Did Kerry commit Treason?

[ParadoxMan]

Forgive me if this has already been answered

According to this site (http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/), there is a petition demanding that John Kerry be prosecuted for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" in times of war and be disqualified for national office.

I find it thoroughly preposterous and silly that anyone would call John Kerry a traitor. However, I am not a legal scholar and do not know exactly what "giving aid and comfort" consists of. Taken to one extreme I could see where it could be argued that one is giving aid and comfort to the enemy by simply dissenting or protesting against a war while it's in progress. But at the other extreme, nothing short of outright shooting at our own troops would qualify.

In a legal sense, at what point does someone's dissent/actions become treasonous? If elected to the Office of the President, could Kerry be impeached on these grounds?

[toadspittle]

This is an area where amendments 1 and 14 crash into each other pretty hard. But I think Kerry's safe, barring the advent of a total police state here. That would mean that everyone who objected to any war gave comfort and aid to the enemy ... and that's a big list. Heck, you could argue that anyone who doesn't vote for Bush is opposing the president in a time of war and thus emboldening our enemies. Prepare for half the country to go to prison.

Basically, I think you'd need a pretty high threshold of imapct here. The Rosenbergs giving H-bomb secrets to the reds = treason. Kerry saying the war in Vietnam was not being fought well = not treason.

IANASupremeCourtJustice.

[John Mace]

Here's the relavent area of interst, from the OP's cite:

Kerry met, on two occasions, with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971...

It has to depend on exactly what transpired in those meetings, which is not at all clear. I'd be surprised, however, if there was enough substance to charge Kerry with treason. If there were, one of his Senatorial opponents would surely have done so a long time ago. This is not some new issue-- O'Neill (of the Swift Vets 527 group) has been after Kerry since 1971.

Maybe the documentary "Stolen Honor" will flesh out the charges more. If so, I would hope there will be someone from the Kerry side to offer the counteraguement.

[rjung]

Maybe the documentary "Stolen Honor" will flesh out the charges more. If so, I would hope there will be someone from the Kerry side to offer the counteraguement.
Ah, you crazy dreamer, you. ;)

[Smapti]

Kerry met, on two occasions, with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971...

It's worth noting that the only evidence these meetings ever occured is Kerry's own statement that it did. Curious that some people are convinced that everything Kerry says is a lie EXCEPT for that.

[John Mace]

ICurious that some people are convinced that everything Kerry says is a lie EXCEPT for that.

Cite that anyone thinks everything Kerry says is a lie except that statement? Methinks you have strayed into strawman terrirtory.

[elucidator]

There are two basic contentions of treason.

First, that Kerry's aforementioned meeting with North Vietnamese negotiators was treasonous because of an historical footnote called the Boland Law, to the effect that it was illegal for a private citizen to negotiate with foreign, and most especially belligerant nations. The case relies on a strenurous exertion to define "negotiation" to include damn near anything.

Kerry referred to the visit in his Senate testimony, referencing a previous visit by Sen Eugene McCarthy. He said that in his judgement (and, presumably, advisors) that so long as he scrupulously avoided any "negotiation", and given that his circumstances were so similar to the precedent set by Sen McCarthy, he was pretty sure he was in compliance with all relevent laws. Myself, I take him at his word. If for no other reason but that there is no chance whatever that the NV thought that Kerry was empowered to negotiate, nor did he so represent.

The other argument is more emotional, to the effect that Kerry's anti-war activity, by its very nature and his fervent advocacy, offered aid and comfort to the enemy. The most rational of these invokes the effect of dissent on our enemie's morale and determination. In effect, such an effort offers comfort, if not aid.

It is unfortunate that no political action can be entirely innocent, outside of Jimmy Carter. But there you have it, you are invariably choosing between evils. I wrestled with this notion then, as I am pretty sure Kerry did.

But consider: if we accept the notion that criticizing the government in time of war is illegitimate and unpatriotic, we write a carte blanche for any scoundrel to render himself immune to examination and accountability. I trust no one will argue that we have not, nor will we, elect a scoundrel.

Another, and far more repulsive, scenario is the retarded cousin to the above argument, the kind of argument usually confined in the attic and fed on gruel. This holds Kerry at fault because the NV used such to torment POW's and undermine thier will to resist.

This is wretched behavior, to be sure. But again, if one must refuse to do good, by opposing an administration in grevious error, because evil men will misconstrue the meaning of your actions....well, when ever would you act?

[capacitor]

To these people, the truth is treason.

[Scylla]

Kerry referred to the visit in his Senate testimony, referencing a previous visit by Sen Eugene McCarthy. He said that in his judgement (and, presumably, advisors) that so long as he scrupulously avoided any "negotiation", and given that his circumstances were so similar to the precedent set by Sen McCarthy, he was pretty sure he was in compliance with all relevent laws.


That's not what he said.

Myself, I take him at his word. If for no other reason but that there is no chance whatever that the NV thought that Kerry was empowered to negotiate, nor did he so represent.

That doesn't matter. Not only are you not only allowed to negotiate, you are not allowed to influence negotiations. A prominent antiwar veteran from the other side is sure as shit going to influence things. Kerry's recommendation and urging that the use except the Vietnamese proposal unchanged is also an influence.

The other argument is more emotional, to the effect that Kerry's anti-war activity, by its very nature and his fervent advocacy, offered aid and comfort to the enemy. The most rational of these invokes the effect of dissent on our enemie's morale and determination. In effect, such an effort offers comfort, if not aid.

No. It is aid. Having an advocate fight your propaganda war for you is aid. The way they were able to use Kerry's testimony to torture POWs is aid.

It is unfortunate that no political action can be entirely innocent, outside of Jimmy Carter. But there you have it, you are invariably choosing between evils. I wrestled with this notion then, as I am pretty sure Kerry did.

Fuck the two evils. What the fuck is the other evil? He betrayed his own. His actions resulted in a prolongation of the war and the torture and imprisonment of his own countrymen according to many of those POWs. The North Vietnamese consider the man a hero for the aid he provided them, and they have his picture hanging in a place of honor in the war remnants museum.

Kerry testified that leaving Vietnam would be relatively easy, and at best any subsequent purges would only effect a couple of thousand people. After we took Kerry's advice, the real genocide occured. I'm not talking about the lie of genocide he accused the US of, I'm talking about the millions of people killed immediately following the war and up into the 80s, and it still continues today with Montagnards, et al.

Not only did Kerry betray our own troops. He betrayed those we abandoned by repeating and endorsing the lies told to him by Madame Binh.



But consider: if we accept the notion that criticizing the government in time of war is illegitimate and unpatriotic,

If anybody actually ever says such a thing, I'll be sure and have them talk to you.

[BrainGlutton]

THaving an advocate fight your propaganda war for you is aid.

If that were true you could make a case for treason against every American who was involved in the antiwar movement. Sure you want to go there?

[BrainGlutton]

Fuck the two evils. What the fuck is the other evil?

:rolleyes:

The other evil was letting the war continue.

[Zoe]

So some of the same people who say that Kerry was planning his political career 35 years ago are also saying that he also committed a treasonous act and admitted to it? Strange career move.

No, I don't think it was treasonous for a citizen to talk with peace negotiators in Paris. I think it was treasonous for McNamara, Johnson and Nixon to lie to their countrymen about the war.

According to Charles Colson, Nixon brought O'Neil in to counter the things that Kerry was saying in the early 1970's. On the Oval Office tapes Nixon can be heard commenting about Kerry's abilities. Colson commented in his diaries about how the White House set out to destroy Kerry and O'Neil was part of that plan. (Source: PBS, Frontline: "The Choice") Interesting program if you get a chance to see it.

[John Mace]

I think it was treasonous for McNamara, Johnson and Nixon to lie to their countrymen about the war.

You are wrong.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Might as well get the meme that treason is "a government official doing something wrong" out of the way.

[BrainGlutton]

You are wrong.



Might as well get the meme that treason is "a government official doing something wrong" out of the way.

Fuck that. George W. Bush is guilty of treason. He'll never do time (not on that particular charge, anyway), but he's guilty.

[John Mace]

Fuck that. George W. Bush is guilty of treason. He'll never do time (not on that particular charge, anyway), but he's guilty.

You're a lawyer, right? Make your case...

[laigle]

You are wrong.



Might as well get the meme that treason is "a government official doing something wrong" out of the way.

But not the meme that criticizing the government is, of course.

[BrainGlutton]

You're a lawyer, right? Make your case...

In a legal sense he's not guilty, of course. That's not what I'm talking about when I call GWB a traitor. And that's a meme I want to keep alive!

[Frank]

"Traitor" is an extremely strong accusation. Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Tokyo Rose was a traitor. Julius Rosenberg was a traitor. Neither John Kerry nor George Bush are traitors.

[Scylla]

If that were true you could make a case for treason against every American who was involved in the antiwar movement. Sure you want to go there?

As Scooby Doo would put it, "Absorutely."

