acceptable, there is no reason to immediatly discredit facts presented by someone with a strong biase.

If however, the presentor lets his biase infect the facts he is presenting, rather than the interpretation of those facts, then the article is useless in a historical or critical thinking context. Although it may still have great value as a propaganda item.

This article is no more useful to a critical thinker in making a judgement on Kerry's accusations or actions than Superman #3, where he drags Hitler & Musilini before the world court and WWII is averted is in determining what happened in Eurpoe in 1938 is.

This author is presenting interviews with people who are detailing their own atrocities, and these interviews are intened as coboration of Kerry's accusations. The interviews are useless, because the interviewer has already shown he is willing to play fast & loose with the facts to support his agenda.

I am not saying Kerry lied. I am not saying there were no atrocities. I am not even saying these men did not, in fact, detail their own atrocities. I am simply saying this article is political propaganda dressed up as fact and has no bearing on the question in a factual sense.

-Colly

Then maybe you're guilty of what you've accused others of: responding to something that was posted out of a need to have one's feelings understood and acknowledged, by posting a refutal of some facts. It's a painful issue. For a lot of us.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Then maybe you're guilty of what you've accused others of: responding to something that was posted out of a need to have one's feelings understood and acknowledged, by posting a refutal of some facts. It's a painful issue. For a lot of us.

I am guilty of many things. One of them I have not recently been accused of is refusal to see other people's point of view. Or to allow that I may have been mistaken.

If however, factual refutation of articles posted has become anathema here, I would be best served by checking out of the discussion.

-Colly

 

[raphy]

I'm sorry, but I still don't see what the essential problem is with that article.

Whether they injected the word 'might' into or not, as far as I can tell, it's irrelevant.

Fact: Atrocities were committed in vietnam.
Fact: Kerry came home and told us about them.

Obviously, it's up to the individual reader to then determine whether Kerry's telling of the atrocities is worthy of his villification, but the two facts above are not in dispute.

Or am I missing something here?

 

[shereads]

I am guilty of many things. One of them I have not recently been accused of is refusal to see other people's point of view. Or to allow that I may have been mistaken.

If however, factual refutation of articles posted has become anathema here, I would be best served by checking out of the discussion.

-Colly

That wasn't my point, but I'm making one that you'd rather not acknowledge. That's okay. I'm pretty sure you know what I meant. If you like, I'll just admit that I'm a Traitor to American values and that I do this for fun, not because I take any of these issues as seriously as you do. I need to be reminded once in a while that some Americans love their country and don't enjoy these wars the way I do.

These past few weeks on this board have been disheartening for reasons that go beyond the events themselves. It's become clear that the election will go to whoever makes us like ourselves more; the one who protects us from pictures that bring us too close to what's being done in our name. Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, John Kerry as he was three decades ago when he managed to survive the years of Peace With Honor; anybody who fails to appreciate America's purely heroic role in the world is unworthy. Nothing much has changed in the decades since My Lai, when the courage of the people who admitted what had happened was twisted into an unspoken defense of the assholes in charge.

So far, the big winners of the 2004 election are John Ashcroft, whose job is to stifle dissent; Ahmad Chalabi, who is being paid handsomely with those precious tax dollars for assisting the war effort with false information; Osama bin Laden who has us right where he wants us; and of course, Raytheon. The losers are a few thousand dead people whose faces we don't want to see, and our allies who live in the wrong hemisphere, and any future president who needs their help to fight a clear and present danger.

It's just too damned sad.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

double post

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I posted the Kerry article not as a primary source document on atrocities in Viet Nam, but because it contained some pretty graphic anecdotes of the kind of things that were going on over there. I wanted to provide some sort of idea of what the climate of debate was like back then, because it was hot, it was emotional, and it was visceral. They were throwing people out of helicopters and our own troops were fragging their officers. It was an angry, frustrating war and it boiled up into acts of pure rage. We were horrifed by My Lai, but I don't think anyone was particularly surprised.

There were atrocities. There’s no question of that. There were atrocities on both sides of course, though that’s no excuse. I myself heard of some from primary sources: the grunts who’d been there. That guy in the article who had a collection of ears wasn't the only one who did that. As I mentioned in another thread, I worked with a former Marine who had taken some ears himself. He'd even brought them stateside with him as souvenirs. He was surprised that we weren’t amused when he wanted to tell us about it.

