Why Kerry doesn't deserve your vote

[Wildcard Ky]

Originally posted by Bullet:

If you don't care about world affairs, do you care about the environment? The Bush Administration has declared war upon our environment. The EPA was a product of the Nixon administration. The Bush administration has emasculated it. Bush will gladly destroy our air and water, cut our old growth forests for a campaign contribution.

How over the top can you be? One man wants to destroy our water and air eh? I must've missed the declaration of war on that one. Fanatical rantings of declaration of war and willingly destroying all air and water make the rest of the environmentally conscious people look bad.

So Kerry will change all this? Did you learn this at the speech where he was talking about how bad SUV's are for the environment, then left in a Chevy Suburban? Or when he proudly stated that he doesn't own an SUV, but neglected to mention the fact that his wife has three of them registered in her name.

Kerry will tell you exactly what you want to hear, then go tell the next group exactly what they want to hear, then go do exactly what he wants to do. Such is the way of hypocrites.

 

[raphy]

On the subject of Bill Clinton, I offer you this:

Members of Congress...people of America....I banged her. I banged her like a cheap gong. Which is not news, folks, because if you think Monica Lewinsky was the only skin flute player in my orchestra, you haven't been paying attention. The only babes in D.C. I haven't tried to do are the First Lady, Reno, Albright, and Shalala, mostly because they're a little older than I like and they have legs that former Houston Oiler Earl Campbell would envy. Which isn't to say I don't appreciate Hilary...I do. If not for the ice-water coursing through her veins, I'd be pumping gas into farm equipment in Hope, Arkansas, and she'd be married to the President.

So, let me set the record straight. I dodged the draft, hid FBI files, smoked dope, flipped Whitewater property, set up a new Korean wing in the White House, fired the travel staff, paid hush money to Hubbell, sold the Lincoln bedroom like an upscale Motel 6, and grabbed every ass that entered the Oval Office.

Got it? Good!

Six years ago, there's not a man, woman, or child who didn't know I was as horny as Woody Allen. But, you elected me anyway, which turned out to be a good move on your part. Your other choice was Bush, an aging baseball player and part-time resident of some place called "Kennebunkport" who thought he could bomb his way into the White House.

Before him, it was Reagan, who left the office with the same Alzheimer's he came in with. Carter brought you a 17% prime interest rate, smiling the whole time like his lithium drip had just kicked in. Nixon before that coined the phrase, but he never really understood the concept of "plausible deniability." Besides, he almost got a one-way ticket to San Clemente for his crackerjack style of governing. Johnson was an inbred, power-mad war criminal whose major contribution to American society was Agent Orange. And John Kennedy, who was a little naughty himself, he didn't hang around long enough for America to spot that curious atavistic tic for "beaver-wrestling" shared by at least a dozen former residents of the White House.

Which brings me back to my point. Since I have been strumming the banjo here, government is doing more for less. The budget is balanced for the first time since JFK did a one gun salute to Marilyn, a fact the press didn't seem to care about at the time.

Unemployment is so low today a blind felon can get a job as a night-watchman, the stock market is higher than a D-student on a full gram of dumb-dust, and anyone with a degree from a junior college who can spell the word 'internet' has enough money to ponder the annual maintenance cost of his boat, instead of where his next meal is coming from.

Bottom line: I'm running a country here and I'm doing it with my pecker showing.

What I'm asking for is your support, not a date with your daughter... unless, of course, she's a hotty with thin ankles, and then I'd like to discuss it. In the meantime, think about where you are today and what kind of life you're living before you get too interested in where I'm parking the Presidential limousine.

God Bless AMERICA.
Thank you.

"I never said I was an angel, I never said I was a saint
But you tell me what's more important, what I am or what I ain't?"

 

[raphy]

Kerry will tell you exactly what you want to hear, then go tell the next group exactly what they want to hear, then go do exactly what he wants to do. Such is the way of hypocrites.

And the way of politicians.

Oh, wait. Aren't they the same thing?

 

[thebullet]

How over the top can you be? One man wants to destroy our water and air eh? I must've missed the declaration of war on that one. Fanatical rantings of declaration of war and willingly destroying all air and water make the rest of the environmentally conscious people look bad.

This administration has been quietly dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency. Every mainstream environmental group I know has been in emergency mode for years. I am a moderate who cares about the environment. I am not a fanatic.

Have you taken the time to keep track of all the 'gains' that this administration has made? How about the Sequoias! Are you aware that the Bush Administration is proposing logging some of the world's oldest and tallest trees on the grounds that they are a fire hazard? My theory is: if they haven't burned down in 500 to 1000 years, they probably are not a fire hazard. The Sequoias as fire hazard is right up there with Reagon's 'trees cause pollution'.

The National Council of Churches, which represents 50 million people in 140,000 denominations, has sent a letter to President Bush expressing "grave moral concern" for the administration's air pollution policies. The scathing letter, sent by Christian leaders to coincide with Earth Day, criticizes the administration's so-called Clear Skies initiative and its weakening of the Clean Air Act's new source review program, noting that those policies typify the White House's ongoing efforts to "weaken critical environmental standards."

