Sure Kerry agrees with the characterization of that behaviour reminiscent of Genghis Khan’s warriors. That’s not my point.
My point is that there is a huge difference between making that analogy about something that you know have happened, because the guys that were there told me so, they told me they did it themselves. And making some sweeping generalization that this specific behaviour is true of the army in general.
That’s no nitpick, at least not for me.
John Mace:
Is there some kind of law against taking quotes in context?
It seems pretty silly for you to do this when we can all see the actual quote in the OP.
Kerry said that the 150 veterans testified that the actions were not isolated incidents.
He said they told stories of razing and ravaging.
A small difference? Maybe.
But if so, why is it that every single time one of the Bush team quotes part of the speech, they ALWAYS pull quotes out of context and eliminate the part where it says Kerry is repeating the testimony of the veterans?
Why do they ALWAYS erase the part where it says he is repeating the stories told him by the veterans?
The only interpretation that makes sense is that they really do see it as a big enough difference to be worth lying about.
We agree that Kerry meant to show that problems were systemic and routine.
The issue is if John Kerry said that the problems that were systemic were that the majority of the US army were behaving like the Mongol army of Genghis Khan. Or if he said that the problems, that were systemic, resulted in some of these 150 or so specific soldiers behaving like the Mongol army of Genghis Khan. Of course there is an unstated implication that maybe others that never confessed behaved in the same way. But John Kerry is talking about what he is in a position to know: these people did these things, which they testified to, and from my experience this is a consequence and a symptom of other things that are wrong and are being handled wrong in this war.
A nitpick, and a subtle difference maybe? Not to me.
I don’t believe it is a perfectly subtle difference, either. Sam’s phrasing is highly disingenuous, and suggests that a similarity to Ghengis Khan was somehow the defining characteristic, in Kerry’s eyes, of the US’s campaign. But someone else had brought up the “he was reporting someone else’s words” thing and I don’t think that makes one bit of difference.
Perhaps it’s just me, but “like Ghengis Khan,” and, “in a manner reminiscent of Ghengis Khan,” actually seem very similar to me. Perhaps someone wants to point out to me how Sam Stone is being deliberately obtuse or lying.
It seems to me that, yeah, Kerry was trying to make the argument that our army behaved like Ghengis Khan, and that’s what Sam Stone said he said. Kerry’s argument obviously wasn’t entirely off base, even if he shies away from it now for political reasons.
So I can quote you as saying the army was acting like Ghengis Khan, then?
Why the comparison to Genghis Khan, anyway? Was the US military wearing little fur hats and living in yurts?
Nah, they just had a reputation for making hootch from fermented mare’s milk.
Cute, Brutus. No, really, adorable. Irrelevent, meaningless, but cute.
Hey, that’s one better than the OP, which is simply irrelevant and meaningless.
Yes you are right, the distinction between “like Genghis Khan” and “in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan” is not important. In fact it is arguably non-existant.
The point that I was making, though, was the distinction between “the US Army” and 150 or so specific individuals and the acts to which they confessed, and the responsibilty of their superiors.
This has already been pointed out. I refer you to #19, #21 and #23. And actually I would think that was pretty clear from my OP as well, maybe I was wrong about that.
Yeah, Love You too, Brutus.
Oh, I see you also made that cute mistake of thinking that I was actually arguing some huge difference between “like” and “fashion reminiscent of”.
That’s pretty stupid. You too, could do yourself a favour and read my posts #19, #21 and #23.
Then read the OP again. Feel a strange itching sensation between your ears now, do you?
I get that itching whenever I drink a lot, kid. Besides, you may want to start mixing yourself up some white russians and actually read that testimony you link to. You’ll agree that Kerry’s intent was to indict the whole of the US forces in SVN.
This behaviour was a pattern on missions of those witnesses at Winter Soldier. Their superiors and people in all levels of the US army were aware of this, but didnt act.
Maybe this was the case also at many other places. But Kerry does not say anything about that.
This is somewhat later in his speach, and Kerry is talking about what he believe the effects of the vietnam war will be on all those soldiers that went there. Here he is indeed speaking about the army in general. In that earlier segment he is most certainly not. Relevance?
You’ve been sniping at Sam from your very first post. Who the hell are you, why are you so familiar with everyone here, and why can’t you sing some other note?
The thought of you bitching about someone singing the same note is so motherfucking funny it’s almost painful.
-Joe, doesn’t mention pots of kettles
So our armed forced established a habit of ‘raz[ing] villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan’? Golly, those sure were 150 credible witnesses, huh?
He is most certainly talking about the army in general throughout his little screed. If he were not, then what would be the point? He is indicting the whole of the army based on the ‘testimony’ of these 150 (how many of them have since been shown to have been playing fast and loose with the truth?), but by no means is he restricting his broad-brush to involve only those 150 troops units. If he was, certainly he could provide actual lists of officers involved and they could do something productive, like get some people brought up on war crimes charges?
Nah, he would (then) rather just use the ‘testimony’ of 150 people to besmirch the whole of the American involvement in Vietnam. Nothing but cheap rhetoric interspersed with the occasional tidbit of Mongol hyperbole.
I don’t think Sam Stone was lying at all. I think that what he stated was genuinely what he inferred from what John Kerry testified. And to a certain extent, I think that was what John Kerry may have intended that people infer – that the army in general had begun to use tactics similar to those used by the armies of Genghis Khan. He was more specific in his analogy and that wasn’t exactly what he claimed, but the suggestion was there.
What he didn’t claim was that every individual soldier was behaving in that way. There is a difference.
There was a least one “war hero” – a recepient of the Metal of Honor and a former U.S. Senator who found the beast within himself and admitted to it. Sen. Bob Kerrey’s version is the “cleaner” and least likely version of what happened, but it’s bad enough. I’ve included an excerpt from the New York Times interview below. But it really needs to be read in context and with the accounts of the other people who were there. (There is some irony is that one name reminded me of the name Genghis Khan.
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/magazine/25KERREY.html?ex=1097294400&en=3a1e73480a032a61&ei=5070
Again, this is the “dainty” version of what happened.
"“And in the fog of war, it’s often hard to tell what is happening.” – Bob Kerrey
Certain components? Absolutely.
If the difference is between Kerry classifying the Army as a whole vs. specific individuals; well of course not everyone acted cruely, illegaly, etc., but wasn’t Kerry’s point that this raping, pillaging behavior was more widespread in the Army than anyone wanted to admit, and wasn’t he right?