If I found out that Bush ate babies, I’d definitely not vote for him. I’d write in for Space Ghost or maybe Nadar (they have similar chances of winning) but I still wouldn’t vote for Kerry. The only thing that would make me vote for Kerry was if I was given the following choice:
a. have a loved one murdered because of my refusal
or
b. vote for Kerry
There is nothing Kerry could do to earn my vote. Even if he started performing miracles, I’d be more inclined to study the book of revelations very carefully…
I said that atrocities were committed in Vietnam. They were committed in WWII as well. And probably every other war any country has fought. It is a difficult thing to put young men in positions of responsibility, give them weapons, put them under great stress, and then have them face people who are trying to kill them. Stuff happens.
No one would argue that Vietnam was atrocity-free. Kerry went farther than that, though. He claimed it was institutional - that it was formal policy of the United States.
From his 1971 testimony:
The reason he can say that ‘atrocities’ were official policy is because he’s using an awfully broad definition of ‘atrocity’. Interdiction fire? Using 50 caliber machine guns is an ‘atrocity’? Shooting in free-fire zones? He claims that these are contrary to the laws of warfare and the Geneva convention. They are not.
Then he goes further and says that anyone who signed off on ‘air raid strike areas’ is no less a war criminal than William Calley. You don’t think this is just a tad over the top?
By Kerry’s definition, half the soldiers in Iraq are war criminals. Free Fire zones? Check. Air raids? Check. Using .50 cal guns against people? Check. Interdiction fire? Check.
This was Kerry’s problem. By calling these acts ‘atrocities and war crimes’, he was basically saying that simply being a soldier in a war is an atrocity, because these are standard tools of warfare.
Kerry also said during that testimony that the U.S. war plan was ‘tantamount to genocide’, a totally outrageous charge. This one at least he retracted on ‘Meet The Press’ last week. He chalked it up to the heated rhetoric of youth. That’s fine, and it’s a good thing that he retracted that, but I hope you can understand the outrage that many Vietnam vets and other war supporters felt when Kerry threw those charges around in the 1970’s.
And I said it was debatable, as to the extent of said atrocities no?
By his definition then, they were institutional (and in the MTP interview, he tried to modify his terminology, out of respect for the soldiers). I’d say whether or not they were institutional is also still debatable, and worthy of a separate thread.
But as it applies to Kerry as a presidential candidate now, what is your point? Do you really not understand his frame of mind/stance, then or now?
FWIW, I’m a Vietnam War baby. I lost an Uncle there. And I wasn’t even born in the USA. So I think I do understand the emotions involved. I’d like to clarify why you think any of this is a detriment to Kerry’s viability as C-in-C.
Clearly, this is a topic for another thread. But, here is a the summary of the Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative report:
By the way, Sam, are you allergic to giving links so that people can see the conservative / RNC websites from which you dig up this various stuff on Kerry?
Where did I say that this was a detriment to his viability as C-in-C? I was trying to explain why some people have a visceral dislike for John Kerry. That’s all. Whether his testimony in 1971 would hurt him now is an entirely different question.
If a President of the United States is going to prevent his troops from using .50 cal machine guns, interdiction fire, and air power because he thinks these are ‘war crimes’, then he is seriously crippling the ability of his armed forces to do the job, and I DO think that’s a major problem. These are not war crimes, they are standard tools of warfare. The U.S. also fires on unmarked vehicles that refuse to stop for checkpoints, sometimes killing civilians. They also use smart bombs in residential areas where there are known terrorists. They have also used suppression fire to control dangerous mobs.
This is war. And war is not heck. It’s hell. It’s brutal, and bloody, and horrible. But it sometimes beats the alternatives. Attempts to sanitize it by claiming that standard tools of warfare are ‘atrocities’ and ‘genocide’ simply cripples your own troops and place a level of guilt on them that they do not deserve. This is what Kerry did. This is why a lot of veterans hate the man with a passion.
jshore: I didn’t think I needed a cite for a direct quote from Kerry’s 1971 testimony in front of Congress - it’s all over the net. The quote I posted came from the transcripts of Meet The Press - not exactly a right-wing neocon source. Feel free to go read it yourself.