There go those fanatics at the National Council of Churches again!

Bush Administration Budget Proposal for FY 2005
President Bush’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2005 dramatically cuts funding for environmental protection. Total spending on environmental programs is slated for a $1.9 billion reduction

The environment is in trouble. I am not a ranting fanatic but a concerned moderate.

 

[shereads]

I don't think that anyone disputes that there was evidence of WMD. The evidence was there, and we weren't the only ones to believe it.
Thank you Dr.m. So far you are the only person that I know of in thread that has acknowledged that the evidence and belief of WMD's predated GWB. It just bothers me that some try to paint a picture of one person scheming up this whole WMD fiasco. That's simply not how it happened.


The question is, was the evidence strong enough to warrant an invasion and a war. Most of the world thought not, and it looks now like the UN inspections were working as they were supposed to.

I agree that the inspections appear to have been working as they were supposed to. However, one has to remember that Saddam kicked out the inspectors. That was one of the precursors to the invasion. I forget the exact number, but Iraq violated 100+ UN resolutions from 92-03. That wouldn't appear to be the actions of someone with nothing to hide. Was the evidence sufficient to justify an invasion/war? I honestly don't know. Evidence is a subjective thing at best. Different people interpret the same evidence in different ways. Juries consist of 12 people. All can see the exact same evidence, half say guilty, the other half say not guilty. It's a matter of personal interpretation. I will say this much; In my opinion, Bush had a personal grudge against Saddam. Remember that Saddam personally launched an assasination plot/attempt on Bush's father after Desert Storm. If someone tried to kill my father, I would look for a reason to go after them. It's human nature. If you try to kill my father, I will do everything in my power to get you. I do believe that factored into the final decision.

If you recall, Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair last year that "Weapons of mass destruction were the reason that we settled on {to invade Iraq.}" And Wolfowitz is still with the administration, so he can't be accused of being a disgruntled ex-employee or angry because they exposed his wife as a CIA agent.

What I find almost more troubling than the manufactured evidence (by which I mean, and have always meant, phony "proof" that they existed and that we knew where they were located as asserted by Rumsfeld) is the fact that 9/ll quickly became no more than an excuse to go into Iraq. Remember the point at which Bush stopped mentioning Bin Laden in his speeches and replaced him with Saddam Hussein as our biggest enemy? According to Richard Clark, the topic turned from Bin Laden and Al Queda to Saddam within just a few days of 9/ll.

When he and Tenet reminded Rumsfeld and the President that Al Queda was not Iraq, Rumsfeld said, "There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. There are lots of good targets in Iraq."

The use of our grief and anger and fear after 9/ll was necessary if they were to achieve the Iraq invasion that Paul O'Neill said was discussed in the very first cabinet meeting.

We had had years of prosperty and relative peace. Even a right-leaning Congress would not have risked approving war powers for the president if the administration had not insisted that Saddam had supported Al Queda. They now deny ever having specifically stated that there was a link, but I remember the press conference where I first heard the claim and I remember thinking, "You're lying."

 

[Belegon]

I don't know about spitting, but my father was called a "babykiller" by two young men on the streets of San Francisco within hours of coming home in 1967. He spent a tour and a half with the 25th Infantry in country. His deployment was extended so he could "train" men how to drive halftracks in combat. Men who already knew more about the machines then he did. He eventually went to a Judge Advocate and got shipped home 5 months after he should have.

Both my grandfathers fought in WW2. My brother and four of my cousins have served in the last ten years. One of my cousins has only recently left Baghdad. I went to college instead but I am certainly not anti-soldier.

What is the difference between what Kerry did and what was done in reporting the Iraqi prisoner abuses?

It is not the fault or responsibility of Kerry to determine what the actions of others may be for his telling the truth. It fueled the anti-soldier protesters? Um, Kerry had not made his comments in '67 when my dad came home.

Colly, I've read your stories. I know that either you are not a Nazi or mean-spirited person or you are not the author of those stories or of many of the posts I have read in these forums.

The situation is Iraq is a no-win situation for us. Bring our children home. Do not re-elect the man who made the mistake of sending them there.

 

[KenJames]

Clinton was a bloody handed bastard. A lotta people were massacred during his tenure. East Timor, for one example. Haiti for another. He expanded Gitmo after running on the premise that holding the Haitians there was illegal and wrong. The only thing he went to the mat for was GATT and NAFTA.

All these corporate jamokes eat shit from tin plates. Not one of them deserves your vote.

cantdog

A lotta people were massacred where?

Bosnia? We stopped some serious genocide there.

Somalia? We saved a lot of people from starvation, despite getting our tail caught in the door.

Haiti? Clinton sent troops into Haiti to end the violence and was reasonably successful.

Is Clinton responsible for every bad thing that happened in the world during his administration?