One may protest a war without committing treason. However, one may not conduct fraudulent investigations, and make a sworn testimony based on lies to indict your comrades, then meet with the enemy, and then work on their behalf. Do those things and you're a traitor. Kerry did.

I don't understand by what definition of "traitor," and "treason" Kerry's actions don't qualify.

[Scylla]

:rolleyes:

The other evil was letting the war continue.

Really?

Literally millions of people died in the communist purges that immediately followed our desertion of the North Vietnamese. Millions more have lived in oppression and torture.

You think that fulfilling our commitment as allies and as simple human beings to save those people would have been evil?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

As Scooby Doo would put it, "Absorutely."

One may protest a war without committing treason. However, one may not conduct fraudulent investigations, and make a sworn testimony based on lies to indict your comrades, then meet with the enemy, and then work on their behalf. Do those things and you're a traitor. Kerry did.

I don't understand by what definition of "traitor," and "treason" Kerry's actions don't qualify.
Well since Kerry didn't do any of that crap, I guess he's in the clear.

Now quit sliming war heroes.

[BrainGlutton]

Really?

Literally millions of people died in the communist purges that immediately followed our desertion of the North Vietnamese. Millions more have lived in oppression and torture.

You think that fulfilling our commitment as allies and as simple human beings to save those people would have been evil?

Victory was never an option, Scylla, and our military presence was doing the South Vietnamese people much more harm than it could ever do them good. The war was an evil and it was an evil the U.S. was perpetrating. We should've pulled out in 1968 when all of those things became obvious.

And I'd like to see a cite for that "millions." That would put the Vietnamese Communists in the same class as the Khmer Rouge, a comparison I have never heard made by their worst enemies.

[elucidator]

....Not only are you not only allowed to negotiate, you are not allowed to influence negotiations. A prominent antiwar veteran from the other side is sure as shit going to influence things. Kerry's recommendation and urging that the use except the Vietnamese proposal unchanged is also an influence....

You claim "influence" as self-evident, a matter of faith, unless you can demonstrate influence. Did the NV suddenly alter their negotiating position as a result of skullduggery with Kerry? Got a memorandum from Uncle Ho to the AK-47 factory, telling them to cut back production, peace is at hand? What influence can you demonstrate?

...No. It is aid. Having an advocate fight your propaganda war for you is aid. The way they were able to use Kerry's testimony to torture POWs is aid...

Not his choice. Bobby Kennedy was prominently anti-war at the time of his death. If a POW were confronted with that at the Hanoi Hilton, does that make Bobby a traitor?

...His actions resulted in a prolongation of the war and the torture and imprisonment of his own countrymen according to many of those POWs....

You can, of course, prove this. Being a temperate and reasonable man, you would not slander another without proof. Proof that the NV and VC were on the verge of surrender? They were just about to throw up thier hands and take up knitting, but then Kerry came along? You gotta be kidding.

And the POWs undoubtely know a great deal about misery and brutality. Why you offer that as proof of expertise in the strategic thinking of the NV escapes me. What authority do they bring to your argument?

Right about the point where you try to indict Kerry for Viet Nam's long standing hostility with the Montagnards and other indigenous tribes, you take One Step Beyond. I can't defend a charge so surreal.

[Scylla]

Victory was never an option, Scylla,

You must be joking. We could not have failed to win had we been committed to doing so. Vietnam is a third world country. The Tet offensive was a huge failure in which an entire generation was lost. The North Vietnamese were fighting us with kids and old people. We had the weapons, the money, the personell, the indistrialized society. All we lacked was the will.

and our military presence was doing the South Vietnamese people much more harm than it could ever do them good.

I don't see how you can possibly justify that. You ever hear the term "boat people?" They weren't coming to us because they thought we were doing them harm. Seeing as millions were killed in the purges after we left, I cannot see how you can reasonably suggest that they were better off dead or enslaved than they were when we were helping them.

The war was an evil and it was an evil the U.S. was perpetrating. We should've pulled out in 1968 when all of those things became obvious.


War is evil. War is bad. You seem to have that as an article of faith. I suppose it was an evil for the North to fight to free the slaves. I suppose you think it was an evil for us to get involved in WWII.

Your argument is ridiculous.

And I'd like to see a cite for that "millions." That would put the Vietnamese Communists in the same class as the Khmer Rouge, a comparison I have never heard made by their worst enemies.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB6.1B.GIF

See lines 635 through 668

[erislover]

I suppose it was an evil for the North to fight to free the slaves.Huh, and here I thought it was all about the right to secede.

[BrainGlutton]

War is evil. War is bad. You seem to have that as an article of faith. I suppose it was an evil for the North to fight to free the slaves. I suppose you think it was an evil for us to get involved in WWII.

No, those were justified. The Cold War (and Vietnam was just one theater of operations in the Cold War) was never justified, it was always bullshit. International Communism was never the threat to America that Truman, Eisenhower, et al., made it out to be, and the Domino Theory in Southeast Asia was, in particular, total stinking bullshit.

I also don't see how a government that was propping up all kinds of brutal dictatorships all over the world, just because they were anticommunist or otherwise useful to U.S. interests, could justify something like the Vietnam War on the grounds it was trying to "help" or "protect" people. In Indonesia in 1965-66, our friend Sukarno's government murdered at least half a million Communists and suspected Communists and might-once-have-met-a-Communists. And don't get me started on what the CIA did to Chile. That was a true day of shame for America.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB6.1B.GIF

See lines 635 through 668

I clicked on that but I see nothing but some rows of faint, tiny squiggles running down the left side of the screen -- doesn't look like text at all.

[Scylla]

You claim "influence" as self-evident, a matter of faith, unless you can demonstrate influence. Did the NV suddenly alter their negotiating position as a result of skullduggery with Kerry? Got a memorandum from Uncle Ho to the AK-47 factory, telling them to cut back production, peace is at hand? What influence can you demonstrate?

He was able to argue the North Vietnamese negotiating stance to the lawmakers who set policy, and certainly caused Nixon to take notice. That would be influence.

Not his choice. Bobby Kennedy was prominently anti-war at the time of his death. If a POW were confronted with that at the Hanoi Hilton, does that make Bobby a traitor?

Can you give me a cite for where Bobby Kennedy said the Americans were committing genocide, and that war crimes were committed on a day to day basis with the knowledge and cooperation of officers at all levels of command?

Can you show me a cite where Bobby betrayed his fellow Veterans and said their mission was to fire on Sampans and villages and kill innocent people?

Can you give me a cite where Bobby Kennedy met with the N. Vietnamese without official sanction?

If you can than I guess he's a traitor, too. Otherwise it's just another example of elucilogic, an invalid comparison.

You can, of course, prove this. Being a temperate and reasonable man, you would not slander another without proof. Proof that the NV and VC were on the verge of surrender? They were just about to throw up thier hands and take up knitting, but then Kerry came along? You gotta be kidding.

I've produced the cites previously from former POWS and General Giopp (sp?) of the N. Vietnamese.

And the POWs undoubtely know a great deal about misery and brutality. Why you offer that as proof of expertise in the strategic thinking of the NV escapes me. What authority do they bring to your argument?

Interrogation is a two-way street. Kerry's testimony was used as a justification for their torture. They were told.

Right about the point where you try to indict Kerry for Viet Nam's long standing hostility with the Montagnards and other indigenous tribes, you take One Step Beyond. I can't defend a charge so surreal.

Your inability to mount a defense is hardly a point in your favor. More Elucilogic.

[Scylla]

The Cold War (and Vietnam was just one theater of operations in the Cold War) was never justified, it was always bullshit. International Communism was never the threat to America that Truman, Eisenhower, et al., made it out to be, and the Domino Theory in Southeast Asia was, in particular, total stinking bullshit.

Logically, a simple assertion requires only a counterassertion to refute it:

You are wrong.

Probably that simple assertion is as unsatisfying to you as yours are to me, so I'll suggest you ask the Dominos instead:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5138

I also don't see how a government that was propping up all kinds of brutal dictatorships all over the world, just because they were anticommunist or otherwise useful to U.S. interests, could justify something like the Vietnam War on the grounds it was trying to "help" or "protect" people. In Indonesia in 1965-66, our friend Sukarno's government murdered at least half a million Communists and suspected Communists and might-once-have-met-a-Communists. And don't get me started on what the CIA did to Chile. That was a true day of shame for America.

I don't see how anything this country does can be any good since we stole it from the Indians.



I clicked on that but I see nothing but some rows of faint, tiny squiggles running down the left side of the screen -- doesn't look like text at all.


That's weird. The same thing just happened to me when I clicked it. I found that if I moved the mouse down to the bottom left a little box appeared that looked like a picture frame with arrows. When I clicked it, the table came up and the squiggles disapeared.

Please try it again and see if you can get a result.

[Sam Stone]

I wonder if the military took some sort of action against Kerry in the 1970's? According to this paper (http://www.nysun.com/article/3107), there are a lot of irregularities around Kerry's discharge:


BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun
October 13, 2004

An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.

