QandO
Questions and Observations| « Was Clinton booed at a Bush rally? | Main | Are we getting a little paranoid? » |
|
September 04, 2004 Mean-spirited haters Richard Cohen's opinion column for the Washington Post pretty much encapsulates the mainstream medias characterization of the RepubliCon. It was, according to him, just a festival of lies and hatred. The constant distortion of John Kerry's record, a drizzle of deceit that eventually soaks the listener in a fat, wet lie, is not to be admired... I'm wondering if he was watching the same convention I was. I saw a convention that had a few rhetorical excesses, but no personal attacks or hatred. One gets tired of repeating oneself, but, while I heard plenty of criticisms of Mr. Kerry's record in the senate, his positions on the issues, or his public statements, personal criticisms of Mr. Kerry were remarkably muted. Mr. Cohen, of course, gives no examples of this hatred. But he knows it was expressed, so, presumably, we must take his word for it. It's perfectly acceptable for Mr. Kerry to allege that the president mislead us into war in Iraq. Just normal political discourse, you see. But to criticize Mr. Kerry, well, that's just hateful. Mr. Bush has been derided as a dunce, an avatar of fascism, a subverter of the constitution, and worse. Yet strong criticism of Mr. Kerry's public life can't be allowed. Is there anything for which Mr. Kerry can be criticized? I don't ask to be snarky, I am honestly wondering. It almost seems as if any criticism of Mr. Kerry, for any reason, is beyond the pale. It's as if no statement Mr. Kerry has ever made, no senate vote ever recorded, no policy stance he's ever held can be criticized. Most people, of course, didn't watch the convention, so they have no idea what happened there. They will depend on the characterizations made by people like Mr. Cohen, and of course, what they will hear is that the Republicans were hateful, and mean. One suspects that Mr. Cohen knows that very well, too. Another obvious rejoinder to why "speaker after speaker stomped on Kerry" is because he is the actual candidate against which Mr. Bush is running. He is not some innocent bystander against whom the Republicans harbor some inexplicable animus. He is the direct opponent of Mr. Bush. Who else would the Republicans speak out against? He is the person the Republicans have to defeat. Mr. Kerry was certainly not reticent about speaking out against Mr. Bush during his nomination speech. Mr. Cohen's argument is, quite simply, not just nonsense, it is nonsense on stilts. Kerry, triumphant and accepting the nomination with a smart (but silly) salute, has been disparaged as a phony who lied about his combat record and then came home from war to smear his buddies. If Mr. Cohen thinks Kerry's salute was smart, then he obviously knows very little about military service. Mr. Kerry's salute was lazy and improper. But that's just a quibble. But, there are some real problems with Mr. Cohen's argument here. First, it's framed in a way that conflates the Swiftvets' accusations with an act of the Bush Campaign. Because Mr. Bush won't explicitly repudiate them, it's his fault that they have been effective. I might not mind that argument if Mr. Kerry would be equally forthright in denouncing the MoveOn.Org ads that compared Mr. Bush to Adolf Hitler. Or the cute T-shirts with big swastikas labeled "Vote Republican". Or if he didn't lend credence to the Bush Lied, people Died blood libel by accusing the president of "misleading the nation into war". Apparently, Mr. Kerry has no responsibility for the actions of people allied with him, but Mr. Bush does. This is a double standard, of course, but I suppose it should be one we're used to by now. Second, it's not a "Category Five lie". At the very least, the argument that Mr. Kerry slandered his fellow Vietnam veterans can be plausibly made. He did, in fact, relate to the Congress of the United States that our soldiers in Vietnam routinely committed atrocities with the full knowledge and acquiescence of all levels of command. The North Vietnamese certainly used that for propaganda purposes, and to taunt our POWs in Hanoi as proof of American war crimes. Moreover, since a number of the "Winter Soldiers", whose tales of atrocities Mr. Kerry so earnestly related had not served in Vietnam, and in fact, had never even been soldiers, a prima facie case can certainly be made that it was slanderous. Next, no one forced Mr. Kerry to make his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. That was his choice. In retrospect, it probably wasn't the best choice for Mr. Kerry, who began his career in politics by vehemently opposing the war he now claims to be so proud of fighting. Surely he must have known that, by making his Vietnam service so central to his campaign that it would prompt questions about his activities with the VVAW, or his Senate testimony. Or even worse, why, as news reports have indicated, Mr. Kerry, while still an officer in the naval reserve, traveled to Paris to meet representatives of the North Vietnamese government during the war. Those are al valid questions, and Mr. Kerry invited them by touting his Vietnam service as a qualification for the presidency. If he wishes to present it as a qualification, then questions about it are fair game. That is, after all, how we judge the value of one's qualifications for office. Cohen, as well as his mainstream media compatriots, is arguing for what is essentially a loaded deck against Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry cannot be strongly criticized, yet Mr. Kerry and his surrogates are allowed to spout any nonsense about Mr. Bush that they desire. The logical outcome of this would be a campaign where Mr. Kerry would be allowed to harshly criticize Mr. Bush and his performance, while Mr. Bush would have to refrain from any serious examination of Mr. Kerry's public life. One wonders if they would be so keen to push such an unfair idea if they had a stronger candidate than Mr. Kerry. |
John Kerry testified to congress that he was told by other soldiers they had committed war crimes. And, that is true, they did tell him that.