Who are you voting for? Nader, the candidate for people who want Bush back but are too chicken to just pull the trigger?

 

[shereads]

WAR PRAYER

by Mark Twain

This was published during the United States' miliary campaign in the Philippines which left 4,600 Americans and 272,000 Filipinos dead.

----------------

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and sputtering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spreads of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country and invoked the God of Battles, beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpouring of fervid eloquence which moved every listener.

It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came-next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their faces alight with material dreams-visions of a stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! —then home from the war, bronzed heros, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory!

With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation —"God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest, Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!"

Then came the long prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory.

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there, waiting.

With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal,"Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled minister did — and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said: "I come from the Throne—bearing a message from Almighty God!"

The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention.

"He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd and grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import—that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of-except he pause and think.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two—one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of His Who hearth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this—keep it in mind. If you beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer—the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by God to put into words the other part of it-that part which the pastor, and also you in your hearts, fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory—must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle—be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe.

"O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it—for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!

"We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."

"Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits."

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

 

[KenJames]

WAR PRAYER

by Mark Twain

This was published during the United States' miliary campaign in the Philippines which left 4,600 Americans and 272,000 Filipinos dead.

Wow! As always, Mark Twain really nails it.

Things haven't changed much, have they?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

[ In my opinion, Bush had a personal grudge against Saddam. Remember that Saddam personally launched an assasination plot/attempt on Bush's father after Desert Storm. If someone tried to kill my father, I would look for a reason to go after them. It's human nature. If you try to kill my father, I will do everything in my power to get you. I do believe that factored into the final decision. [/B]

I don't buy the grudge theory. I would hope that anyone elected to the presidency would be a bit bigger than that.

I remember reading an article in Harper's someime in the winter of 2002, when the outcome in Afghanistan was no longer in doubt, saying that war with Iraq was next on the agenda, and that the invasion of Afghanistan, while it did have the goal of overthrowing the Taliban, was also undertaken to supply a 'beach head' over there, from which the Iraq invasion could be staged.

There was even talk from people like Wolfowitz that, once Iraq was set up and running as a democracy, Iran or Syria would be next. The US was taking names and cleaning house.

The primary motivation for the invasion of Iraq was (1) to establish a democracy and ally in Iraq and thereby bring peace and stability to the region, and (2) who's going to stop us?

The administration really seemed to have believed that Iraq was a democracy just waiting to happen, and that once Saddam was removed the people would spontaneously organize themselves into a western-style government, under the benevolent guidance of the USA. That's why there was no planning for what would happen after Saddam was gone. They really believed that the Iraqis would just naturally take over. That's when the June 30 deadline was set too. It was a nice political touch so that the victorious troops could be welcomed back in time for the fall election.

I should also mention that essential to this plan was and is Rumsfeld's vision of a lean, high-tech/low-manpower army that can be used a political instrument without stirring up anti-war sentiment at home, as would be the case if we had to start a draft, say. (There have been numerous requests by the commanders in the field for more troops, almost all of which have been stifled by DOD, who insists they do the job with what they've got.)

I think it's safe to say that Americans have always been viewed by the rest of the world as embodying a mixture of arrogance and naivite. We're arrogant in thinking that our way of life is absolutely the only way to go and assuming that all the rest of the world would be like us if only they had the chance, and naive in not understanding that the world isn't like that: that other cultures have different agendas and are not necessarily interested in following our model. The mistakes America makes in its foreign policies can often be traced to these twin traits of arrogance and ignorance.

It was arrogance and ignorance that got us into Viet Nam, where we totally misunderstood the nature of that conflict, and so asked our troops to do something that no military could ever do. And it was arrogance and ignorance that led us to misunderstand what would happen when we invaded Iraq and removed the admittedly evil linchpin that held that country together.

So I don't think it was a grudge, and I don't think it was the oil, and I really don't think it was WMD or saving the Iraqis from a vicious leader. (If we were so concerned about WMD's, why didn't we do something about North Korea, who was standing up and shaking their nukes right under our nose? And the world is full of bloodthirty dictators, many of whom we do business with and even call our allies.) We went in there with our old misguided altruism and sense of mission, determined to help a people who we should have known didn't and don't want our help.

In the end I think it was the same old arrogance and ignorance: history repeating itself. And I think we should have known better.

---dr.M.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

A lotta people were massacred where?

Bosnia? We stopped some serious genocide there.

Somalia? We saved a lot of people from starvation, despite getting our tail caught in the door.

Haiti? Clinton sent troops into Haiti to end the violence and was reasonably successful.

Is Clinton responsible for every bad thing that happened in the world during his administration?

Who are you voting for? Nader, the candidate for people who want Bush back but are too chicken to just pull the trigger?

Just to play devils advocate on this one:

Iraq: We stopped 30 years of torture, rape, murder. Gassing of entire villages. Doesn't that compare to stopping genocide in Bosnia?