The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.

According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.

A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge. There has been no response to that inquiry.


The document is dated 1978.

My question is, if Kerry negotiated with the North Vietnamese while still an officer of the U.S. military, did he violate the UCMJ? The article thinks it is possible that Kerry got a bad conduct discharge in 1972 due to his anti-war activities, and then in 1978 when a friendly President was in the White House and Vietnam was over, he managed to get his BCD reviewed and converted into an honorable discharge.

Does this sound plausible?

This would also explain why Kerry refuses to sign his Form 180 and release all his military records.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Does this sound plausible?
No.

[Sam Stone]

Gee, thanks. Another sterling contribution.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's your theory. Prove it. If you can't prove it then your just wasting everyone's time with pointless insinuations.

[BrainGlutton]

Probably that simple assertion is as unsatisfying to you as yours are to me, so I'll suggest you ask the Dominos instead:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5138

That cite says nothing that goes to my main point, which is that the Cold War, on America's part, was not justified.

That's weird. The same thing just happened to me when I clicked it. I found that if I moved the mouse down to the bottom left a little box appeared that looked like a picture frame with arrows. When I clicked it, the table came up and the squiggles disapeared.

Please try it again and see if you can get a result.

I found the table but it's hard to read. There's three "estimated dead" columns labeled "Low," "Mid" and "High" -- not clear what that means. Also says "000" implying, but not very clearly, that all figures in the column must be multiplied by 1,000. At any rate, if I'm reading this right, the figures for "Democide by Vietnam 1975-87" seem trivial compared to the figures for democide by the South Vietnamese government, Diem and post-Diem. The figures labeled "U.S. War Crimes" are also pretty disturbing. And there's also figures for democide by Koreans, which makes no sense at all. Where did this table come from, anyway?

From the Wikipedia (generally a pretty thorough and impartial source) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vietnam:

True Independence

The Japanese surrendered to the Allies in August 1945, and the Communist Viet Minh under Ho Chi Minh aimed to take power. Due to the Japanese associations, Ho was able to persuade Bao Dai to abdicate on August 25, 1945, handing power to the Viet Minh -- an event that greatly enhanced Ho's legitimacy in the eyes of the Vietnamese people. Bao Dai was appointed "supreme adviser" in the new government in Hanoi, which asserted independence on September 2. In 1946 Vietnam gained its first constitution and a new title: the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV).

Vietnam descended into violence -- rival Vietnamese factions clashing with each other and with the French. The First Indochina War lasted until 1954, when the Viet Minh won a major victory at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu.

The USA, nervous since the war of Ho Chi Minh's communism, became strongly opposed to the idea of a Vietnam run by Ho after his government of the north, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, in 1950 gained recognition from the Soviet Union and China. In the south in the same year, the government of Bao Dai in Saigon was recognized by the United States and the United Kingdom, but did not enjoy wide popular support.

The Geneva Conference involved a Chinese-inspired, supposedly temporary partition of the country into North and South. Bao Dai had intentions to take full control of South Vietnam, and from his home in France appointed the religious nationalist Ngo Dinh Diem as Prime Minister. However, in 1955 Diem used a referendum to remove the Emperor and took control of the South himself, managing to win American support. In 1959 the country's constitution was rewritten with a more explicit Communist flavour.

In response to the failure of establishing unifying elections, the National Liberation Front (NLF or Viet Cong) was formed as a guerrilla movement in opposition to the South Vietnamese government. (The RVN and the US referred to the NLF as Viet Cong, short for Viet Nam Cong San, or "Vietnamese Communist". The NLF itself never went by this name.) In response to the guerrilla war, the United States began sending military advisors in support of the government in the South. This escalated into what is called the Vietnam War, or the "Second Indochina War".

The war lasted until 1975, when the North finally gained control over all of Vietnam. In 1976, Vietnam was officially reunited under the North Vietnamese government as "The Socialist Republic of Vietnam".

In 1979 China invaded Vietnam in response to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. The Sino-Vietnamese War was brief, but casualties were high on both sides. The country's third constitution, based on that of the USSR, was written in 1980.

Reforms

In 1986 Vietnam, under new leader Nguyen Van Linh, abandoned its attempt to maintain a purely planned economy. Many restrictions on private enterprise were lifted, and the education system was liberalised. In 1995 Vietnam joined the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean). A stock exchange opened in 2000. However, journalism and political dissent are still strictly controlled, and Vietnam is still a one-party state. Democracy, human rights, and religious freedom advocates continue to be arrested.

Nothing about genocide or anything close.

Now, this is from the article about Cambodia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cambodia:

Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979)

Main article: Democratic Kampuchea

Immediately after its victory, the CPK ordered the evacuation of all cities and towns, sending the complete urban population out into the countryside to work as farmers. Two reasons were given. First, the population was starving due to farmers migration to cities to avoid the advancing fighting. Second, the CPK was trying to reshape society into a model that Pol Pot had conceived.

Thousands had been starving and dying of disease prior to the CPK takeover. Thousands starved or died of disease during the evacuation and its aftermath. Many of those forced to evacuate the cities were resettled in newly created villages, which lacked food, agricultural implements, and medical care. Many who lived in cities had lost the skills necessary for survival in an agarian environment. Thousands starved before the first harvest. Hunger and malnutrition--bordering on starvation--were constant during those years. Most military and civilian leaders of the former regime who failed to disguise their pasts were executed.

Within the CPK, the Paris-educated leadership--Pol Pot, Ieng Sary, Nuon Chea, and Son Sen--was in control. A new constitution in January 1976 established Democratic Kampuchea as a Communist People's Republic, and a 250-member Assembly of the Representatives of the People of Kampuchea (PRA) was selected in March to choose the collective leadership of a State Presidium, the chairman of which became the head of state.

Prince Sihanouk resigned as head of state on April 4. On April 14, after its first session, the PRA announced that Khieu Samphan would chair the State Presidium for a 5-year term. It also picked a 15-member cabinet headed by Pol Pot as prime minister. Prince Sihanouk was put under virtual house arrest.

The new government sought to completely restructure Cambodian society. Remnants of the old society were abolished and religion, particularly Buddhism and Catholicism, was suppressed. Agriculture was collectivized, and the surviving part of the industrial base was abandoned or placed under state control. Cambodia had neither a currency nor a banking system.

Life in 'Democratic Kampuchea' was strict and very brutal. In many areas of the country people were rounded up and executed for speaking a foreign language, wearing glasses, scavenging for food, and even crying for dead loved ones. Former businessmen and bureaucrats were ruthlessly hunted down and killed along with their entire families; the Khmer Rouge feared that they held beliefs that could lead them to oppose their regime. A few Khmer Rouge loyalists were even killed for failing to find enough 'counterrevolutionaires' to find and execute.

Solid estimates of the numbers who died between 1975 and 1979 are not available, but it is likely that hundreds of thousands were brutally executed by the regime. Hundreds of thousands died of starvation and disease (both under the CPK and during the Vietnamese invasion in 1978). Some estimates of the dead range from 1 to 3 million, out of a 1975 population estimated at 7.3 million. The CIA estimated 50,000-100,000 were executed from 1975 to 1979, mostly around the time of the invasion by Vietnam.

Note, the number of dead is mentioned, as precisely as it is possible to say. Now, if anything close to that scale had happened in postwar Vietnam, I think the Wikipedia would have mentioned it.

In short, I ain't buyin' it.

[BrainGlutton]

BTW, Scyllla: Rightly or wrongly, most Americans -- about 2/3, according to Gallup polls -- believe the Vietnam War was both immoral and a mistake, and that has been the case pretty consistently ever since 1968. From "Long Division," by Michael Tomasky, in The American Prospect, October 2004 -- http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=8539:

The Gallup Organization has taken care to track American public opinion on this question every few years since the Vietnam War ended. The results are beyond dispute. By overwhelming margins, Americans have always believed -- and continue to believe -- that the Vietnamese conflict was wrong. Gallup has asked two questions over the years. First, did the United States make “a mistake in sending troops to fight in Vietnam, or not”? Second, was the war (and were other wars in U.S. history) “just” or “unjust”? In both cases, the pro-war position comes up very short. Gallup began asking a version of the “mistake” question in 1965. The first majority calling the war a mistake appeared in August 1968, after the Tet Offensive and Walter Cronkite’s famous anti-war editorial at the end of his newscast on the night of February 27 of that year. After the war’s 1975 conclusion, Gallup has asked the question five times, in 1985, 1990, 1993, 1995, and 2000. And all five times -- over that 15-year period that saw vast social change, the raging of the culture wars, and dramatic shifts to the right in American public opinion on several issues -- respondents were consistent in calling the war a mistake by a margin of more than 2 to 1: by 74 percent to 22 percent in 1990, for example, and by 69 percent to 24 percent in 2000.

