Rauch: Bush’s Iraq Endgame Will Mirror Nixon’s in Vietnam
Jonathon Rauch has a very interesting opinion piece in the Washington Post about how the end of the Iraq war may follow the same trajectory as the end of Vietnam — only faster: All over but the pullback.
“I think we’ve reached a point where news from Iraq itself is not likely to reverse the trajectory,” says Scott Rasmussen, the president of Rasmussen Reports. By contrast, “troops coming home is a new dynamic. And that is what will change poll numbers.” Indeed, a combination of returning U.S. forces and lower oil prices come November, Rasmussen says, would be “Democrats’ nightmare.”
And so, any day now, the president’s political advisers will likely go to him and say something like this:
“Mr. President, if U.S. forces are not clearly on their way out of Iraq by about June 30, we will face a bloodbath in the midterm elections, and the Republicans will lose the House or the Senate or both. On the other hand, if U.S. forces are coming home, you will have cut the legs out from under the Democrats. They will have no choice but to support your drawdown or call for an even faster one. Either way, they would be in no position to blame you for any subsequent setbacks over there. Right now, you have nothing to say on Iraq that makes sense to the public. Once the troops start coming home, it will be the other side that has nothing to say.”
Which will Bush choose?
I wonder.
From the beginning, Bush has fought the “War on Terror” with an eye to domestic politics. Foreign policy for Bush has simply been a tool of Karl Rove’s Machiavellian schemes for getting and holding domestic power. And Bush (and Rove) have succeeded spectacularly — as long as you’re only looking at the domestic political picture. That someone like Bush could succeed in taking the White House not once but twice — and the second time in the wake of the disaster of his indifferent attitude toward the threat represented by al Qaeda during his first nine months in office — is close to miraculous.
But while Bush’s manipulation of domestic politics has been a stunning success, his actual policies have been stunning failures. And while I’m grateful that the erosion of public support for the war is finally catching up with him, I see no reason to think that a politics-driving precipitous withdrawal will work out any better, in terms of its consequences, than did the politics-driven precipitous invasion.
December 12th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
I’m sure references will be made to this garbage as “the gospel truth” on this and other blog sites, but it is (typically) based solely on speculation. The allegations of political motivation are patently false, but that shouldn’t deter anyone.
Does this mean that lefties are giving recognition to this as an “exit strategy.”
Can you imagine some pompous senator or reporter asking FDR to detail his exit strategy from Europe or the Pacific theatre? Perhaps Murtha, the political opportunist, would like to have been around to display his heroic courage by asking George Patton about an exit strategy. His type was among those who were afraid of a confrontation with the USSR – thank God for men of courage like Scoop Jackson and Ronald Reagan.
As Churchill put it, “No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentent wrong.” FDR’s exit strategy? “No end save victory.” GWB exibits the same degree of resolve, even in the face of a growing anti-Bush movement that has made some headway.
We should accept nothing short of complete, undeniable victory, and a time-table does not define winning, even in the face of whining. We won two world wars because we had no exit strategy. (Great, now I can legitimately be accused of screaming). Sorry Mr. Chamberlain (those words seem to flow together, especially without a comma), you were proven wrong – but you have plenty who still blindly follow your foolish philosophy.
In the Korean War we accepted less than complete victory, and today we are facing the consequences of accepting a subtitute for winning rather than going on to defeat North Korea. Worse yet, it set a precedent.
In Vietnam we had a foolish, hastily-prepared exit strategy – in which millions of Vietnamese also made a panicked exodus. Strangely, many of them chose to come to this horrible country(*end sarc*). Millions who failed to flee were slaughtered in the following months in the “killing fields.” After our pullout, the VC leadership stated their awareness that they could not possibly win the war outright, but they knew that the cowardly in our country would eventually wear down public opinion sufficiently to hand them the opportunity to execute millions in South Vietnam. John Kerry had testified that a few hundred could meet that fate, but he underestimated by about ten-thousand-fold. If being wrong constitutes fabrication, he is a massive liar.
If Iraq is not crucial to the War on Terror, can anyone explain why it is treated as such by the terrorist elements? Oops, I forgot that the talking points switched from “terrorists flowing in because the borders were not sealed” to “home-grown insurgency.”
The entire argument about the Iraq war is disingenuous and falacious, as clearly illustrated in the battle for Fallujah. The great lefty hero Richard Clarke (and everyone who dutifully followed the talking points) was publicly critical of the enormous resentment “we created” for “having made the 250,000 person city of Fallujah uninhabitable,” without a word about the terrorists who had taken the city, setting up actual torture chambers and executing anyone who opposed him.
The concept of exit strategy is a self-defeating idea. It is a planned way to disengage short of winning. Planning a withdrawal based on dates decided by political needs? Nope. It exhibits cowardice, the only historically documented characteristic that is appreciated by our enemies.
Insurgency? Abu Masab al-Zarqawi is designated by bin Laden as the top al Qaeda general in Iraq. He is the only readily identifiable leader of the so-called “insurgency” – and he is not an Iraqi. One of every 2,500 Iraqis is part of this enormous, growing “insurgency” (sarc).
Discussion and arguments are appropriate tools in debate on a contentious topic, but sedition/treason is not. Keep up the encouraging “patriotic” efforts, though. Bin Laden, Zarqawi, and other revered heroes are counting on cowards to hand over a country – again. If it happens, there will a massive bloodbath in the aftermath – again. Of course, that will be Bush’s fault in many insecure minds…. until election time, when it becomes just another self-inflicted injury – again.