Afghanistan: We stopped a lot of terrorist training. Scattered AQ, and brought down the Taliban. Many people were on the verge of starvation in Afghanistan as well. We fought AQ in Somalia as well. They are the ones that sided M. Farrah Idid and borught down the Blackhawks. They are the ones that dragged the soldiers bodies through the streets of Mogadishu.

To answer your question: No, Clinton is not responsible for every bad thing that happened. I don't like the way Clinton responded to some of the things that happened, but the events themselves weren't Clintons fault.

What bugs me is there are people so firmly entrenched on the Democratic side of things, that they will vote Democrat no matter what. These people will praise Bosnia and Somalia as great acts on the part of the U.S., but decry Afghanistan and Iraq. Likewise there are people so entrenched on the Republican side that they decried Bosnia and Somalia, while praising Afghan and Iraq. In my mind, all 4 of these actions bear many resemblances. I am/was in favor of all 4 of them. I didn't like the way Somalia ended. We tucked tail and ran. I don't like the way Iraq is heading. We went in strong, but now it's becoming too political. The military is being hindered from doing the job they were sent to do. Bosnia and Afghan turned out reasonably well. Two brutal governments were removed and the countries are rebuilding and moving forward with a Democratic government.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

A couple weeks ago, Sen. John Kerry was dragged across the patriotic coals for asserting that he and his fellow soldiers might have "committed atrocities" in Vietnam. Though he might as well have said "ice is freezing," some, like Karen Hughes, feigned outrage. [CNN] But soldiers did commit atrocities, and those atrocities, like the ones we’re now seeing in Iraq, were not only systemic, but were also conducted under the guise of benevolence and Mom's apple pie.

And while many have evoked My Lai this past week (especially since Seymour Hersh was the journalist who uncovered that atrocity, too), many have also missed the larger point: My Lai, like Abu Ghraib, was the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

"Some psychological warfare [psywar] guy in Washington thought of a way to scare the hell out of villagers," CIA officer Pat McGarvey confided to Seymour Hersh. "When we killed the VC there, they wanted us to spread eagle the guy, put out his eye, cut a hole in the back [of his head] and put his eye in there. The idea was that fear was a good weapon" [CounterPunch.org] Meanwhile a July 3, 2003 obituary for two-time Purple Heart and CIA Star winner Anthony A. Poshepny (Tony Poe) shows the nature of a former U.S. attempt at liberation. "A decorated, former CIA official who collected enemy ears, dropped decapitated human heads from the air on to communists and stuck heads on spikes. . . [Tony Poe ] twice won a CIA Star -- the Central Intelligence Agency's highest award -- from directors Allen Dulles, in 1959, and William Colby, in 1975," the obituary reported.

'"I used to collect ears," a cheerful Poshepny was quoted as telling Roger Warner in his book, Shooting at the Moon. . . 'I had a big, green, reinforced cellophane bag as you walked up my steps. I'd tell my people to put them in, and then I'd staple them to this 5,000 kip [Lao currency] notice that this [ear] was paid for already, and put them in the bag and send them to [the Laos capital] Vientiane with the report." [Bangkok Post]

Deeming himself "a dedicated Cold Warrior who felt the agency was out there fighting for liberty, justice and democracy and religion around the world," former Notre Dame all-American and CIA agent Ralph McGeehee underscored what happens when one country tries to dominate another. "We were murdering these people, incinerating them. My efforts had resulted in the deaths of many people and I just – for me it was a period when guess I was – I considered myself nearly insane – I just couldn’t reconcile what I had been and what I was at the time becoming," McGeehee said.

---http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/05/far04016.html

Shoot the fucking messenger.

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

A couple weeks ago, Sen. John Kerry was dragged across the patriotic coals for asserting that he and his fellow soldiers might have "committed atrocities" in Vietnam. Though he might as well have said "ice is freezing," some, like Karen Hughes, feigned outrage. [CNN] But soldiers did commit atrocities, and those atrocities, like the ones we’re now seeing in Iraq, were not only systemic, but were also conducted under the guise of benevolence and Mom's apple pie.

And while many have evoked My Lai this past week (especially since Seymour Hersh was the journalist who uncovered that atrocity, too), many have also missed the larger point: My Lai, like Abu Ghraib, was the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

"Some psychological warfare [psywar] guy in Washington thought of a way to scare the hell out of villagers," CIA officer Pat McGarvey confided to Seymour Hersh. "When we killed the VC there, they wanted us to spread eagle the guy, put out his eye, cut a hole in the back [of his head] and put his eye in there. The idea was that fear was a good weapon" [CounterPunch.org] Meanwhile a July 3, 2003 obituary for two-time Purple Heart and CIA Star winner Anthony A. Poshepny (Tony Poe) shows the nature of a former U.S. attempt at liberation. "A decorated, former CIA official who collected enemy ears, dropped decapitated human heads from the air on to communists and stuck heads on spikes. . . [Tony Poe ] twice won a CIA Star -- the Central Intelligence Agency's highest award -- from directors Allen Dulles, in 1959, and William Colby, in 1975," the obituary reported.