Similarly, vast majorities continue to call the war “unjust.” While substantial majorities retrospectively support World War II (90 percent), the Korean War (61 percent), and the Gulf War (66 percent), fully 68 percent of Gallup respondents in 1990 considered the Vietnam War unjust, and 25 percent thought it just. Four years later, the numbers were 71 percent to 23 percent. Only in 2004 -- after September 11, with American soldiers engaged in combat on two fronts, and with martial rhetoric from the incumbent administration a daily feature of national life -- did the numbers change. But even then, they changed just a little: 62 percent still consider Vietnam unjust, while 33 percent defend it.

It’s at least very interesting and at most rather remarkable that Americans, who tend to forgive their country pretty much everything on the matter of how it conducts its global affairs, have settled so firmly into the conviction that their nation was so wrong about something so important. Another 1995 Gallup question even found a majority of 52 percent agreeing with the assertion that the war was “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” as opposed to the 43 percent who called it a “well-intentioned mistake.” And while it can be argued that the 33 percent of pro-Vietnam respondents in the 2004 poll still represents a decent chunk of the population, it’s also the case than in electoral terms, 33 percent constitutes a fractional minority. The similar percentage of Americans that opposed the Iraq War in the early months of 2003 was uniformly written off by the media as marginal, disgruntled, and unimportant. So public opinion on this question couldn’t be clearer. There is no great Vietnam divide. Americans are more divided over carbohydrates than they are over Vietnam.

If the execs at Sinclair Broadcasting are expecting that airing Stolen Honors on their stations is going to cost Kerry any votes, they are going to be unpleasantly suprised.

[elucidator]

...My question is, if Kerry negotiated with the North Vietnamese while still an officer of the U.S. military....

Its this simple, Sam. Kerry has stated that he was not negotiating. You have no proof otherwise. I put it to you that a charge as serious as you are leveling requires rather more.

An interesting thing, though, a breaking story from the New York Sun. Of course, the liberal media are ignoring this blockbuster, which would tear the Kerry campaign apart, if it got any attention. Then perhaps the Sun might have a Puliltzer Prize to add to its bountiful collection of journalistic accolades, as it clambers for a place of respectability next to the Moonie News.

...He was able to argue the North Vietnamese negotiating stance to the lawmakers who set policy, and certainly caused Nixon to take notice. That would be influence....

What, they hadn't heard about it? Kerry treacherously revealed the NV negotiating position to the innocent and untainted lawmakers? Surely they already knew? Just as surely, they were aware of Sen Kerry's position on the war before his trip to Paris, as well as the opinions of many others. So any of them who expressed such an opinion, in an effort to influence lawmakers, they are treacherous as well? What about all this "redress of grievances" stuff? Chuck it out because Dick Nixon says so?

...I've produced the cites previously from former POWS and General Giopp (sp?) of the N. Vietnamese....

Why are we to believe that former POW's have some special insight into the NV Politburo, and thier deliberations? While I certainly respect and regret thier suffering, it doesn't make them experts in the inner working of the ruling councils of NVietNam anymore than it qualifies them as neurosurgeons. As to Gen. Giap, you tried to present that "cite" before, it's somewhere between tenuous and bogus. Surely you remember? Amazon.com? The Swiss?

...The North Vietnamese consider the man a hero for the aid he provided them, and they have his picture hanging in a place of honor in the war remnants museum....

I've tried to track that story down, without success, only hearing other hearsay of a different slant, to the effect that the picture of Kerry hangs next to a picture of McCain, honoring thier efforts on behalf of recognition and reconciliation.

But my hearsay is no better than yours, unless, of course, your citation is simply another sworn statement from the freepers or the swifities.

...Elucilogic... Good luck with that. Scyllagism is better. Scansion, my boy, scansion!

[Sam Stone]

elucidator, if you and DTC would stop jerking your knees for a minute, you might notice that I did not offer that link as an assertion, or make any claim about its accuracy. I asked a QUESTION. I used the link as background material. I don't know the paper, I have no idea if it's reputable. The information in the link seems interesting enough for debate. I don't know if it's true. But hey, I don't want to spoil a good bluster, so go ahead.

[erislover]

Kneejerking? Now simply saying "No" is kneejerking?

[rfgdxm]

Going back to the original question, I presume there is a statute of limitations on a treason charge? If so, Kerry is in the clear.

[Little Nemo]

You must be joking. We could not have failed to win had we been committed to doing so. Vietnam is a third world country. The Tet offensive was a huge failure in which an entire generation was lost. The North Vietnamese were fighting us with kids and old people. We had the weapons, the money, the personell, the indistrialized society. All we lacked was the will.
We couldn't have have won the war without occupying North Vietnam. And that was impossible; if we had tried China (and maybe the Soviet Union) would have almost certainly sent their own troops in to fight us. This is the same reason the Korean War ended in a stalemate.

The war was an evil and it was an evil the U.S. was perpetrating. We should've pulled out in 1968 when all of those things became obvious.
War is evil. War is bad. You seem to have that as an article of faith. I suppose it was an evil for the North to fight to free the slaves. I suppose you think it was an evil for us to get involved in WWII.
Once again you're inventing things. Saying one particular war was evil is not the same as saying every war is evil. If it was, I could say that you calling a Presidential candidate a traitor is the same as saying every Presidential candidate is a traitor. And if so, I'm offended by you calling great Americans like Washington, Jackson, Clay, Lincoln, Grant, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Michael Dukakis a pack of traitors.

[Zoe]

According to the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A715060)

An estimated total of 2,122,244 people were killed during the war in Vietnam. Of these, 58,169 were Americans. Of those Americans, 11,465 were teenagers. An estimated 3,650,946 additional people were wounded, of whom 304,000 were Americans. 153,329 Americans were categorized as 'seriously' wounded. That total includes 10,000 amputees.
An estimated 444,000 North Vietnamese and 220,557 South Vietnamese military personnel and 587,000 civilians were killed.

When people speak of "the killing fields," they are referring to Cambodia.

[BrainGlutton]

My question is, if Kerry negotiated with the North Vietnamese while still an officer of the U.S. military, did he violate the UCMJ? The article thinks it is possible that Kerry got a bad conduct discharge in 1972 due to his anti-war activities, and then in 1978 when a friendly President was in the White House and Vietnam was over, he managed to get his BCD reviewed and converted into an honorable discharge.

If so, Carter merely corrected a flagrant injustice. Kerry's actions in 1971 were far more honorable than those of the generals and admirals (and Commander-in-Chief) he was serving under. Even if his activities did violate the UCMJ, he did not deserve a bad conduct discharge.

In any case, the article merely speculates that's what might have happened. Where's the proof?

[rjung]

In any case, the article merely speculates that's what might have happened. Where's the proof?
You'll find out in the second week of November...

[John Mace]

The treason charge seems pretty far fetched. If there was substance to it, I can't imagine the Republican campaign machine letting it lie dormant. Let's see someone level a charge and make it stick. Otherwise, it's just meaningless blather.

[Shayna]

However, one may not conduct fraudulent investigations, and make a sworn testimony based on lies to indict your comrades...
I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.

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.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape 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 country side 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.
THE SERIES: Elite unit savaged civilians in Vietnam (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGERFORCE/110190169) Promising victory to an anxious American public, military leaders in 1967 sent a task force - including Tiger Force - to fight the enemy in one of the most highly contested areas of South Vietnam: the Central Highlands.

But the platoon's mission did not go as planned, with some soldiers breaking the rules of war.

Women and children were intentionally blown up in underground bunkers. Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed - their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings.

...

For decades, the case has remained buried in the archives of the government - not even known to America's most recognized historians of the war. DAY 1: Rogue GIs unleashed wave of terror in Central Highlands (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGERFORCE/110190168) For seven months, Tiger Force soldiers moved across the Central Highlands, killing scores of unarmed civilians - in some cases torturing and mutilating them - in a spate of violence never revealed to the American public.

They dropped grenades into underground bunkers where women and children were hiding - creating mass graves - and shot unarmed civilians, in some cases as they begged for their lives.

They frequently tortured and shot prisoners, severing ears and scalps for souvenirs.

A review of thousands of classified Army documents, National Archives records, and radio logs reveals a fighting unit that carried out the longest series of atrocities in the Vietnam War - and commanders who looked the other way.

...

During the Army's investigation of Tiger Force, 27 soldiers said the severing of ears from dead Vietnamese became an accepted practice. One reason: to scare the Vietnamese.

Platoon members strung the ears on shoe laces to wear around their necks, reports state.

Former platoon medic Larry Cottingham told investigators: "There was a period when just about everyone had a necklace of ears."

...

During the rampage, the soldiers committed some of their most brutal atrocities, Army records show.

A 13-year-old girl's throat was slashed after she was sexually assaulted, and a young mother was shot to death after soldiers torched her hut.

An unarmed teenager was shot in the back after a platoon sergeant ordered the youth to leave a village, and a baby was decapitated so that a soldier could remove a necklace.

...