December 13th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
thank god we have TV here to rant the crazy sh!t that the homeless guy in the back of the #7 bus only dares to mutter
btw – bold is not screaming, nor is italics. Use of typographic conventions is not screaming. The ridiculous blather that typifies your postings could be considered as a screaming series of insults (question bush=treason, vote democratic=sedition). Your hatred for anything left of the Hitler Youth is grotesque.
The killing fields were in Cambodia, the VC did exact punishments and killed US allies (the Montagnard highland tribes and others), but I don’t recall millions dying in S Vietnam after the war. A bit of googling can’t back up your claim either. You do know that McNamara has said we made a long series of mistakes in going into Vietnam? We had no business being there. And regarding your swift boat smear of John Kerry, two words: My Lai. Two more: it happened. Bad stuff happens in war. Accidents, atrocities, horror and mayhem. Pretending that anyone who faces the truth is a traitor is delusional.
can you name the speakers of these quotes?
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. These questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
“You can support the troops but not the president”
“The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”
and a bonus quote (careful how you respond to this one):
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
December 14th, 2005 at 2:07 am
enkidu, your ridiculous opening statements are so predictable; and revealing.
Interesting spin on my statements, I suppose, but I have never suggested that “questioning” Bush=treason or “voting democrat”=sedition. Actually, it’s not even “spin,” but is a complete fabrication – unless you’re simply lacking comprehension skills. I acknowledged that disagreement and questioning are fundamental to democracy, but consistent, asinine, false accusations do not constitute “questioning.” I realize the political importance of branding Bush as a liar, but the accusation itself is the greatest lie of all. At first, very few on the left would use that term, but through constant repetition it has become accepted as fact. Hello, Joseph Goebbels. All praise be to thee.
The constant rehashing of criminal actions committed by a few individuals, used as a motivational tool by the enemy, constitutes treasonous behavior. Incidentally, “treason” and “sedition” are synonymous.
As only one example: the actions of a very small group of law-breakers at Abu Ghraib. It was a single-evening incident, already under investigation, eventually prosecuted, resulting in punishment via due process. The NY Times ran it as a front-page item for what, 57 consecutive days? Even Al Jazeera couldn’t keep pace with that record. The over-kill could only be agenda-driven, and the encouragement it gave to the “insurgency” was priceless to them – and thus treasonous.
Yes, My Lai happened. Court-martialed in 1971, Lt. William “Rusty” Calley should have been executed for the criminal act of mass murder. I don’t know any Vietnam veteran who condoned his actions. Twenty-eight officers, including two generals, were accused of serious offenses related to My Lai, with none of them convicted, but Calley was not a scapegoat – he was simply a common criminal. Calley’s actions did not justify Kerry’s purjurous condemnation of his fellow troops before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He lied, he recklessly endangered our troops while they were still in combat, and his testimony was still fresh in the minds of those troops and their families in November 2004. No one has to smear John Kerry; he accomplished that feat with his own words and actions.
RE My Lai, are you familiar with Hugh Thompson, the only real hero of My Lai? He was the helicopter pilot who flew his chopper over My Lai as Charlie Company was committing the acts of murder. After landing, he, with his crew chief and doorgunner, rescued eleven of the villagers, including an infant – putting himself between his fellow soldiers and their targets. His act of heroism was essentially ignored in the media; it didn’t support their agenda. Thompson rejected the theory that such atrocities were common, and they certainly weren’t policy (as reflected by the MSM) – and as with Abu Ghraib. BOHICA!
The NV Communists later said that they were amazed – and impressed – with the fact that the U.S. had tried Calley while the war was still going on. However, once the incident became known, the antiwar movement seized on the massacre as the universal experience of Vietnam soldiers. The press picked up the theme – as with Abu Ghraib. BOHICA! Calley became practically a folk hero to the left, with his criminal actions reinforcing their agenda.
Ron Ridenhour was the GI who reported the massacre after hearing about it from one of his buddies – hardly the act of a man who had routinely witnessed such atrocities.
Twice now, you’ve cut/pasted the same stupid question about a series of quotes. I neither know nor do I care who uttered the nonsense (all of which is simply someone’s opinion, certainly not factual), but I’m sure you have some brilliant revelation to unveil. Perhaps you’re unconsciously suggesting that the left is truly incapable of original thought, just following a senseless line of rhetoric from the past.
You’re dead wrong in stating that the murders did not number in the millions, with estimates as high as 3.5 million. Of course the geographic location of the killing fields was Cambodia, but you (not surprisingly) appear to justify the slaughter, characterizing it as simply exacting punishment. The precise numbers really are not the issue. The fact is that Kerry was either naive, stupid or lying with his gross underestimate, and using the liberal definition of the term, that makes him a massive liar.
Most of the bogus garbage that was spread by the antiwar movement was exposed in the Winter Soldier forum. Dozens of “vets” gave personal testimony of the gross atrocities they committed or witnessed in Vietnam, but few of those jerks were ever in Vietnam, and some were never even in the military. Kerry and his merry band of fellow “vets” were fakes – liars – but that was a small detail of no importance to the “unbiased” MSM. They bought the VVAW lies that American troops routinely committed atrocities – because it fit their own agenda. Kerry and the VVAW leaders complained that “People think we’re all junkies, psychopaths, killers of women and children,” but the VVAW was itself responsible for public acceptance of the false characterizations.
I fully agree that “You can support the troops but not the president,” but I don’t agree that you can support the troops while impeding their mission, or by giving encouragement, aid and comfort to the enemy by words and deeds.
When in hell have we ever “casually let the bombs fly.” That is a profoundly stupid statement, regardless of the source.