Sure the article is biased. But that doesn’t make it untrue. I doubt very much that the author made up those quotes, or that he messed significantly with the context. I really don’t understand the relevence of whether Kerry said “there were” or hedged and said “there might have been”. If you feel that this discrepancy invalidates the entire article or casts doubts on the veracity of atrocities, then I simply don’t agree with you.

I’m also astonished that anyone can equate lying in public about one’s personal life—even under oath—with lying to the public in order to set policy. All I can say is that we must be operating in two different moral universes here, and if that’s the case then I think it’s time I bailed out of this discussion.

Really, there’s nothing more to say, except for this:

I have the feeling that I’m the one who insulted Colleen’s grandfather, although I really don’t understand how. (Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I missed some posts, in which case just ignore all this.) If I did though, Colleen, I'm very sorry and I apologize most abjectly, as that was never my intention. I was just trying to clarify what it was that he taught you that was more important than acting on your conscience.

And if we ever get to a point in these discussions where our emotions get that involved, then it's safe to say we've lost all capacity for objective discourse and it's best to drop the entire subject.

---dr.M.

 

[cloudy]

So far, the big winners of the 2004 election are John Ashcroft, whose job is to stifle dissent; Ahmad Chalabi, who is being paid handsomely with those precious tax dollars for assisting the war effort with false information; Osama bin Laden who has us right where he wants us; and of course, Raytheon. The losers are a few thousand dead people whose faces we don't want to see, and our allies who live in the wrong hemisphere, and any future president who needs their help to fight a clear and present danger.

It's just too damned sad.

Now you're blaming Raytheon???????

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm sorry, but I still don't see what the essential problem is with that article.

Whether they injected the word 'might' into or not, as far as I can tell, it's irrelevant.

Fact: Atrocities were committed in vietnam.
Fact: Kerry came home and told us about them.

Obviously, it's up to the individual reader to then determine whether Kerry's telling of the atrocities is worthy of his villification, but the two facts above are not in dispute.

Or am I missing something here?

Read the original statement Raph. Then read the author's allusion to it. If you wish to give Kerry credit for what he said, then give him credit for it. It was strongly worded and totally unambiguous. Facts bear out that much, if not all of what he said was also true.

The author however has a politcal agenda. Since Kerry is taking so much flack for what he said, the author softens it. He basically puts a nice little spin on some very harsh words. In doing so, he injects his political agenda into the primary document, where there was not the same agenda within the document.

I did not make a blanket statement on Kerry, atrocities, or even on his percieved patriotism or non-partiotism. I simply said this particular article, by this particular author is invalid in providing information that is factual.

I majored in history. I subscribe to historical journals and in the case of one of the major ones, as a member of Phi Beta Kappa, I occasionally provide comment on the articles. There is a methodology to history and historical texts. This author is not following the methodology that is required to present something and have it accepted as fact. The interviews conducted are totally irrelevant. If he is not following the methodology required on already extant texts, what guarentee do we have that he is following correct methodology in the interviews? What guarentee do I have he even conducted interviews in the first place?

Doc presented the article to make a point. I did not attack the point, I simply said the article is not proof of his point. Atrocities occured. Kerry spoke out about them. His patriotism has been questioned because of that. I don't dispute any of these points. I would be silly to even try to dispute them. The article however, has a particular spin to it, a spin that is not within the bounds of aceptable when it comes to historiographal and methodological tests.

Doc's point is not invalidated by my pointing out the article is faulty methodologically. In the same breath, the article is not proof of his point. It's a wash. Just one person's opinion on the matter at hand. No more or less valid than anyone else's here.

My point was not that Doc was wrong. Nor that an opposing view was right. My point was simply that the article can not be taken at face value as fact. No more, no less.

-Colly

 

[mcfbridge]

I have to admit I do find this fascinating. Not the difference of opinions and view. That's to be expected among any group of intelligent and literate people.

No, what I find interesting, is the intensity. Even though this is discussion only among friends, and even then among friends most of us really don't know, some writers are alreay taking this personally. They are becoming frustrated and defensive because their views are not always agreed with.