Two elderly men killed during an unprovoked attack on a hamlet near Tam Ky. One was beheaded and the other, who was wounded, was shot by medic Barry Bowman in a "mercy killing," he said. DAY 2: Inquiry ended without justice (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGERFORCE/110200129) Time and again, battalion leaders knew of the atrocities but failed to end them.
For example: Harold Austin, the former battalion commander who oversaw Tiger Force, said in a recent interview his headquarters received reports that soldiers were mutilating the bodies of dead Vietnamese in early 1967, but no investigation was conducted.

Lt. Donald Wood and Sgt. Gerald Bruner repeatedly complained to superiors in August, 1967 about Tiger Force soldiers killing civilians, according to witness statements. But there were no investigations.

Capt. Robert Morin told Army officials he attended an officers' party in 1967 where several officers joked about Tiger Force soldiers drowning a farmer in the Song Ve River. But again, no investigation. Mr. Hawkins said in a recent interview he doesn't recall being reprimanded in the Song Ve Valley for killing an elderly farmer but admitted to shooting civilians who refused to move to relocation camps.

Most commanders didn't want to pursue an investigation of Tiger Force because they feared turning up war crimes, former battalion surgeon Bradford Mutchler told investigators in 1975.

"It was something that you just kept trying to sweep under the rug and forget because you really didn't want to know if it was true or not."

...

In a recent interview with The Blade, he said a Tiger Force sergeant raped a villager, and soldiers shot civilians and prisoners who posed no threat. "The killings were unrestrained," he said. DAY 3: Pain lingers 36 years after deadly rampage (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGERFORCE/110210075) The fog covering the Song Ve Valley had burned away, revealing a swath of rice paddies.

Vo Tai Can, 12, and his two friends were no longer safe.

The three had been trying to hide from the soldiers to avoid being sent to a relocation camp.

Now they were in sight of Tiger Force.

Within minutes, they were captured, the boy taken away by helicopter, his companions - partially blind men in their 20s - led to a rice paddy.

Without warning, the men were executed, Army records state, their bodies tossed into open graves.

The two civilians were among the many people killed in the valley for failing to abide by the Army's relocation order.

Thirty-six years later, no one knows how many were executed by platoon members for not leaving. Of the estimated 5,000 people who lived in the valley in 1967, some fled to the mountains, while others were forced to live in the camps.

Hundreds remain unaccounted for today.

Villagers still talk about the "missing people" - their names and where they lived, but their whereabouts are still a mystery.

It wasn't until the war ended that villagers began to realize that many would never return.

...

No records were kept on the number of people killed by Tiger Force in the Song Ve Valley, said several former platoon members.

"We killed anything that walked," recalled former Sgt. William Doyle, a platoon team leader. "It didn't matter if they were civilians. They shouldn't have been there." DAY 4: Demons of past stalk Tiger Force veterans (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGERFORCE/110220055) To this day, they wrestle with memories of Tiger Force's rampage through more than 40 hamlets in the Central Highlands of South Vietnam in 1967.

Mr. Bowman, who was standing next to Mr. Dao when he was shot to death by a platoon leader, said he remains shaken by the unprovoked attack on the 68-year-old man as he prayed for mercy.

"It was devastating," he said.

For many, the images never fade.

When Douglas Teeters closes his eyes, he sees villagers being shot as they wave leaflets that guaranteed their safety. Ex-officer may face justice for atrocities (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040905/SRTIGERFORCE/409050410) In what would be an unprecedented event, retired Maj. James Hawkins could face a military court-martial regarding his actions commanding a platoon known as Tiger Force that killed hundreds of unarmed men, women, and children 37 years ago, The Blade has learned.

As the scope of war crimes in Vietnam becomes a key question in the presidential election, the military lawyer recommended this spring that Army officials charge Mr. Hawkins, who led Tiger Force between July and November, 1967.

The recommendation came during a broader Army review of Tiger Force prompted by a four-part series in The Blade in October. The series revealed the platoon's seven-month rampage through Vietnam's Central Highlands in 1967.

...

Mr. Hawkins was among 18 former Tiger Force soldiers accused by Army investigators of crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty during a 4 1/2-year Army investigation between 1971 and 1975. But the case was dropped by the Pentagon and concealed from the public until revealed in The Blade series, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

...

Soldiers hurled grenades into underground bunkers full of women and children. They shot elderly farmers toiling in their fields. They severed the ears of the dead to fashion into necklaces. One former unit medic told The Blade that soldiers "would go into villages and just shoot everybody. We didn't need an excuse. If they were there, they were dead." It would be impossible for the men who called themselves "Winter Soldiers" to have shared stories with John Kerry that exactly match atrocities uncovered and documented in the above-quoted investigation, if the "Winter Soldier" testimony were nothing more than made up "lies."

"Tiger Force" was only one unit, you say? So what. They committed the very crimes John Kerry said the "Winter Soldiers" testified to. The "Tiger Force" violence was not an isolated incident, like My Lai, but went on daily, for seven months, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

Exactly what John Kerry said happened, did happen, as the exposure of this massive military and government coverup shows.

John Kerry did not lie in his testimony.

[Mockingbird]

No. It is aid. Having an advocate fight your propaganda war for you is aid.

Then I want Fox News, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and their ilk brought up on charges.

Honestly... you Republican shills for the worst in your party would be funny if it wasn't so horrifying.

[Uncommon Sense]

Going back to the original question, I presume there is a statute of limitations on a treason charge? If so, Kerry is in the clear.

Then let's not discuss anything about anyone that happened long of seven years ago then?

[John Mace]

Then let's not discuss anything about anyone that happened long of seven years ago then?

I don't believe there is a statute of limitations on treason (or murder).

[rfgdxm]

I don't believe there is a statute of limitations on treason (or murder).
http://patriotpetitions.us/

You may be right. However at this late date, barring some dramatic new evidence, prosecuting Kerry would be politically impossible.

[Jinx]

a) Uh, how do you spell prop-duh-ganda?

b) C'mon. Stick to the facts of this election. Or, in Republican terms, the present time on present issues? :D In legal terms - on the merits!

c) Why don't you stop grasping for straws? If you're gonna try anyone for treason, it would be Jane Fonda, but your buddy Ronald Reagan pardoned her at the end of his 2nd term. Also, a JAG prosecuting attorney explained to me that showing sympathy towards the enemy is not enough hard evidence of conspiring with the enemy. Hence, she was not tried.
- Jinx

[BrainGlutton]

Then I want Fox News, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and their ilk brought up on charges.

Honestly... you Republican shills for the worst in your party would be funny if it wasn't so horrifying.

Wait, be fair. By constitutional definition it's only treason if you're giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The only enemy of America that Fox, Coulter, et al. have been aiding is George Bush, and somehow I don't think that would count. (Should, though.)

[rjung]

I think that to Fox, Coulter, et al, the real enemy is the United States of America. They're waging a war of conquest on the rest of us...

[BrainGlutton]

http://patriotpetitions.us/

You may be right. However at this late date, barring some dramatic new evidence, prosecuting Kerry would be politically impossible.

And legally preposterous. No indictment would survive Kerry's lawyer's first motion to dismiss.

[Scylla]

That cite says nothing that goes to my main point, which is that the Cold War, on America's part, was not justified.

That's not your point, that's your assertion. An assertion without backing is like an arrowhead without the arrow, useless.


I found the table but it's hard to read. There's three "estimated dead" columns labeled "Low," "Mid" and "High" -- not clear what that means. Also says "000" implying, but not very clearly, that all figures in the column must be multiplied by 1,000. At any rate, if I'm reading this right, the figures for "Democide by Vietnam 1975-87" seem trivial compared to the figures for democide by the South Vietnamese government, Diem and post-Diem. The figures labeled "U.S. War Crimes" are also pretty disturbing. And there's also figures for democide by Koreans, which makes no sense at all. Where did this table come from, anyway?

You asked for a cite for my use of "millions" killed in the post Vietnam era. That cite puts the number at 2.5 million. I would hardly call that trivial.

It comes from table 6b (IIRC) of this book which is available online, specifically chapter 6:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM

From the Wikipedia (generally a pretty thorough and impartial source) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vietnam:



Nothing about genocide or anything close.

Do you suggest that means it didn't happen?





Note, the number of dead is mentioned, as precisely as it is possible to say. Now, if anything close to that scale had happened in postwar Vietnam, I think the Wikipedia would have mentioned it.

Wikipedia is nice. It is not exactly the Encyclopedia Britannica, you know, Nor even the World book, nor to be frank, the Charlie Brown encyclopedia. If you are going to go through life depending on the Wikipedia as the font of all knowledge and the ultimate in sholarly discourse, I predict you will have problems.

[Zoe]

The BBC link I left for you, Scylla, was specific.

South Vietnam surrendered much more quickly that was anticipated when we left. If purges had left millions dead, there would have been more about it than a difficult to read table on one internet site.