Let me say: I like you (as an anonymous internet persona), and I’m not trying to attack you personally.
But, are you saying that “visceral dislike” of Kerry is a major impediment to people not giving up on Bush? Otherwise, I don’t see your point in bringing it up in this thread. Surely, it occurs inside party lines as well, doesn’t it? (I really don’t know; maybe it is a major factor)…
I do get that. But I think it’s obvious Kerry gets that too (which is why he seems to be “waffling” when he modifies his terminology now). Bottom line for me is, I’d rather have a “reluctant warrior” than a “chickenhawk” as C-in-C. I was hoping for a compelling argument that disputes that idea. Got anything?
Well, this is but one example. And, yes, it is all over the net (particularly on right wing web sites) which means that, unless you wrote that whole thing down from memory, it would have been easy enough to give us a link, no?
My general point is that you come in to these discussions on Kerry and post specific facts, quotes, stories, etc. that clearly are directly informed by things that you read. In one previous thread, when you posted some particular facts on Kerry’s votes in regards to defense/intelligence issues along with a statement that you expected this stuff would be used against Kerry in the fall campaign, I in fact traced it down to an RNC sheet on the web. I don’t know if you got these facts directly from this sheet or indirectly through a commentator who used it. If the former was the case, I find it somewhat deceiving of you to post these “facts” (which were, in fact, half-truths in many if not all cases) and then say you expect they might be used in the fall campaign when you in fact know that they are coming directly from the Bush campaign or RNC. If the latter was the case, then it is a little less deceiving, although your presentation still makes it appear a bit like you are coming up with these facts on your own and then predicting they will be used against Kerry when in fact you know they are being used against Kerry by the very commentators you read (even if you were unaware they were directly from the RNC).
I thought the general ethos on this board was to show freely and clearly whenever possible where one’s information is coming from. Anything less seems like restricting information or sources of information in a way to gain advantage.
My understanding is that Fonda actually betrayed American POWs in Vietnam. Kerry didn’t do that, did he? Didn’t Kerry complete his service, and later criticize the war as being a mistake? He didn’t undermine the war effort while he was serving as a soldier, did he? The truth is, there were war crimes committed in Vietnam. Should we just pretend they never happened? Do you want an honest president, or one who just says that everything America does is good, no matter what the truth?
Did he really say the military was “a bunch of scumbags”?
Yeah, we wouldn’t want a waffling wartime president who, oh…I don’t know…says we’re invading Iraq because Saddam has WMDs and links to al Qaeda, and when he turns up a blank, instead says we did it to liberate the Iraqis.
Yeah, that’s not cool. But it still seems like a drop in the bucket compared to Bush.
I don’t even remember that.
What do you want, magic? Kerry didn’t start the war in Iraq. The reason for the violence is that many in Iraq view the U.S. as a conquering force bent on ruling Iraq. The reason the ruling council is falling apart is because they don’t trust the motives of the U.S. The way to fix that is to get the U.N. involved and make this a true international effort, which is what should have been done from day one. That will serve two purposes: (1) give us the assistance we need, and (2) help dispel the view that the U.S. is trying to take over Iraq. If Kerry is elected, he’s gotta clean up Bush’s mess; there just isn’t going to be a nice & easy way to do it.
Cite?
Oh, not that again. Clinton did a lot to battle al Qaeda. Bush was the one who fumbled the hand-off.
So you honestly believe that everything Bush said leading up to the Iraq invasion was true? You really believe that?
I think that it was a reasonable interpretation of the information he had been given. In Woodward’s new book, he describes a scene in which a skeptical Bush is critical of the evidence, and asks George Tenet for his interpretation. And Tenet says, “The WMD case is a slam dunk.” Bush asks him again, and Tenet throws up his hands in the air and repeats, “Sir, it’s a slam dunk. No question.” Plus, he had Cheney and Wolfowitz pushing the war, and they were producing evidence from Iraqi expatriates that looked very damning. Plus there was Hussein’s own behaviour, which was hard to explain if he wasn’t hiding WMD. On top of that, you had a formal assessment from the Clinton national security team that Iraq did in fact have WMD. This belief was also shared by pretty much every intelligence service in the world.