Victory means “winning.” Exit means “leaving.” Victory does not mean “leaving.” My school’s basketball team had a victory tonight, and their exit strategy was to shower and change into street clothes before leaving the arena, but the victory and the exit strategy were not related. As I said before, Bush has clearly stated our “exit strategy.” It is exactly the same as that of FDR and Churchill. Losers in the anti-Bush movement refuse to accept it, but it is well founded in historical reality.
The lies of the left are strikingly similar to the lies that were the foundation of the antiwar movement 35 years ago, with the success of the anti-Bush movement still contingent on public acceptance of those lies as fundamental truths.
December 14th, 2005 at 6:32 am
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Its the left’s lies that got us into this mess.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
December 14th, 2005 at 8:55 am
those quotes were from Tom Delay
and the last one was George W Bush
funny how some folks will say anything as long as it smites them evil Demoncraps.
Your crazy rant about the winter soldiers not even being soldiers is so farkin looney it hardly bears smacking down. Calling Calley a folk hero of the left is pathetic and shows your unreasoning hatred of cartoon ‘lefties’. And Abu Ghriab is all the mainstream media’s fault? A single night’s incident? Not true. These things weren’t just happening once, one night for a lark. And we heard about it because some of our troops used new tech like digicams and cellphone cameras to capture their misdeeds and then share them on the internets… that won’t happen again because those items are now prohibited from entering any US military detention facility. Torture is wrong and I will fight to prevent our once great nation from turning into a neocon-neofascist dictatorship. The okey dokey on torturing came from the top and isn’t just a few bad apples enjoying a red state fraternity prank. Anyone who thinks we don’t routinely torture is wrong. Wrong is wrong. Torture is wrong. We beat the nazis without institutionalizing torture.
Judging by the time stamps and content of your posts you are up very late after drinking too much. yeah, just what we need a hungover TV teaching kids to hate anyone who doesn’t have their viewpoint. Tolerance? I suppose that means you haven’t started shooting Demon(crat)s yet.
Up your meds and get some anger management counseling before you snap and start hurting people other than yourself.
btw a one minute search of wikipedia (not exactly writ in stone, but) yields this:
Verification of participants’ credibility
The organizers of the Winter Soldier Investigation took several steps to guarantee the validity of the participants.
Each veteran’s authenticity was checked before the hearings by the investigation event organizers, and subsequently by reporters and pentagon officials. In addition, they also gave specific details about their units and the locations where the alleged events had occurred. Those who wanted to testify were carefully screened by the officers of VVAW, and care was taken to verify the service records and testimony of the veterans. After the severe criticism of the accuracy of Mark Lane’s book a month before the event, the organizers of the Winter Soldier Investigation made the credibility of the participants a top priority. All veterans participating in Winter Soldier were required to bring their discharge papers (DD-214’s) and IDs.
As noted in VVAW records, each veteran’s authenticity and testimony were checked after the hearings by Nixon’s “plumbers.” Charles Colson was assigned the task. In a CONFIDENTIAL “Plan to Counteract Viet Nam Veterans Against the War”, Colson wrote, “The men that participated in the pseudo-atrocity hearings in Detroit will be checked to ascertain if they are genuine combat veterans.” At one point, the Nixon team suggested in a memo about VVAW, “Several of their regional coordinators are former Kennedy supporters.” VVAW was also targeted by the FBI for observation as a possible dissident organization.
Although military documentation was provided, some media organizations such as the Detroit News made further inquiries into the hearings by questioning the authenticity of the testifying veterans. Discharge papers were closely examined; military records were checked against the Pentagon records; after all their digging, not one fraudulent veteran was found. The Detroit Free Press reported daily of participants that had been confirmed by the Pentagon as veterans.
NBC News later reported that VVAW executive and Winter Soldier co-organizer Al Hubbard had lied about being an officer during a Meet the Press television interview several months after the WSI hearing. Journalist William Overend states he had met Hubbard and he had also been introduced as being a former Air Force captain. Overend learned Hubbard was only an E-5 Staff Sergeant when Hubbard had apologized on the Today Show a few days later for exaggerating his rank. NBC’s Frank Jordan recalls, “He was convinced no one would listen to a black man who was also an enlisted man.” Hubbard did not testify at Winter Soldier, but detractors of the WSI frequently raise Hubbards fabrication to generate doubt.
TV, I included that last paragraph to make your point that the WSI wasn’t without blame, shame or blemish. So one of the co-organizer’s exaggerated his rank because he feared he wouldn’t be taken seriously as a black enlisted man. Wow that sure discredited all the folks who told the truth, huh. (pssst – that was sarcasm) btw if you bother to read or believe those words he also corrected the lie publicly. Can you say the same for some of your lies TV? Sadly, no.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
treehugger, whether it is “riiiiiiiight” depends on which mess you are referencing, the Iraq war or the present state of the ongoing civil war in our own country.
Republicans led us into the Iraq war, but only with concurrence, even encouragement, of the vast majority in both parties. Oops, I forgot; Bush did it single-handedly by manipulating intel, including all of the various independent intel sources that guided the opinions of virtually every country in the world. Opinions are rampant that Bush/Rove/Cheney were guilty of manipulation, but those opinions are invariably supported only by referencing other opinions…. because factual evidence is non-existentent.