[Scylla]

It would be impossible for the men who called themselves "Winter Soldiers" to have shared stories with John Kerry that exactly match atrocities uncovered and documented in the above-quoted investigation, if the "Winter Soldier" testimony were nothing more than made up "lies."

Impossible? I don't think that word means what you think it means. Not only is it possible, it is extemely likely.

Atrocities have occured in every single war. It is unfortunate, but it is also true. People have been raping since before there were people. People have been cutting off ears since there were ears and knives to cut them off with. People have been torturing other people since the dawn of time.

What Kerry did was simply take generic war crimes and make general accusations, and pretended that they were commonplace and endorsed rather than uncommon and punished.

"Tiger Force" was only one unit, you say? So what. They committed the very crimes John Kerry said the "Winter Soldiers" testified to. The "Tiger Force" violence was not an isolated incident, like My Lai, but went on daily, for seven months, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

So, who in Tiger Force testified at Wintersoldier? You must have a name, right? Otherwise it would be "Impossible" according to you for Kerry to make these accusations.

So who testified?


The reality is is that your argument is specious reasoning. I say that in California today drivers engaged in hit and run accidents against other vehicles and pedestrians. They did this with the full knowledge of California police and officials at all levels of command. They bumped fenders, injured drivers and pedestrians and drove like madmen. I was a party to it, and saw and witnessed such crimes and events. The state of California is culpable. They encourage such actions from drivers. Based on this investigation of mine we should stop driving cars in California, as it's corrupt and evil. Car drivers are murderers.

According to your logic it would be "impossible" for me to be lying if you could find an example or two that matched the above events.

Gimme a break. We both know it's a lying sack of shit, and no apologistic after the fact equivocation will ameliorate the fact.


John Kerry did not lie in his testimony.


Yes. Yes he did. He characterized our forces as committing genocide.

[Scylla]

The BBC link I left for you, Scylla, was specific.

Thank you. I'm sure I'll get to it, as I'm trying to take these posts as they leap to eye.

South Vietnam surrendered much more quickly that was anticipated when we left. If purges had left millions dead, there would have been more about it than a difficult to read table on one internet site.

This is poor logic Zoe. It is in fact, a classical logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance "If such a thing had happened, I would have heard about it. Since I haven't heard about it, it didn't happen." The table and cite it comes from appear well-documented to my eye.

[Scylla]

When people speak of "the killing fields," they are referring to Cambodia.

Yes. I know. My cite and discussion with Brainglutton are referring to the post Vietnam war era, specifically 1975-198(7) I think.

[BrainGlutton]

It comes from table 6b (IIRC) of this book which is available online, specifically chapter 6:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM

Unforturnately, Mr. Rummel's prose is not much clearer than his tables. He does give an estimate of 3,800,000 Vietnamese killed by military action and political violence -- but that total is for a period of 43 years, ecompassing six wars, and both North and South and post-unification Vietnam.

Regarding post unification democide, he says:

[QUOTE]Considerable democide followed Hanoi's victory over South Vietnam in 1975. I show estimates of this or related information (lines 637 to 759), the first of which refer to re-education camps. To determine some range of deaths in these camps, I had to first establish their population. Estimates of this for various periods are shown in the table (line 638 to 668), and consolidated for 1975 to 1980, and 1981 to 1987 (lines 669 and 670). The reason for this periodization is that there were many more inmates during the earlier period and most important, this period was more deadly. Only one estimate of the number of deaths in the camps is available (line 672). Rather than accept this, however, I calculated the toll (line 673) based on an assumed death rate that for the early period was in deadliness closer to the Communist Chinese camps than the more lethal Soviet gulag.15 In the later period the annual toll is assumed about the same as for the later Chinese labor camps. The resulting range includes the one estimate (line 675) and I therefore accept it as final.

Next there are estimates (lines 679 to 683) of the number of forced laborers, including those forcibly deported to "new economic zones," from which consolidation (line 684) we can try to calculate the associated unnatural deaths. This I do (line 687), assuming a very low annual rate of .75 to 2 percent for the first six years and .5 percent thereafter. This also assumes that the zones were about a quarter to a third less deadly then the camps in the early period and half as deadly later.

Not all democide figures are indirect. Estimates are available on executions (lines 690 to 697), which I consolidate (line 698).

Then there are the boat people for whose deaths at sea Hanoi is responsible. Some of these Vietnamese were forced to flee, some fled out of terror and fear for their lives, some fled by virtue of unlivable conditions that the communists had created for them. To understand the drive to flee on the dangerous open ocean often in unseaworthy boats is to realize the deadly hazards they faced from the regime, as discussed in Death By Government. The table lists estimates of the number of Vietnamese boat people that fled or tried to flee (lines 702 to 711) and their consolidation (line 713). Estimates of the percent of these then dying at sea are also given and consolidated (lines 716 to 730), followed by death estimates (lines 733 to 748). The consolidation of these (749) gives us one overall range of deaths. I calculate another by applying the consolidated percentage mortality to the consolidated number fleeing (line 750). Neither of these totals especially commends itself. In the usual fashion, I therefore took the lowest low and highest high and averaged the two mid-values to get the final range (line 751).

How many of these deaths is the responsibility of the communist Vietnamese, that is, democide? Neither the extremes of "none" or "all" is reasonable. Surely those who were forced to face death at sea, or risked it out of mortal fear of the regime or because their lives and families had been irretrievably ruined by it, should be counted as democide (by analogy consider that if children fled their family in winter because they fear being killed or are brutally abused, and then die of exposure in the snow, the parents could be tried for murder). However, those boat people who left for non-vital reasons, such as for economic reasons, and died at sea should hardly be counted as democide. What the proportion is between the two types of refugees is unknown. I assume that those for which the regime must be held responsible could vary from one-third to two-thirds, most reasonably a half of them. Applying this to the number who fled yields a likely Vietnam democide of 250,000 boat people (line 753).

Which is pretty horrible, but nothing close to the scale of Cambodia's killing fields.

All in all, there would have been far less loss of life in Vietnam if the U.S. had just pulled out in 1968; still less if we had never gotten involved in the first place.

The Encarta, BTW, says the following:

In 1976 the South was officially reunited with the North in a new Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Under the leadership of Le Duan, party chief since the death of Ho Chi Minh in 1969, Communist leaders in Hanoi adopted an ambitious plan to bring about the creation of an advanced Communist society. However, extensive war damage, lack of foreign investment, managerial inexperience, and the passive resistance of millions of people in the southern provinces all combined to defeat the program. By the end of the decade, the economy was in shambles, and popular hostility to the leadership had reached alarming heights. Thousands of people, many of them ethnic Chinese merchants and their families, fled the country in flimsy boats or across the border into China.

Less a case of actual "democide" than the unintended consequences of social and economic disruption resulting from the Communists' ill-advised attempt to restructure Vietnamese society according to their ideological plan. Eventually, they realized it wasn't working and abandoned it.

By 1986, the year of Le Duan’s death, Vietnamese leaders had begun to recognize that major changes were needed. At a national congress held in December, new party leaders launched the doi moi (economic renovation) program to reform Vietnamese society and stimulate economic growth. They abandoned efforts to build a fully Communist society by the end of the decade and dismantled collective farms. Party leaders declared their intention to bring about a mixed economy, involving a combination of state, collective, and private ownership. Foreign investment was encouraged, and a more tolerant attitude was adopted toward the free expression of opinion in the country.

In short, as well as things could have worked themselves out under the circumstances.

Can you direct me to any non-partisan online reference resources that makes a stronger case than the above sources do for a massive, intentional, state-run democide in postwar Vietnam? Otherwise, I remain unconvinced our keeping troops there longer would have saved any lives in the long run. Quite the contrary.

[Scylla]

Can you direct me to any non-partisan online reference resources that makes a stronger case than the above sources do for a massive, intentional, state-run democide in postwar Vietnam? Otherwise, I remain unconvinced our keeping troops there longer would have saved any lives in the long run. Quite the contrary.


The cite I produced is partisan? In what fashion is it partisan, left, right? I could not determine it. It seems to me that the cite I produce is at pains to source it's numbers and reasoning which seems to me makes it pretty damn good.

My job here is not to convince you, but merely to demonstrate a fact to a degree that a reasonable person will accept it. I feel I have done so, your reasonability or lack thereof is immaterial and I hardly feel compelled to produce another cite when you dismiss the one I produce on such specious grounds as it being difficult to understand to you, and your having pronounced it partisan on grounds that I cannot determine.

[Mockingbird]

I think that to Fox, Coulter, et al, the real enemy is the United States of America. They're waging a war of conquest on the rest of us...

Well said.

[Mockingbird]

Wait, be fair. By constitutional definition it's only treason if you're giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The only enemy of America that Fox, Coulter, et al. have been aiding is George Bush, and somehow I don't think that would count. (Should, though.)

As Bush is giving aid and comfort to Saudis, aren't Coulter and her ilk then committing treason by proxy?

[Shayna]

Scylla:

What a bunch of twisted, lip-flapping, basackwards nonsense that reply was.