'"I used to collect ears," a cheerful Poshepny was quoted as telling Roger Warner in his book, Shooting at the Moon. . . 'I had a big, green, reinforced cellophane bag as you walked up my steps. I'd tell my people to put them in, and then I'd staple them to this 5,000 kip [Lao currency] notice that this [ear] was paid for already, and put them in the bag and send them to [the Laos capital] Vientiane with the report." [Bangkok Post]

Deeming himself "a dedicated Cold Warrior who felt the agency was out there fighting for liberty, justice and democracy and religion around the world," former Notre Dame all-American and CIA agent Ralph McGeehee underscored what happens when one country tries to dominate another. "We were murdering these people, incinerating them. My efforts had resulted in the deaths of many people and I just – for me it was a period when guess I was – I considered myself nearly insane – I just couldn’t reconcile what I had been and what I was at the time becoming," McGeehee said.

---http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/05/far04016.html

Shoot the fucking messenger.

---dr.M.

Statement of Mr. John Kerry

...I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony....


WINTER SOLDIER INVESTIGATION

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.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

A couple weeks ago, Sen. John Kerry was dragged across the patriotic coals for asserting that he and his fellow soldiers might have "committed atrocities" in Vietnam.

Odd. I don't see might anywhere in that statement. It doesn't seem to me that he left any room whatsoever for doubt. A very fine commentator you are quoteing here, but a question. If they actually read that statement then A. They can't read and understand english or B. they have an agenda of their own in which softening what Kerry said is important to them. Option C would be that this writer didn't even bother to read the statement at all.

Whichever you choose A., B. or C. it does beg the question of why I should give the rest of the article any consideration at all for being accurate and unbiased.

-Colly

 

[KenJames]

I don't buy the grudge theory. I would hope that anyone elected to the presidency would be a bit bigger than that.

. . .

In the end I think it was the same old arrogance and ignorance: history repeating itself. And I think we should have known better.

---dr.M.

Excellent analysis, Doc!

 

[KenJames]

Just to play devils advocate on this one:

Iraq: We stopped 30 years of torture, rape, murder. Gassing of entire villages. Doesn't that compare to stopping genocide in Bosnia?

Afghanistan: We stopped a lot of terrorist training. Scattered AQ, and brought down the Taliban. Many people were on the verge of starvation in Afghanistan as well. We fought AQ in Somalia as well. They are the ones that sided M. Farrah Idid and borught down the Blackhawks. They are the ones that dragged the soldiers bodies through the streets of Mogadishu.

To answer your question: No, Clinton is not responsible for every bad thing that happened. I don't like the way Clinton responded to some of the things that happened, but the events themselves weren't Clintons fault.

What bugs me is there are people so firmly entrenched on the Democratic side of things, that they will vote Democrat no matter what. These people will praise Bosnia and Somalia as great acts on the part of the U.S., but decry Afghanistan and Iraq. Likewise there are people so entrenched on the Republican side that they decried Bosnia and Somalia, while praising Afghan and Iraq. In my mind, all 4 of these actions bear many resemblances. I am/was in favor of all 4 of them. I didn't like the way Somalia ended. We tucked tail and ran. I don't like the way Iraq is heading. We went in strong, but now it's becoming too political. The military is being hindered from doing the job they were sent to do. Bosnia and Afghan turned out reasonably well. Two brutal governments were removed and the countries are rebuilding and moving forward with a Democratic government.

I was responding specifically to cantdog's "Clinton was a bloody handed bastard. A lotta people were massacred during his tenure." I agree with you that a president is not responsible for everything that happens in the world during his watch.

I support our actions in Afghanistan, although I think you're overly optimistic about how well the country is rebuilding and moving toward a democratic government.

Dr. M just made an excellent post on Iraq, so I'll refer you to that.

I'm just reminded of the way the Republicans have endlessly bitched and moaned about the folly of "nation building" and "being policeman to the world" during Democratic administrations. Now, they're doing exactly that, under the pretext of an imminent threat to the United States.

Syria: 30 years of torture, rape, murder. Gassing of entire villages.

Iran: Religious dictatorship. Exporting terrorism. Building nuclear weapons.

North Korea: Imminent threat to our allies Japan and South Korea. Nuclear weapons.

Saudi Arabia: Primary sponsor of anti-American terrorism.

The new cop on the global beat has got a big job ahead.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Please, for once and all: The truth about what?

Was there a single stone unturned by the Starr Report that we should be aware of? I may not have wanted to know about a real estate scandal from a dozen years before the Clintons came to power, and I may not have needed to know if he was unfaithful to his wife, but by God I helped pay to find out, didnt I? $40 million and six years that tied the hands of the White House and occupied Congress nearly full-time during the second term. What might we find if we went after this president with such vigor?

How much closer might our government have come to stopping bin Laden in time if not for the obsessive focus on Hilary's past and her husband's adultery?