Democrats, specifically Democrat congressmen, have led the way in creating the political divide that currently threatens this country. Irresponsible, reckless, dangerous, and divisive charges have been leveled by wild-eyed, panicked leftist politicians in the halls of Congress on a daily basis, without basis in fact. The political civil war in the U.S. (thankfully, only a rhetorical war thus far) is personally viewed as a much greater threat to our security than the events in the middle East.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
google:
Office of Special Plans
White House Iraq Group
Project for a New American Century
yeah TV there was plenty of intel that Saddam was/is a despicable tyrant. Clinton didn’t send 150,000 of our bravest and finest to invade. If the objective is to destroy radical Islamism, the Iraq war is thus far a complete and utter failure. Al Qaeda has metastasized even while Osama sits in his mountain spider hole and actively seeks our destruction. Terrorist incidents are way up in the last five years vs the five years before that. By going cowboy and scorning diplomacy the bush regime has made our future one of almost inevitable nuclear horror.
Meanwhile Iran creeps closer to a full nuclear enrichment capability (will the Isrealis strike to destroy it?) and North Korea is busy building atomic bombs (for export?) I know, I know… just blame Clinton! whew! I have heaps of scorn for the Dems, but heaps more for the culture of corruption that has become the once great party of Lincoln. Pointing at Dems and saying they are to blame for GWB’s mess is a pathetic lie.
Please, don’t post here unless you can back up your ravings with something other than hate. Try facts. Try google. Try analysis. Rejoin reality.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
enkidu; as always, you make assumptions and characterizations without knowledge. I’m on medical leave until after the Christmas break for major surgery, so my schedule is unpredictable. I have some bearable physical discomfort, but use no drugs (except for an aspirin sometime last spring), including those prescribed; the seal on the bottle of Lortab remains unbroken. I outgrew/matured beyond any need for alcohol when my daughter was born, never even thinking about drinking since taking on that responsibility in 1978. You’re seemingly obsessed with fault-finding and labelling, but your assumptions are incorrect.
Your revelation is disappointing – lots of quotes without context, so I’m left to make my own assumptions. Assuming the Delay quotes came about during discussion about Clinton incursions and mini-wars, I have no history of supporting his opinions. I agreed, for example, with the need to intervene in the Balkans – although I wish our involvement had wreaked more lasting results in those instances. In my opinion, Delay was wrong, as are those “creative thinkers” who parrot those exact same words today.
The Bush quote is impossible to address without context, but you can fight a war based on exit strategy only if you don’t intend to win it.
Al Hubbard, executive secretary of the VVAW and one of the organizers of the Winter Soldier fiasco, lied about his rank, then admitted the lie only when faced with irrefutable proof. In 14 years of service, he achieved the rank of E-5; typically, I earned the same rank in three years. John Kerry defended Hubbard, citing the confession as proof of his integrity.
He lied about more than just his rank. He was collecting disability compensation based on a service-connected disability rating of 60 percent, claiming he had caught shrapnel in his spine while flying a transport plane into Da Nang in 1966. His records reveal no record of service in Vietnam, and no Purple Heart or Vietnam Service Ribbon, which was awarded to anyone who served in Vietnam, regardless of brevity. He had not been wounded in Vietnam, and had never even served there. He received compensation for injuries that actually occurred, but not service-related – injuries sustained during a basketball game in 1956 and a soccer game in 1961. He was a fraud, and he was primary among the “officers of VVAW” who “carefully screened” the “service record and testimony” of the testifying “veterans.”
Other major VVAW leaders, including Michael Halbert, had precisely the same credibility problems as Hubbard.
I won’t try to be comprehensive, the claim that “after all their digging, not one fraudulent veteran was found” warrants at least one example.
Michael Schneider testified that he had shot three peasants in cold blood, had been told by a sadistic lieutenant to attach wires from a field telephone to a man’s testicles, and was ordered by his battalion commander to kill prisoners. After eighteen months of following such orders, unable to take the trauma of war any longers, he deserted and fled to Europe. His stories were bogus: Schneider deserted from Europe, not Vietnam. After surrendering to Army authorities in New York, he deserted again and was arrested on an Oklahoma murder charge. His last recorded residence was the maximum security ward of Eastern State Mental Hospital in Vinita, Oklahoma. He represented the typical “credible witness.”
Several fake “witnesses” were imposters, appropriating the names of real Vietnam veterans, and the testimony of having witnessed and participated in sar crimes and atrocities was false. Although it has been thoroughly discredited, the Winter Soldier “investigation” is still being cited today as “proof” of American servicemen’s barbarity. The VVAW was later merged into the Revolutionary Communist Party.
“We beat the nazis without institutionalizing torture” The examples are too numerous to discuss fully in this forum, but if the baseline for defining torture is putting panties on a man’s head or sleep deprevation, you’re completely wrong. According to documents in the National Archives, in the European theater alone, the U.S. Army condemned 443 of its own soldiers to death for war zone capital offenses. Most are buried outside the wall of a U.S. military cemetery in France because military officials refused to give those criminals the privilege of being buried with those killed in combat. The number does not include Army Air Corps troops, the Navy, or any troops in the Pacific.
You’re right that “bad stuff happens in war,” as in general society, but individual incidents are not evidence of policy.
Digicams and cell phone cameras were used to capture the images of the one-day criminal behavior at Abu Ghraib. Photos were taken of the massacre at My Lai. The images taken at both scenes were instrumental in terms of exposure, but I don’t see that that has any bearing on anything.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
Funny: If someone disagrees with you, they are filled with hatred. I’m resisting the temptation to make silly assumptions about your meds and drinking habits.
“Please, don’t post here unless you can back up your ‘ravings’ with something other than hate. Try facts. Try google. Try analysis. Try reality.”: advice from a sober, sane, calm, unaggressive, deep-thinking, reality-based, caring, compassionate individual?