First you say that raping and ear-cutting and torture occurred in "every single war" "since the dawn of time." Then you say that John Kerry simply "pretended" those same atrocities happened in Vietnam. What the hell? Then you try to compare war crimes with driving infractions? Jesus.

The FACTS are there. There are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of military DOCUMENTS and AUDIO TAPES attesting to those FACTS.

FACTS, Scylla.

Not pretend generalities from other wars. Actual raping and mass murdering and decapitations and shoelace necklaces adorned with ears that "just about everyone had" IN VIETNAM.

Tortures and murders of innocent civilians waving fliers promising them safety.

The military and the government have been COVERING IT UP for decades. These crimes were not uncommon (though John Kerry never implied that they were universal!), they were endorsed and/or overlooked at Every! Level! of Command!, and they were absolutely not punished, which you would know if you'd have bothered to read the Pulitzer Prize-winning expose I linked directly to.

So you give me a break. And don't tell me what I know. I KNOW that John Kerry was telling the absolute truth because SEPARATE WITNESSES -- hundreds of them -- attest to the very things he said, and because thousands of pages of documents say the same things. Not in generalities, in very explicit, specific detail.

But we should believe you that John Kerry is a liar because... because... well, because, what, because you say so?? That is utterly, laughably absurd.

Get your head out of the sand and accept reality. It's ugly and it's painful, but it's a fact.

[Scylla]

Scylla:

What a bunch of twisted, lip-flapping, basackwards nonsense that reply was.

I read this kind of thing, as "I have no real answer so I'll just make insults."

First you say that raping and ear-cutting and torture occurred in "every single war" "since the dawn of time." Then you say that John Kerry simply "pretended" those same atrocities happened in Vietnam.

No. That's not what I said.


Then you try to compare war crimes with driving infractions? Jesus.

No. I didn't do that, either.

The FACTS are there. There are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of military DOCUMENTS and AUDIO TAPES attesting to those FACTS.

FACTS, Scylla.

When come back, bring some. Your FACTS do not argue what you claim they argue.

Not pretend generalities from other wars. Actual raping and mass murdering and decapitations and shoelace necklaces adorned with ears that "just about everyone had" IN VIETNAM.

Just about everyone?

Very well. Let's define "just about everyone" as 2/3, a solid majority. If you are arguing facts with me then give me a cite showing that 66% or more of American soldiers in Vietnam had such necklaces and I will concede that Kerry's testimony is essentially correct.

Let's boil it down to just one of your FACTS.

Show me that, and you win.

If you can't, then I expect you to concede that your FACTS don't demonstrate what you claim. Fair enough?

The military and the government have been COVERING IT UP for decades. These crimes were not uncommon (though John Kerry never implied that they were universal!), they were endorsed and/or overlooked at Every! Level! of Command!, and they were absolutely not punished, which you would know if you'd have bothered to read the Pulitzer Prize-winning expose I linked directly to.

I've read it more than once. It characterizes a specific group.

So you give me a break. And don't tell me what I know. I KNOW that John Kerry was telling the absolute truth because SEPARATE WITNESSES -- hundreds of them -- attest to the very things he said, and because thousands of pages of documents say the same things. Not in generalities, in very explicit, specific detail.

Then back up your one fact, and I'll concede.

But we should believe you that John Kerry is a liar because... because... well, because, what, because you say so?? That is utterly, laughably absurd.

Because he provably lied.

Get your head out of the sand and accept reality. It's ugly and it's painful, but it's a fact.


It is huh. 66% percent of American soldiers in Vietnam made necklaces out of ears.

Let's see it.

[elucidator]

...I've read it more than once. It characterizes a specific group...

Excuse please, but, huh? Wha? Is there some relevence to that remark? What are you struggling to infer? Are you suggesting that only those soldiers who were directly connected to the Tiger program were guilty of "misconduct"? On what do you base this spectacular cognitive leap?

An utterly dishonest debater, someone entirely unlike yourself, might try to claim that because only the aforementioned Tiger group crimes are verified and documented, and the Winter Soldier testimony does not include such, then the WS allegations must therefore be false in every jot and tittle.

But you don't, of course, because that would justly expose you to ridicule.

So please clarify. Are you trying to suggest that only the men discussed in the Toledo article were guilty of war crimes? And can you prove that none of the crimes discussed in the WS testimony were associated with this group? And can you then show us why, in the name of all that is holy, we should give a shit?

[pantom]

Just to be clear, things like the cutting off of ears and the like are the sorts of things that happen when an army finds itself fighting not just a uniformed enemy, but a guerrilla force backed by the people themselves. In a situation like Vietnam, which was a civil war, this is inevitable, since some section of the population among which you are fighting is going to be hostile to you.
The result is as follows, which comes from a book, 365 Days, written in 1971 by a pediatrician who served in the medical corps as a Major during Vietnam, recounting a story told him. Hearsay? Yes. But it wasn't there to prove any kind of point, it was just a war story. The bad stuff happens in between, and in context it's perfectly understandable; any of us could easily see ourselves doing the same thing. Point being, if you want to avoid the nastiness, stay out of fights that don't pertain to you:


[/I]Chapter 6: Search and Destroy[I]

That evening, the company was mortared - two rounds that sent the already exhausted troops scurrying for shelter...It was the fifth night that week they were hit...Before breakfast, a patrol was sent out to sweep the area around the nearby village...All they found were the usual, uncooperative villagers. The patrol, against orders, went into the village, searched a few huts, kicked in a door, and left.
Later that morning, the company began sweeping again...A trooper tripped a wire and detonated a claymore set up to blow behind him. It took down three others, killing two right off and leaving the third to die later...
The platoon finally came onto a small dirt road...They were sitting there sitting there, strung out along the road, when they spotted a small figure putt-putting toward them. They watched disinterestedly while the figure moved toward them, and became an old man driving a scooter...
The point...walked wearily into the center of the road and stopped there, waiting. The old man slowed to a stop and stared at the trooper, impatiently waiting for him to move. He had a small steel container strapped to the back of his Honda. The point levelled his weapon at the small man's stomach and, walking around him, motioned for him to open the container. The old man hesitated. The trooper calmly clicked his M-16 to automatic. Holding it with one hand, he carefully opened the container.
"Hey", he said, lowering his weapon, "the dink's got cokes."
The rest of the platoon got to their feet. The point was reaching into the container when the old man grabbed his wrist. Startled, the trooper jumped back...
"Fifty cent!" the old man demanded, waving five fingers in the trooper's face. "Fifty cent!"...The point reached in again, only to have the old man slap his hand away...From the side of the road there was the metallic click of a round being chambered. The old man turned on his scooter and kicked at the starter...
"I want a coke," one of the troopers said, and swinging his rifle he knocked the top off the steel container. The Vietnamese spun around and spit at him. The trooper took a small step backward, smoothly brought the weapon up into the crook of his arm and emptied the magazine into him...
That night, a little after midnight, just as they were getting to sleep, the company was rocketed again...In the morning, the patrol sweeping the area just in front of the village found the partially destroyed cross-pieces of a rocket launcher. When they brought it back, the CO examined it and asked permission to hit the village. It was denied. That afternoon, two platoons of the company were ordered out of the area to take part in a combined sweep of a nearby VC stronghold...
The next morning the two platoons were flown back to the rest of their company. That first night back they were hit again - two mortar rounds. The next day on patrol near the village, the slack stepped on a buried 50-caliber bullet, driving it down on a nail and blowing off the front part of his foot. When the medic rushed to help, he tripped a pull-release bouncing betty, blowing the explosive charge up into the air...Some of the white-hot metal, blowing backwards, caught the trooper coming up behind him.
...the Captain sent a squad to sweep the village before it got dark. The troopers, bitter and angry, found the villagers equally hostile and antagonistic. The villagers watched sullenly as the troopers, fingers on their triggers, walked by their huts. No words were exchanged; no signs of recognition; the hate was palpable...Behind one of the huts, a squad found a rotting NVA medical kit. Without asking for approval they burned down the hut and waited there threateningly till it burned itself to the ground.
Half a kilometre past the village...their point was cut down by a burst of automatic fire...a trooper, looking up, saw something moving away from behind the nearest hedgegrove.
"Fuck it," he screamed, the last of his adolescent control gone. In a sudden fury, he ripped off his webb gear. Even before it hit the ground he was up and running...The rest of the squad was running after him...Just past the next grove they caught them - a girl and two men. They caught them out in the open and killed them, shooting them down as they ran...Then they stripped the girl, cut off her nose and ears, and left her there with the other two for the villagers...


I trust that's enough to set the context, and the reason why mere common sense would tell you that Kerry was uncomfortably closer to the truth than most of us would like. That discomfort you feel is from being on the occupying side of a foreign country we had no business being in. In that impossible situation, bad things will inevitably happen, merely as part of going about a typical, typically awful, day.