For the life of me, I can't understand why Harken Energy and Iran Contra and the continued payments to Ahmad Chalabi for his assistance with helping to bring about freaking armageddon are equated with the activities of Bill Clinton's penis. 700 people that we're supposed to be honoring with our silence are DEAD and not because of Bill's dick. If there were a link, wouldn't Starr have told us?

You don't see, because you don't want to see. $40 million wasted on an investigation is cause for you to cry foul. The fact that Mr. Clinton could have forestalled such an expenditure if he had simply told the truth about his dealings at white water and about his sexual misconduct, rather than stonewalling, lying and using every concievable dodge to keep the truth from coming out, never impresses itself upon you.

Much Like Saddam's actions made it appear that he had something to hide, Mr. Clinton's made it apear that he had something to hide. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire and when you are covering up, people tend to want to know what it is you are trying so hard to hide.

If the all imporant truth were so important to you, then you , like so many others would have wanted Bill Clinton to stand up and tell the truth. You didn't. Lashing out continuously at those who sought the truth, villifying them, and at the end, even asserting Bill Clinton had the RIGHT to lie under oath. This really dosen't do a lot for your credibility in screaming at people now who are liars.

The magnitude of their lies may be different. The repurcussions and incredibly tragic results of one set of lies are blatantly different. But at the heart of it they and your man are liars. Your stand that he had the right to lie, pretty much washes any call you can make now for accountability. If the truth were what you really cared about, you would have been just as keen to see Bill tell the truth as you now are for George to.

When Bill was being pilloryed, democrats closed ranks, defending the man and his lies to the bitter end. At the time it seemed a small thing I am sure, where the Philanderer-in-chief was dipping his wick and what possibly crooked financial deals he had been invovled in years before. However, your willingness then to see the turth swept under the rug has painted you into a corner you really want out of. Your calls now for the truth and accountability have the very hollow ring of partisan politics.

Raphy posted something earlier. It was meant to be funny, but there is an ironic twist to it. Had Bill come out and said yes, I was banging her like the screen door on my back porch when I was a kid I would have actually respected him more. The same is true of Gary Heart in his troubles. We are all human. We all screw up. This being a porn site we are all also very aware of the power and allure sex holds. Getting pysical with someone, while it does constitute adultary makes you one kind of bad person. Lying makes you another. Putting the two of the together tends to make you look a lot worse than the sum of the two parts. Lying under oath makes you a criminal.

From adulterer, to liar, to Crimal. Democrats said not a word about the truth, but took every opportunity to snipe at those seeking the truth. Now that the truth would serve your political ends you are keen to find out, only to find that no one seems to be listening. You can't wear both hats. If you wish to wear the white hat, get the girl and ride off into the sunset you have to be truthful, even when it hurts. Ask Jimmy Stewart, he made a career out of being honest to a fault. If you decide to wear the black hat, rob the bank, take the girl, steal a horse and ride off into the sunset, you can't very well demand the sheriff tell the truth when he shows up with the cavalry and it turns out he lied to get them to come after you.

The truth is very important to some people. There will be those who don't vote for GWB based, at least in part on the lies. That percentage is however prety small I think. The GOP is having a field day now, obfuscating the real issue by denouncing your calls for the turth as politically motivated opportunism. They are also quick to remind people of how silent your party was about the turth when Bill was in the crosshairs of a campaign for the turth. The fact that he was, at least in part, guilty of what he had been accused of and lied so contiuously about it hurts even more.

You don't see, because you don't want to see. Today's rammifications for acts long past confuse you because you do not wish to see causality that leads back to your party's actions in the past. I tend to look at things in worse case scenarios. For that I have been called pessimistic by many. My objectivity on certain issues has also caused people discomfort. Be that as it may I am rarely totally surprised by events, and even more rarely am I left wondering how things got to this point.

The refusal of so many to get as irate as you are over the lies of GWB's administration is all the more angering to you because you can't understand the seeming indifference. It surprises me not a whit, nor am I at a loss to explain it. It's politics as usual.

I would like to add here that I am not blaming the Clinton administration for being the first, the worst, or the most untruthful. When Iran-cntra was the big issue of the day, Republican's closed ranks and in some ways it made their calls for truth when Clinton was president just as suspect as the Democrats calls for the truth are today.

-Colly

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There's still six months till the election. Looks like it's going to be a long campaign season.

If we step back from the partisanship, it seems to me that one thing we don't seem to see anymore is politicians offering a vision for the future. It's not the lack of a bold vision; it's the lack of any vision whatsoever. More and more it seems like the parties are just wrestling over the steering wheel of power, when really neither of them knows where they want to go.

The New Frontier, the Great Society, even Reagan's Morning in America, down to Compassionate Conservatism (I can't even remember if Clinton had any slogans beyond "It's the economy, stupid") Even the slogans have degenerated from stating a goal to describing a process. Where did that vision thing go?

It seems like we'll be voting for a pilot when what we need is a captain.