December 14th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
yeah, it is “advice from a sober, sane, calm, unaggressive, deep-thinking, reality-based, caring, compassionate individual”
please get some meds before you hurt someone with your anger and hatred of all things left of you.
Your ‘sources’ are from freeper blather that is so far slanted to the right as to be laughable. Do I quote Michael Moore to you? No, he’s a big mouthed opportunist, and spins facts to suit his forgone conclusions. I found your copy and paste bits with a single minute of google searching. Which is more noble? To end a war with many truths and some lies? (VVAW winter warriors) Or to start a war with many lies and some truth (bush/cheney PNAC etc). Here I can copy and paste some truth to your lies:
“In fact, while Sheehan’s review of Lane’s book identified interviewees Greg Onan and Michael Schneider (aka Dieter von Kronenberger) as unreliable and also severely undermined the accounts of Terry Whitmore and Garry Gianninoto, none of these men testified during the investigation, according to Winter Soldier transcripts.” via Media Matters (those godless commies!)
So, nice try… a partially discredited book that the author didn’t fact check every single account of US misconduct doesn’t equate to all the winter soldiers being liars and not being in ‘nam or even vets. So how many of those accounts were factual, verifiable, despicable but horribly true? Probably more than you or I would like to admit. But your mind is made up, and facts can’t sway beliefs.
Hey I know! Why don’t you just repeat “asshole” a few dozen more times and maybe I’ll see the error of my ways and go all brownshirt. Seems like you are still pissed off you couldn’t get in GWB’s champagne unit and avoid the war – the draft is a biatch eh?
December 14th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Wow, what a pitiful response. I cut/pasted nothing, having visited no other internet sites for a couple of days.
Michael Schneider was quoted as a fellow “Winter Soldier” during the so-called investigation. Schneider also claimed that his father replaced George Patton as commander of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in Vietnam. He claimed that his father was “a captain in World War II, in the Nazi army.” He said that his father, in Vietnam, was a “Full colonel. Commanding officer in 11th Cavalry Regiment now.” He claimed that his father changed his name after WWII from Dieter von Kronenberger and switchid loyalties to the American military.
Factually, at the time there was no Colonel Schneider or Von Kronenberger in the U.S. Army, and no one by that name had ever commanded the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment. The man was a proven liar, and his false “story” was included in the transcripts of the Winter Soldier saga.
I’ve never purchased or read Lane’s book, but I do remember that he did not check military records of those he interviewed because “It’s not relevant.” Complete with falsehoods, his book was published as an antiwar protest.
After all the atrocities were “revealed” by the Winter Soldier “investigation,” the transcript was inserted into the Congressional Record by Sen. Mark Hatfield, who requested an investigation into alleged crimes by Marines. In the investigation, those who gave testimony refused to be interviewed. An active member of the VVAW told investigators that the leadership had directed the entire membership not to cooperate with military authorities.
In the investigation, many of those who had supposedly testified during the Winter Soldier saga gave sworn statements, corroborated by witnesses, that they had not attended the Winter Soldier hearing. Hence, my statement that fake “witnesses” had appropriated the names of real Vietnam vets. What were the actual identities of those pretenders? One thing is certain: they could not have been actual vets who witnessed real atrocities, or it would not have been necessary to assume fake identities of actual veterans.
DD-214’s can be purchased online or through many military publications, along with IDs, medals, and supporting documentation. Possession of those identifying materials are meaningless, although the VVAW boasted that all soldiers participating in their fiasco were required to present those worthless documents.
Most importantly, even though your narrow view will not allow you to admit it, the stories told at Winter Soldier were false. Some atrocities certainly did occur, but those responsible were tried and punished, and it was certainly not, as charged, part of a “criminal policy.”
The Dewey Canyon demonstration was sponsored by VVAW, named after a 1969 operation in which elements of the 3rd Marine Division ventured into Laos. At the same time, an ad in the NYT, signed by 49 members of the 1st Air Cavalry Division urged support for antiwar demonstrations. The UPI later reported that the men were part of a helicopter unit, and had neither read nor paid for the ad. Another example of a VVAW-sponsored identity theft, complete with fake signatures.
I suppose it’s possible to cherry-pick some honest virtues of VVAW, but their credibility is zero, and they had primarily political motives and goals. It is fitting that John Kerry would have been part of such a group.
Speaking of Kerry, his supposedly off the cuff, moving, emotional testimony before a Congressional committee had actually been composed by Adam Walinsky, who also worked with him on effective presentation. Another Vietnam veteran, Melville Stephens, gave conflicting testimony on the same day. Stephens urged the Senate not to abandon our allies in South Vietnam, and said that peace for us must not come at the cost of their lives. Stephens had written his own speech, which was completely ignored by agenda-driven TV reporters.
I wasn’t drafted. I was in the USAF, and I enlisted for a four-year stint. Unlike both Bush and Kerry, I made no attempt to avoid the war by volunteering for a non-combat role of any kind, but obviously you have no personal experience in that area if you think any “champagne units” existed. I never heard any other GIs criticize those who chose to support in non-combat roles, but guess I understand Kerry’s resentment. Both applied, and since Kerry requests were rejected he had to spend a few weeks in combat (after having volunteered for swift boat duty. Swift boats were not subjected to combat situations until after he volunteered for the “safe” duty). I don’t resent his choice of assumed safe duty; I only resent his slanderous defamation and lies after discovering a political forum.
December 14th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
you ‘sir’ are a liar
you state “I cut/pasted nothing, having visited no other internet sites for a couple of days.”