If a mere discussion on a forum board can evoke this kind of passion, what chance does real peace in the world have? How will people reasonably and intelligently discuss their differing views and opinions without passion and anger when they meet face to face, if it so difficult to do in this very simple manner.


By the way, on a totally irrelevant note; Coleen, weren't those your bunnies for Easter. I saved that AV to my hard Drive. What are you going to do for next holiday. Can't wait to see what will top that.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I posted the Kerry article not as a primary source document on atrocities in Viet Nam, but because it contained some pretty graphic anecdotes of the kind of things that were going on over there. I wanted to provide some sort of idea of what the climate of debate was like back then, because it was hot, it was emotional, and it was visceral. They were throwing people out of helicopters and our own troops were fragging their officers. It was an angry, frustrating war and it boiled up into acts of pure rage. We were horrifed by My Lai, but I don't think anyone was particularly surprised.

There were atrocities. There’s no question of that. There were atrocities on both sides of course, though that’s no excuse. I myself heard of some from primary sources: the grunts who’d been there. That guy in the article who had a collection of ears wasn't the only one who did that. As I mentioned in another thread, I worked with a former Marine who had taken some ears himself. He'd even brought them stateside with him as souvenirs. He was surprised that we weren’t amused when he wanted to tell us about it.

Sure the article is biased. But that doesn’t make it untrue. I doubt very much that the author made up those quotes, or that he messed significantly with the context. I really don’t understand the relevence of whether Kerry said “there were” or hedged and said “there might have been”. If you feel that this discrepancy invalidates the entire article or casts doubts on the veracity of atrocities, then I simply don’t agree with you.

I’m also astonished that anyone can equate lying in public about one’s personal life—even under oath—with lying to the public in order to set policy. All I can say is that we must be operating in two different moral universes here, and if that’s the case then I think it’s time I bailed out of this discussion.

Really, there’s nothing more to say, except for this:

I have the feeling that I’m the one who insulted Colleen’s grandfather, although I really don’t understand how. (Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I missed some posts, in which case just ignore all this.) If I did though, Colleen, I'm very sorry and I apologize most abjectly, as that was never my intention. I was just trying to clarify what it was that he taught you that was more important than acting on your conscience.

And if we ever get to a point in these discussions where our emotions get that involved, then it's safe to say we've lost all capacity for objective discourse and it's best to drop the entire subject.

---dr.M.

So far in the past, yet still a subject that causes pain, anger and recrimination. You didn't insult my grandfather Doc, I perceived you as doing so. My own anger and pain made statements not intended to harm, hurt. There is no need for apology on your part or anyone else's. I am a little wiser today than I was yesterday. I know myself a little better. And I can see where I let my perception of things become so skewed by anger that I took offense where none was offered. For that I should be apologising, not you. And I do.

As to the article, as I explained above, I did not say, nor did I intend it to seem I was saying your point was invalid. The article is biased. That, in itself isn't reason to discount it. It is methodologically unsound, and that is. You are, I believe, a chemist. If someone presented a paper with test results you could not duplicate in your own lab and you found out the results were flawed because of the presenting scientist's methodology, then you would discount the results would you not? I simply pointed out that this author's methodology is flawed and thus his conclusions cannot be taken at face value. Nor can we automatically assume that this same methodological failure isn't present in his interviewing proceedures and reporting. Without the actual transcripts of the interviews, we do not even know what questions were asked nor what context the answers were provided within.

Since I can prove, by the context of a T-1 document he refers to, that he is not above changing the words and wording, I cannot asume that this same penchant for playing his political biase is not also present in the interview quotes he provides. Biase in your interpretation of historical fact is perfectly acceptable. Changing the facts or words to fit your biase is not.

When it comes to lies you and Sher and others here seem to have missed the point. I do not sanction the lies of the Bush administration. I did not sanction the lies of the Clinton administration. Clinton lied. That is a fact. Democrats defended him and his lies vigorously. That too is a fact. Now, Bush has lied. That is a fact. The people screaming loudest now for the truth are the same people who were so staunchly defending the lies of Bill Clinton. If you do not see the irony there, then there is little I can say. If you do see the irony, then you must also see how easily the cries for the truth can be spun as partisan politics. As tired as we all get of partisan politics in an election year, it becomes less unbelieveable that people just tune it out.

-Colly