---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

ah bill's adultery....
this debate is sorta like catholics versus protestants with events of medieval times being used to justify present allegiances.

muich of the stuff lack factual content. no claims are made that can be tested against reality. seeming statements like "GWB is a man of vision, an effective bold and decisive leader," when parse, turn out to be no more than "Hurray for W,' 'I detest your guy.'

I suppose it must be thus. after all, the issues are framed in terms of a 'war on terror.'

no one knows where or when or who; or what would a 'win' be.

statements like 'we're winning the war on terror' turn out to be much like 'jesus christ's coming is imminent.' no factual content.
if someone says, 'look how bad things are,' the believer says, that's a sure sign of the coming. (e.g., however bad iraq, might be, this is 'the last desperate struggle of disgruntled remnant of the tyrants' corps.').

 

[Colleen Thomas]

There's still six months till the election. Looks like it's going to be a long campaign season.

If we step back from the partisanship, it seems to me that one thing we don't seem to see anymore is politicians offering a vision for the future. It's not the lack of a bold vision; it's the lack of any vision whatsoever. More and more it seems like the parties are just wrestling over the steering wheel of power, when really neither of them knows where they want to go.

The New Frontier, the Great Society, even Reagan's Morning in America, down to Compassionate Conservatism (I can't even remember if Clinton had any slogans beyond "It's the economy, stupid") Even the slogans have degenerated from stating a goal to describing a process. Where did that vision thing go?

It seems like we'll be voting for a pilot when what we need is a captain.

---dr.M.

A captain is a man of high responsibility. The lives of his crew and sometimes pasengers are all in his hands. His decisions must be crisp, sure and right. If he fails, then the result is more often than not tragic in the extreme.

Only on pirate ships was Captain an elected position. In most cases a captain is appointed, after proving himself in other cpacity or is there by default because he owns the ship.

Some very smart person once observed that the American political process would never produce the best man for the job, because any many with the requisite honesty, integrity and honor would never prostitute himself in the way our political campaigns demand.

Removing the best men for the job, we step down to the second tier, but now many of them won't run. Very few of them have a squeaky clean past and most now recognize that running means putting your entier life under a microscope. Very few people can stand up to that kind of scrutiny.

So what are we left with? Basically we are left with men of flawed character who are willing, even prepared to lie, misdirect and cover up their faults. Hoping they can find something even more sordid in their opponent's past, while keeping their own failings out of the spot light.

Adds become all attack, because you have to keep people looking at where your opponent is vunerable and off your faults. The vision of the future these men offer is limited to getting gthemselves into the oval office. Once there they are pretty much prepared to wing it. The goal has ceased to be leading the nation, serving your contry, representing the american people. The goal is the big chair in the big office and the power to change the world, for good or ill.

GWB or John Kerry. If you owned a ship would you make either of these men captain? Only if Captain Queeg, Captain Ahab and the titanic's captain Smith were unavialable. Even then I would have to check with Popeye before i faced the decision.

-Colly

 

[KarenAM]

There's still six months till the election. Looks like it's going to be a long campaign season.

If we step back from the partisanship, it seems to me that one thing we don't seem to see anymore is politicians offering a vision for the future. It's not the lack of a bold vision; it's the lack of any vision whatsoever. More and more it seems like the parties are just wrestling over the steering wheel of power, when really neither of them knows where they want to go.

The New Frontier, the Great Society, even Reagan's Morning in America, down to Compassionate Conservatism (I can't even remember if Clinton had any slogans beyond "It's the economy, stupid") Even the slogans have degenerated from stating a goal to describing a process. Where did that vision thing go?

It seems like we'll be voting for a pilot when what we need is a captain.

---dr.M.

Quite true, Dr. M.

I think the reason may be what I hypothesized above: we are an empire in decay for reasons outside our control. Perhaps in addition to their love of a catfight, the current contenders realize at some level that no matter what they do, things are going to get worse, maybe much worse, in the next few decades.

They can't promise to make things better, so they promise to kick the shit out of the other guy instead, hoping that we'll vote for them so we can feel like we've gotten a piece of the action.

Pity that a piece of the action won't feed your kids or put a roof over their heads or help pay for the pills they might need to stay alive.

Wow... I'm quite the pessimist today, aren't I?

 

[amicus]

A Smile for Colleen

I would choose Popeye, I think...as he was always on a quest for truth and always fighting bad guys.

You are not alone in your quest for understanding and your effort to go beyond partisan bickering.

Thank you for your wonderful posts in the last eight pages, how marvelous it is to sense a 'real' person behind the words.

Warmest regards...amicus....

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Originally posted by Ken James:

I support our actions in Afghanistan, although I think you're overly optimistic about how well the country is rebuilding and moving toward a democratic government.

Perhaps I am a bit overly optomistic, but it's how I see things. Remember that the country was in shambles. The old joke was that they couldn't be bombed back to the stone age because they were already there. Granted they aren't near the status of what we would consider modern civilization, but they are making strides. Infra structure is going up in places that never had it before. The meager infra structure that was there is being rebuilt or replaced with more modern things. Medical care is available to literally tens of thousands that never had access to it before. Schools and roads are going into places that never had them before. The people are free from tyranny for the most part.