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040216184347380
your statement “Michael Schneider testified that he had shot three peasants in cold blood, had been told by a sadistic lieutenant to attach wires from a field telephone to a man’s testicles, and was ordered by his battalion commander to kill prisoners.”
from the freeper archive i linked to above “Another “Winter Soldier” named Michael Schneider testified that he had shot three peasants in cold blood, had been told by a sadistic lieutenant to attach wires from a field telephone to a mans testicles, and was ordered by his battalion commander to kill prisoners.”
please note that this is from my previous one minute of google search (the very first page of google links… hmmm)
Maybe you have the book and like to quote passages from memory or you don’t consider quoting something word for word (copy and paste) from a book with an obvious political agenda as bullshit, but it is still bullshit. Funny how the VVAW is evil scum because they don’t share your political rant (ooops ‘viewpoint’ in pc talk), while any wingnuttery is gospel if it reinforces your prejudices. Comfy.
Nice that you fixed the missing apostrophe tho! Fact: Michael Schneider never testified at the Winter Soldier media stunt. Fact: you are a liar.
I have a business to run, employees to pay, health care premiums and insurance and etc etc to keep up with, so I must regretfully decline to lance the boil (after boil after boil) that is your festering mound of lies, but there are only so many hours in the day.
Best of luck with your surgery.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Before posing a serious question, I think it is necessary that I briefly clarify “where I came from,” “who I am,” and “why I do what I do.”
I was reared in North Georgia by two parents, and my father was the ideal role model. To the extreme, he was kind, loving, fair, hard-working, and dedicated to his job and family. He never “preached” to his kids, he merely set the ideal example. He worked hard, earning little (he dropped out of school in 8th grade to work at the family Texaco station in Muskegon, Michigan). He made $39.60 weekly, before taxes, for as long I can remember. Mom worked at a department store, but only for a few weeks prior to Christmas each year. We lived in poverty, but we, as kids, didn’t know it. We had everything we needed.
As a kid, and, later, as an adult, I wanted to do everything my father had done. He was a boxer; I became a boxer. He was an exceptional mathematician; I followed suit. He never failed to vote; I never fail to vote. He enlisted to serve this country in World War II; I enlisted during the Vietnam conflict. He loved his wife unconditionally; I followed suit. He taught his kids kindness; he taught us to love; he taught us that it’s okay to cry. He was the most loving man I’ve ever met; my students, their parents, and my fellow teachers call me the most loving man they’ve ever met.
I have failed to consistently follow my father’s example in one major area. He treated everyone kindly, regardless of their treatment of him. I treat people exactly as they treat me. I justify that difference simply; he worked as a book-keeper in an isolated office, and I work with people. As a boxer, I was characterized as a counter-puncher, and I am a counter-puncher in all aspects of my life. I don’t prejudge, but I do react.
As a teacher, my introductory statement in every class is a simple statement of “who I am,” capsulated in one sentence: I treat people exactly the same way they treat me. I elaborate: If you smile at me, I smile at you. If you cry, it makes me want to cry. If you laugh, I laugh. If you slap me when we pass in the hallway, I will punch you out. If you extend a hand in the hallway or cafeteria, we shake or high-five. If you need an ear, a hug around the neck or a punching bag, I’m there for you. If you frown at me, I try to smile in return, but it is a forced smile. If you respect yourself, the subject and your classmates, I treat you with respect.
An understanding of that philosophy of people relationships has served me extremely well as a teacher. Remarkably, I have virtually no enemies in the community. Principals have assigned me the task of heading up the conflict resolution team. Our local sheriff has had me work with leaders of local gang elements (most were former students).
I state all of that simply to preface my question, and I am seriously searching for an answer:
Why has it become almost desperately necessary to label anyone who disagrees a “liar”?
I offer a simple example: I read a book. It is extremely well documented/referenced. I quote from the book. Something in the book is debatable, or even incorrect, so I am instantly labeled as a “liar.” I’m not merely wrong; I’m a liar. My quote is described as alcohol-induced ranting and screaming, with labels and accusations recklessly flung about. The rhetoric does no damage, easily laughed off -but it becomes a distraction, the primary point of contention.
Being a reactionary, I respond in like manner. If proven wrong, I usually acknowledge and apologize (though I often initially push the point), but when the proof is less meaningful than the accompanying personal attacks, defensiveness reigns, and capitulation/agreement becomes unlikely.
We live in very emotional, politicized times. We have two major political parties. One has steadily gained favor with the majority over three decades, while the other has slipped dramatically. I am only one of the millions of “switch-over” people who have jumped ship. Winning us back is absolutely mandatory if the “losing” party is ever to regain its prominence, but most folks are as reactionary as I am, and we don’t react as desired when we are attacked from every angle because of our contrary political views – personality, life style, intelligence, core beliefs, physical appearance…… I am beneath many people (intellectually, financially, etc.), but my vote is equal to that of anyone else – and that vote will not be changed by brute force. It is, in fact, solidified. I cannot help but question the logic and intelligence driving tactics that yield negative results.
On the occasions that my approach doesn’t work in dealing with students, it is necessary that I re-evaluate and alter my approach accordingly. I believe in, and practice reassessment and revision, but I see no evidence of re-evaluation attempts, and I doubt that the personal attacks on conservatives will yield the desired results.
I am also guilty of doing some labeling, but only because I resent being forced to abandon my political party. I don’t intend for this post to be contentious, but I pull up the “Communist Manifesto,” and I see that my “old party” has gradually migrated so far to the “left” that we have adopted 90 percent of their goals. I, along with millions of others, cannot support the goals of the party that has led us in that direction.