So no, I don’t think Bush lied. I think he honestly pursued a case based on evidence that appears to have been incorrect. But Bush himself had other reasons for going after Saddam, which he articulated in various speeches before the U.N. and the American people, and also in his final ultimatum to Saddam.
And ten years from now, you’re going to have a hard time finding people who will admit that they opposed the war, because in hindsight people will be very glad that it took place. That’s just my opinion. Troubles and all, I think the Iraq war was still net benefit both to the war on terror and the state of the world in general. The benefits have not materialized yet because the war is not over. The Ba’athists and terrorists are still fighting. After the handover of power, it’s going to be much tougher for the terrorists to gain support from the Iraqi people, since it will be them that they are attacking and not the ‘occupiers’.
Slowly but surely, the U…S. is building allies in the middle east. Iraq will remain a friendly country despite real differences with the U.S., just as Kuwait and the Emirates are today. A functioning democracy will serve as a role model and a source of steady pressure on other autocracies in the region. And in the end, this is the only way to win the war on terror - give the people of the middle east something to hope for other than to die in a blaze of fire and go to a better life.
This is the connection to the war on terror that no one on the left wants to admit has any validity. Kerry’s ‘law enforcement’ approach of digging out cells around the world and prosecuting them in court is like solving a wasp problem by swatting at individual wasps rather than taking out the nest. Bush is taking out the nest. The process of doing that sure stirs up the wasps, and that’s what we’re seeing now. Temporary increased danger and violence, as the people who have much to lose from a stable, free Iraq do everything they can to prevent it. That they are trying so hard should tell what THEY think a free Iraq will do for their cause.
I think it’s naive to imagine that the only hope of the “people of the middle east” was/is to “die in a blaze of fire and go to a better life”. I mean, all of them? Do you really think this way?
Sounds to me like that previous naive image: That the Iraqi’s would be greeting the invading troops with flowers and sweets.
Maybe “the left” has a problem with something that sounds too much like “Vietnamisation”. That didn’t work out, in spite of all the hopes and sentiments and dead bodies.
I’ll repeat what Kerry said (the part you cut out):
Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda.
Iraq wasn’t a “nest” of terrorism before the occupation. One could say that Bush created any “nest” there now.
What about the “nest” in Afghanistan - did Bush remove that one? Last I heard, there were still plenty of “wasps” there… And a little problem with that whole democracy business.
And what about those “wasps” in Madrid? They seemed pretty efficient without having a “nest”.
Yes, these’re things that actually happened.
I can certainly provide the citations. I’d be crazy to get into this without being able to provide them.
I was just curious about the potential impact of the knowledge. I wondered if maybe these things were just taken for granted.
No one seems to care much. Oh well.
Between
Eliot Abrams, National Security advisor for the Middle East
and
Richard Perle former chair of the Defense Policy Board, which advises the Department of Defense and reports to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
the two of them cover everyone of the charges that I’ve levelled.
Earlier this year Perle raised money for the international terrorist organization with a record of attacks on Americans, and with a proven, (extensive), operational relationship with Saddam Hussein. Perle was one of the eight “Vulcans” GWB assembled to help him “find Kosovo.” The Vulcans schooled the PotUSA on foreign policy. Perle’s had numerous conflict of interest scandals just since GWB’s presidency began.
Perle’s amoral scum who advocates the use of national, biometric id cards to monitor the activities of US citizens.
But GWB et al trust him. Go figure. Must be one of those “big government conservative” things- a “big-government-less-freedom-conservative” sort of thing.
Well, it’s probably wise of you to push your prediction ten years into the future, because most of the shorter-term predictions you made a little over one year ago (12 March 2003) have not panned out all that well:
Hmmm. No debate on that last one.
I guess so, if your definition of “slowly but surely” includes “currently increasing enmity towards the US by leaps and bounds but possibly in the future reversing that trend by some unspecified waving of the magic democracy wand”.