We hear very little about Afghanistan anymore. The reason for that is because things are going pretty well over there. It seems that the only news that gets reported is bad news. The only fighting that we hear about are limited actions in the mountains along the Pakistani border.

I consider Afghanistan to be a work in progress, but a resounding success so far. It is much better off now than it ever was under Taliban rule.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

This administration has been quietly dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency. Every mainstream environmental group I know has been in emergency mode for years. I am a moderate who cares about the environment. I am not a fanatic.

Have you taken the time to keep track of all the 'gains' that this administration has made? How about the Sequoias! Are you aware that the Bush Administration is proposing logging some of the world's oldest and tallest trees on the grounds that they are a fire hazard? My theory is: if they haven't burned down in 500 to 1000 years, they probably are not a fire hazard. The Sequoias as fire hazard is right up there with Reagon's 'trees cause pollution'.

The environment is in trouble. I am not a ranting fanatic but a concerned moderate.

A much better post than your initial one. Facts and figures will always garner more respect than claims of war and willingness to destroy all air and water.

I can't make an intelligent comment on the issue of Sequoias, I don't know enough details of the situation to say anything. I do agree that there are some forests that need to be logged. The incredible amount of wildfires seen in the last decade can be partially attributed to undergrowth that has been protected by law. The wildfires are natures way of cleaning things up. The wildfires also cost us billions, and human lives. If we do the cleaning up, maybe the wildfires wouldn't be as bad. Both sides of the issue agree that protected undergrowth fuels the fires and makes them worse.

I am very environmentally conscious myself. My beliefs of environmentalism exend into wise management as well. Sometimes logging is wise management.

 

[KenJames]

Originally posted by Ken James:

I support our actions in Afghanistan, although I think you're overly optimistic about how well the country is rebuilding and moving toward a democratic government.

Perhaps I am a bit overly optomistic, but it's how I see things. Remember that the country was in shambles. The old joke was that they couldn't be bombed back to the stone age because they were already there. Granted they aren't near the status of what we would consider modern civilization, but they are making strides. Infra structure is going up in places that never had it before. The meager infra structure that was there is being rebuilt or replaced with more modern things. Medical care is available to literally tens of thousands that never had access to it before. Schools and roads are going into places that never had them before. The people are free from tyranny for the most part.

We hear very little about Afghanistan anymore. The reason for that is because things are going pretty well over there. It seems that the only news that gets reported is bad news. The only fighting that we hear about are limited actions in the mountains along the Pakistani border.

I consider Afghanistan to be a work in progress, but a resounding success so far. It is much better off now than it ever was under Taliban rule.

Sure Afghanistan is better off than it was under the Talibin. Some day, it may even get back to being the civilized place it was before the Russians invaded.

But Afghanistan is still being ruled by tribal chieftains. Nothing happens without their approval. Karzai is essentially the "Mayor of Kabul" and has no real authority elsewhere.

The real reason we're not hearing much about Afghanistan anymore is that nobody is paying attention. The news media is focusing on Iraq, unless a football player gets killed.

We're basically neglecting Afghanistan now. We'd forget it completely if we didn't think Bin Laden was still hiding there somewhere.

 

[Dirt Man]

A captain is a man of high responsibility. The lives of his crew and sometimes pasengers are all in his hands. His decisions must be crisp, sure and right. If he fails, then the result is more often than not tragic in the extreme.

Only on pirate ships was Captain an elected position. In most cases a captain is appointed, after proving himself in other cpacity or is there by default because he owns the ship.

Some very smart person once observed that the American political process would never produce the best man for the job, because any many with the requisite honesty, integrity and honor would never prostitute himself in the way our political campaigns demand.

Removing the best men for the job, we step down to the second tier, but now many of them won't run. Very few of them have a squeaky clean past and most now recognize that running means putting your entier life under a microscope. Very few people can stand up to that kind of scrutiny.

So what are we left with? Basically we are left with men of flawed character who are willing, even prepared to lie, misdirect and cover up their faults. Hoping they can find something even more sordid in their opponent's past, while keeping their own failings out of the spot light.

Adds become all attack, because you have to keep people looking at where your opponent is vunerable and off your faults. The vision of the future these men offer is limited to getting gthemselves into the oval office. Once there they are pretty much prepared to wing it. The goal has ceased to be leading the nation, serving your contry, representing the american people. The goal is the big chair in the big office and the power to change the world, for good or ill.

GWB or John Kerry. If you owned a ship would you make either of these men captain? Only if Captain Queeg, Captain Ahab and the titanic's captain Smith were unavialable. Even then I would have to check with Popeye before i faced the decision.

-Colly

Great analogy, but wait... wasn't John Kerry the Captain of his Swift Boat in Vietnam? Hmmm... Guess this doesn't really work after all.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man