December 15th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Forgive me if I call bullshit bullshit, but you copied a significant part of your previous reply directly from a political-ax-to-grind book while declaring you hadn’t copied n pasted anything. Perhaps you haven’t noticed but the URL is lies.com
If you want to spew foolish lies, I shall enjoy exposing them as such (time allowing). If you have something valuable to contribute to the debate, bring it. Please recall that I was very concerned about the 1.77 tons of eUr, until I actually dug beneath the surface and got to the facts and winnowed out the spin (just to reiterate that stuff had been under lock and key since GW1).
As to your upbringing etc… that’s nice. I will refrain from making the sorts of comments you directed at me and my family. I too volunteered for military service, but I don’t use that as a bludgeon to claim the high ground in every debate. You seem to be angry and bitter about Vietnam – newsflash: that was 3 decades ago. Please let it go before you hurt someone.
To be honest, you do not seem to be re-evaluating your partisanship with your ad homiem attacks, or your carefully worded lies/quotes from partisan sources. You denied and denied and denied the WMD smackdown because it didn’t fit with your agenda (bush=good, dems/libs=bad). By the time you finally cried uncle, the thread was off the main lies.com page… o well.
And pray tell, what does the Communist Manifesto have to do with the Democrats or Liberals or Progressives? What exactly is so commie about wanting equality? Or fair taxation? Or universal health care? Or clean air, water and land use? Is it that science is slowly but surely eroding your faith that the sun goes around the earth? Can’t help you there… I have lived in Northern CA for decades and have never met a communist. I find your wrap up paragraph very perplexing.
If you can dig up any quotes (from say the last 30 years) of Democratic Senators or Reps saying they would like to mass murder all of the opposition party, please find it. Rep. Randy “duke” Cunningham is on the record saying he would like to shoot all the liberal leadership (and anyone who protests). The rabid hatred that typifies right wing web sites is beyond horrific. You folks have institutionalized hatred, divisiveness and racism. I just don’t see that from the center/left. Ooops that’s right the “Dukestir” has been forced to resign because he took millions in kickbacks from companies that should have been using that money to make ballistic armor for our men and women over there. I am sure you can find some way to blame that on the evil Dims and Libs, it should be quite entertaining…
google:
Office of Special Plans
White House Iraq Group
Project for a New American Century
I challenge you to google these text strings and then come back here and say how there was absolutely no manipulation of intelligence (curveball lies taken as gospel, chalabi lies same, intel caveats stripped out of NIE Iraq docs, PDBs ignored or buried, stories planted in the MSM then referred to by Cheney as ‘proof’). Please TV, rejoin reality before thousands or possibly millions more are killed. Give it a try. Please. The truth will set you free.
December 15th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
ps – you have repeatedly claimed that Abu Ghraib was a single night’s indiscretion – this is not true (lie? is that too strong a word for you?)
one minute of google search on the text string “timeframe of Abu Ghraib”
yields this doc: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/dod/fay82504rpt.pdf (a DOD doc?)
“MG Fay has found that from 25 July 2003 to 6 February 2004, twenty-seven 205 MI BDE Personnel allegedly requested, encouraged, condoned or solicited Military Police (MP) personnel to abuse detainees and/or participated in detainee abuse and/or violated established interrogation procedures and applicable laws and regulations during interrogation operations at Abu Ghraib.”
TV be honest, it wasn’t just a single night’s frat prank. This was/is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo and ‘elsewhere’. The McCain amendment is a step in the right direction (non-binding vote, huh? no more time to google n read)
The vast majority of our folks in harms way are good decent citizens. But lack of clear guidelines (Capt. Ian Fishback), poor leadership (Rummy, dumbya, gonzales) and overextended tours make for volatile situations. Some of these Iraqis who are genuine bomb makers and trigger men, well, I honestly don’t feel quite so bent out of shape that we have treated them poorly (I too am red in tooth and claw). But the abuse of innocents, slobs stopped for traffic violations and the like does nothing to help us and gives our enemies a huge helping hand. Sweeping it under the rug isn’t going to make it go away.
Not to prattle on all night, but a quick story from my personal experience reading about the start of GW2. I recall an article about a unit at the front who had captured an Iraqi that they knew had info about their troops deployments, hard points etc. Well one of our guys was interrogating him in the field and was getting more and more worked up, screaming, kicking sand, mb more physical, dunno. So our interrogator mb threatens to kill the guy, draws his pistol and shoots (more than once?) right next to him. At that point others from his unit stop the interrogator and he is eventually disciplined. I recall feeling so incredibly proud of the regular joes who knew the UCMJ doesn’t allow that crap. That right is right and wrong is wrong. I don’t recall thinking anything about their political partisanship and still think that has absolutely no bearing on the incident at all. My thoughts went something like “even if we are in there for the wrong reasons, we can win with plain old american honesty and decency”
go to bugmenot.com for passwords to this article
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051219&s=sullivan121905
December 16th, 2005 at 5:22 am
The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx, 1848:
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose. We’re working on it, with lots of recent developments.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Social Security Act of 1936. “Paying our fair share.”
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Federal and State estate Tax (1916). We’re currently 55 percent of the way in “progress” toward total abolition of our right to pass our earnings to our kids.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Crime/Terrorist Bill of 1997.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. Federal Reserve Act or 1913.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State. The FCC and DOT via the ICC Act of of 1887 (with the ICC established in 1938), the postal monopoly, Amtrack and Conrail.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. The Desert Entry Act and the Dept. of Agriculture, Dept. of Commerce & Labor, the EPA, Bureau of Land Management, Natl. Park Service.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. The Social Security Administration, Dept. of Labor, Socialist Unions, affirmative action.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. Planning Reorganization Act of 1949, zoning and Super Corporate Farms.