[elucidator]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410180009

Some excerpts from the Media Matters, the (entirely partisan!) site by David the Apostate....originally appeared in a criticism of Hannity and His Bitch

....conservative historian Guenter Lewy claimed in his 1978 book, America in Vietnam, that a Naval Investigative Service report about the Winter Soldier allegations had discredited many of the witnesses and accounts, Naval Criminal Investigative Service public affairs specialist Paul O'Donnell could not confirm this report's existence. Further, a February 14 Baltimore Sun article cites Lewy himself as admitting that "he does not recall if he saw a copy of the naval investigative report or was briefed on its contents."

Apart from Lewy's allegations, an MMFA search uncovered no other evidence that any Winter Soldier witness was an impostor. One veteran, who is portrayed in Stolen Honor as a fraud who "never set foot" in Vietnam, has filed a libel lawsuit against the film's producer, Carlton Sherwood. The Associated Press notes that the veteran, Kenneth J. Campbell, now a professor at the University of Delaware, "attached copies of his military records to the lawsuit, showing that he received a Purple Heart and eight other medals, ribbons and decorations for his service in Vietnam."

MMFA has also noted that two of the POWs featured in Stolen Honor contradict the claim that Kerry's 1971 testimony was used to torture Americans held in Vietnam. Former POW Jim Warner said that "the last torture that we knew of had taken place in September of 1969," and that when Kerry's testimony was invoked in an interrogation of Warner, it was "without torture." Former POW Leo K. Thorsness also admitted in a published bio that the use of torture had decreased by the time Kerry testified.

Furthermore, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster reported that he found no evidence Kerry's name was used in the interrogation of all American POWs in Vietnam: "[T]he film only features POWs who say John Kerry's name was invoked by north Vietnamese prison guards. But we've spoken to dozens of POWs who spent years in Vietnamese prison camps and say they never heard John Kerry's name mentioned once."....

Granting the this is published on a decidedly partisan site, unlike the paragons of candor and civic virtue so beloved of friend Scylla, the Freepers. the site does post links for those curious enough to track them down.

Besides the aforementioned Mr. Lewy, have the swiftvets and freepers any other substantiation for their claims about Sen Kerry than thier own insistence that it must be so?

(Actually, I didn't really need to mention Scylla's name, but, curiously enough, it seems that when I do mention him directly, he usually reads it. Odd. Doesn't always work with Sam Stone, but....ooops! I did it again.....)

[Shayna]

pantom, particularly wrt Scylla, I fear we are speaking to a mind so closed that a mountain of evidence the size of Everest wouldn't be sufficient -- witness his last reply. The facts don't say what they claim to say. Okaaaaay. Seems pretty straight forward to me, but if he wants to live in his fantasy world where Vietnam was the supposed exception to every war since the dawn of time, and steadfastly refuse to accept outright confessions by men who say that they, themselves, committed these crimes (as opposed to Kerry's hearsay testimony), well, there's really nothing that can be done to prevent it.

I've been reading through this site (http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_13_3Marine.html), which appears to be the actual Winter Soldier testimony from that Detroit meeting that Kerry based his Senate testimony on -- quite chilling. It's a long read, so I'm nowhere near done, but it's painfully obvious that these men are speaking the truth with heavy hearts and weary souls. Though I haven't thoroughly recorded all the names mentioned and compared them to the Tiger Force articles to try to match any up, it seems as though, based on a cursory glance-through, that there isn't any overlap. IOW, many of these same crimes and atrocities were perpetrated by both groups independently of one another, lending further credence to their "commonness".

I see this much the same way as I do the current prisoner abuses in Bush's "War on Terror." Accusations came out of Gitmo for months and months, describing specific abuses against prisoners. All the while, no one wanted to believe them -- we're the "good guys," we don't commit prisoner abuse. Besides, these are war criminals who cannot be believed -- liars every one of them.

Then some brave and moral souls came forward to expose the exact same abuses occurring in at least one prison in Iraq, complete with photographic and documented evidence. Now we must believe or be branded fools, and the testimony of the Gitmo prisoners became entirely believeable and credible.

And that's exactly as it is with the now uncovered, documented evidence about the Tiger Force case as it pertains to the Winter Soldier claims -- the evidence of one lends credence to the other.

I also came across this article (http://foi.missouri.edu/classdeclass/army.html), which, while neither it nor I make any actual accusations, included this interesting tidbit which I had not previously known: U.S. Sen. George Voinovich (R., Ohio) said he sent a copy of The Blade’s series this week to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld "to get his comments. Specifically, I’ve asked him what has been done since Vietnam to prevent these types of atrocities from happening again."

Mr. Rumsfeld, whose office declined to comment on the series, served his first stint as secretary of defense under President Gerald Ford beginning in November, 1975 - the same month the Tiger Force investigation was closed. Records show that summaries of the Tiger Force probe were sent to his predecessor, James Schlesinger, in 1973, but it’s not clear whether Mr. Rumsfeld was informed of the case.

[SnakeSpirit]

According to this site (http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/), there is a petition demanding that John Kerry be prosecuted for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" in times of war and be disqualified for national office.
Sorry, John Kerry is one of our nation's "elite." These people have special priviledges not given to most common citizens.

We can expect that John Kerry will be brought to question for his 'treason' at about the same liberal level as Jane Fonda was prosecuted for manning (or womaning?) a NVA anti-aircraft gun.

In otherwords, not at all.

The thing that bothers me most about the liberal movement in this country is the push to feel sorry for criminal perpetrators while they make laws that turn honest citizens into criminals. Kerry's voting record is a great example: he has voted against increasing mandatory penalties for the criminal misuse of firearms. He voted against funding expanded federal prosecution of violent, armed drug dealers. (S. 254) He even voted against the death penalty for terrorists who murder Americans overseas. (S. 1798)
He consistantly votes to restrict the 2nd amendment right "of the people" to keep and bear arms, however. By his own words the 2nd amendment he promises to protect is "as currently interpreted," that is the 9th circuit court's interpretation that only the militia has the right.

No. We don't prosecute traitors in Amerika.

[BrainGlutton]

We can expect that John Kerry will be brought to question for his 'treason' at about the same liberal level as Jane Fonda was prosecuted for manning (or womaning?) a NVA anti-aircraft gun.

Cite?

And not a cite about Jane posing for a silly photo-op, but a cite documenting that she actually fired the thing at American or South Viet troops.

The thing that bothers me most about the liberal movement in this country is the push to feel sorry for criminal perpetrators while they make laws that turn honest citizens into criminals. Kerry's voting record is a great example: he has voted against increasing mandatory penalties for the criminal misuse of firearms. He voted against funding expanded federal prosecution of violent, armed drug dealers. (S. 254) He even voted against the death penalty for terrorists who murder Americans overseas. (S. 1798)
He consistantly votes to restrict the 2nd amendment right "of the people" to keep and bear arms, however. By his own words the 2nd amendment he promises to protect is "as currently interpreted," that is the 9th circuit court's interpretation that only the militia has the right.

No. We don't prosecute traitors in Amerika.

None of those things are treason even in a moral sense (let alone a constitutional sense). They're merely questions of political judgment where reasonable people might differ and where Kerry reached different conclusions than you would have.

For a president to lead the country into a disastrous and interminable war based on a pack of lies, on the other hand . . . hard to characterize that as anything but treason. :mad:

[ZombiesAteMyBrain]

Then I want Fox News, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and their ilk brought up on charges.

Honestly... you Republican shills for the worst in your party would be funny if it wasn't so horrifying.

And isn't it about time that Bush, Blair and Cheney were tried for war crimes against the people of Iraq?

[pantom]

Well, Shayna, it's like this: The point of his testimony, the point of being against idiotic wars like Vietnam and Iraq, is that you only send young people into that hell when you have to, not because some Ivory Tower rube comes up with some crackpot theory like "The Domino Theory" or "preventive war" (as Truman so aptly noted, You don't 'prevent' anything by war...except peace."). And as The Powell Doctrine states, (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/powelldoctrine_short.html):


...military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.


All of that minimizes the Hell the soldiers have to go through. They lied about the first bolded part, but that's not nearly as bad as screwing up the second bolded part as thoroughly as they have, because screwing that up has placed all those soldiers smack in the middle of another war where you once again have a hard time separating your friends from your enemies, and once again that's an open door to abuse and worse.
Actually, it all boils down to one simple saying: don't let your mouth write a check that your body can't cash. Of course, in war, the neat thing if you're the Maximum Leader is that you don't have to cash that check with your own body.
As to the closed minds, in all of history they've never won a lasting victory, and they never will. Winning this election - assuming he does - doesn't mean that Bush the Second won't go down in history as a lying, war-mongering, spendthrift demagogue.
Nixon won re-election too, after all. If this boob does, the Democrats will sweep the Republicans out of both houses of Congress in two years in a 1974-style landslide. There's a limit to the damage he'll be able to pull. And you can take it to the bank that he'll leave office disgraced, because he's too immature to figure out that that limit exists.