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc. Taxes finance the public schools, which train youngsters to work for the communal debt system created by Pank #5.
Karl Marx stated in the Manifesto that these planks will test whether a country has become communist. If they are all in effect, the country IS communist.
Abolition of the family unit was a major component of Marx’s Communism, with (your) children belonging to the State. Evidence of “progress” in that area is visible everywhere. My cousin recently bought an infant daughter from China; $15,000 for the purchase of the Chinese “property,” and thousands more for the mandatory trip to China for the transaction. Two of my fellow teachers have also made identical “purchases of State property.” How far have we “advanced” in that area of “liberal progressivism”?
Check the dates of Acts that have gradually advanced our “progress” into communism and socialism, and identify which political party has usually been in “control” of the “State.” While googling for someone else’s contrasting opinion, be sure to set your stopwatch; it’s important to know how long it took.
John Nance “Cactus Jack” Garner was a member of my Democratic Party. His father was my direct ancestor through my mother’s side of the family. He had a falling out with FDR after suffering through two terms as VP, primarily because of disagreement with FDR’s socialist agenda.
I am equally concerned about the world we will leave for our kids. With few notable exceptions, communist nations have fallen. Look at what a mess Russia is in because of Stalin and his legacy. Citizens are starving in North Korea while the dictator builds nuclear warheads. Cuba is 50 years behind the rest of the world. The Sandinistas were voted out in Nicaragua. China is turning to free market capitalism because the old system broke down. The examples are aplenty, but I’m sure I’ll be accused of drunken, lunatic raving for making that list of examples.
We build a massive military machine because of the Kruschev threat to “bury” us, but forgot to protect our political homefront from being taken over by communist/socialist/liberal activists who have gradually installed the communist agenda into our legal system and government branches; the “progress” of “international democracy.” With the removal of Christian law from the original “American government,” the threat to world communism faces little opposition.
Set your stop watch/Google/Stop the timer/Knock yourself out – your choice, but don’t blame me for the “one minute” you choose to waste (your server must be slow). While you’re at it, check the hated, big corporate earnings for the past year, especially those of Google vs. Halliburton. Disclaimer: I have no connection to Halliburton, and I don’t support/use Google (though not simply to comply with politically correct opposition to free enterprise).
Incidentally, cut/paste is computer dialogue, but is not the same as my crime, plagiarism. Of course, words no longer have specific meanings.
December 16th, 2005 at 5:30 am
Opps – Forgot to cite my sources: Notes from political science class at Vanderbilt University, personal experience and personal knowledge.
I posted at 7:22 Central time, hopefully meeting approval, sober and drug free ;)
December 16th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
that’s quite the rant… let me see, having never read (nor cared to read) the CM, I turned to wikipedia (btw mentioning that it only took me a minute to pop another one of your whoppers is just to show how easy it is to find the truth, but only if you care to find it – and that you lie continuously).
A quick perusal of the CM made me think, hmmmm, most of these aren’t so bad! As a political philosophy, communism is pretty lame, it seems to be mostly about economic policy (when your country is run by a greedy monarchy that oppresses and spys and jails its citizens, people might dream of a more rationally based plan for human civilization – btw i was referring to 19th century European monarchs, not king gwb, tho perhaps equally appropriate)
so lets see:
1
private property is a cornerstone of American capitalism
2
taxation – yes virginia we need to pay taxes (except for jackasses like Duke Cunningham)
3
see above (we need to buy those bombs and bullets, build roads and power plants etc) unless you are a multimillionaire, this doesn’t affect you
4
break the law, lose your toys (property etc) sounds reasonable, provided there is judicial oversight, habeas corpus, transparency and a free press
5
every nation/state on the planet can issue its own currency – what’s the problem? the market decides on worth…
6
the FCC and DOT are oversight or regulatory bodies. To say they have complete control over all media and all transport is hilarious (wingnuttery score here: 11!)
7
we don’t have excessive regulation of business – more the opposite
the state controls all business? we are nearly the polar opposite from this tenet of the CM
8
so you hate social security (gosh that is just so surprising!) bfd
make sure you return your checks when you become eligible – that’ll show those godless commies!
9
so you want to remove the right of govs to zone land use? since these folks are elected, vote em out and change the zoning (its called Democracy, get used to it)
10
free public grade school eduction – a cornerstone of modern America…
but you want to abolish child labor laws so we can put em all to work for daddy warbucks? Arbeit macht frei!
wtf the CM has to do with the Iraq war is beyond me (o yeah, the dems want us to be commie islamofacists… errr no) What exactly is so commie about wanting equality? Or fair taxation? Or universal health care? Or clean air, water and land use? Gosh I am sorry your ancestor broke with FDR over the New Deal, but I think it fair to say America needed to do something to get us out of the Depression (brought on by Republican mismanagement btw)
gwb will go down in history as the worst president ever
you have serious issues dealing with reality
December 16th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
“With the removal of Christian law from the original “American government,” the threat to world communism faces little opposition.”
btw – this one was so damn funny i laughed out loud! Not only is it somewhat tortured (and I know how much you tough guys love torture!) grammatically, but the idea that the world is sinking under a tide of communism is so 180˚ from reality that it is breathtaking. Venezuela is an exception to this rule, blending democracy, communism, socialism and demogoguery… and oil, lots of oil… but I digress.
wingnuttery/moonbat score: another 11!
the extra point awarded for the victor claiming victim status – bravo