He did not accuse "everyone that served in Vietnam" of these heinous crimes. The full testimoy is available, you can read it for yourself.
However, it is a confirmed fact that war crimes did take place in Vietnam. Tommy Franks said on national TV that "the things Kerry said are undeniable." John O'Neill, co-author of "Unfit for Command" admitted to war crimes on the Dick Cavett show in 1971. He just didn't know what he admitted to was a war crime, until John Kerry pointed it out to him.
As for Zell Miller, almost everything he said was in his keynote speech a distortion or an outright lie.
I can easily dispel much of what Zell Miller said about John Kerry, with clear, verifiable evidence. But that would take too long and too many pages that I'm sure you wouldn't read.
Here are a couple little tidbits for you to chew on. I hope that this will demonstrate to you that you have been conned by this administration and encourage you to look for the real truth about what is happening here.
US military being armed with spitballs?
Miller’s attack on this point related to Kerry’s opposition to particular fighter jets was foolish and would leave the military armed with “spitballs”. Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense during that period and wanted to eliminate the very same jets.
This was the period between the first Gulf War and Sept. 11, 2001, an era Cheney avoided in his speech against Kerry’s record.
Kerry’s concern was primarily budgetary, for example, he was against buying the B-2 bomber planes because “the Pentagon didn’t want them” and “hadn’t requested them”. That money would have been wasted on an item that was not even wanted by the Pentagon.
You have a very strong stance, and I appreciate that. I strongly support the first ammendment and your right to express your opinions.
As a suggestion, you might want to look into your facts a little more closely before you publicize such strong opinions. Your missing some.
This is all a matter of record. Would you like to hear more?
Posted by: Tamany at September 4, 2004 06:09 AM
John Kerry testified to congress that he was told by other soldiers they had committed war crimes. And, that is true, they did tell him that.He did not accuse "everyone that served in Vietnam" of these heinous crimes. The full testimoy is available, you can read it for yourself.
I have read parts of that testimony, and your characterization of it is not correct. John Kerry said that he represented all those who testified at the Winter Soldier hearings. That means that he agreed with what they said. In other venues he made it clear that he agreed with the accusations. And finally, if you look closely at the grammar Kerry used before the Senate, he did not say "this is what they said, but I don't know if it is true or not." He said in effect, "These things happened, and this is how they explained it."
In grammar, clear statement, and context, John Kerry agreed with those who said that war crimes were routinely committed by very many soldiers with the full knowledge of the chain of command. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise now.
Posted by: Rory Daulton at September 4, 2004 07:22 AM
Have you read Kerry's classic, the New Soldier?
Miller also points out that Kerry ran for election claiming reduction of the military as a platform.
And, while there appears to be some validity to "Cheyney did it too", are you saying Dick Cheyney is a dove? He can't be a dove and an evil war monger all at the same time...
Please, state the source of your "facts". The oft quoted sources of "facts" usually cannot hit their asses with both hands.
The fact is, facts get distorted. Here is a presentation of the history of the pathetic phony remake of JFK. http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/page2.html
It may be a leap to conclude this, but it has long appeared to me that the new JFK has tried to make himself to be like the true, great JFK...and he fudged his history to do so
Posted by: Mr. K at September 4, 2004 07:33 AM
and by the way, the only con this administration has foisted on us is trying to whitewash the purpose of the war...stop drooling...I don't believe as the demagogic party often suggest that it is about oil or haliburton profit margins...its about fighting Islamism...wmd's are weapons. It's like saying we attacked Nazism to fight the proliferation of Tiger tanks.
Posted by: Mr. K at September 4, 2004 07:40 AM
Tamany:
I would like to hear more. Please document more lies of Zell Miller during his convention speech. Because if the weapons issue is all you've got, then it is pretty darned weak.
It is also hilarious! If Kerry is so into weapons programs, why doesn't he open his pie hole and tell us what he would do on the subject? Can he propose a novel weapons program and deflate the Zell Miller's criticisms with substance?
Instead, you and like minded defenders as well as the Kerry campaign are playing the "liar liar pants on fire" game again, running around dutifully reminding the electorate that Kerry voted against weapons systems for budgetary reasons in the Senate and that he always votes against SDI. But that line in itself doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in Kerry! So in effect Miller played loose with some interpretations of Kerry's votes to make them look "really bad", and the Kerry defense was to cry "Liar!" because the votes were just "bad" and not "really bad". You people in the "Liar" crowd are indeed that predictable.
I think the Kerry campaign must be the most cartoonishly inept campaign I have ever witnessed. And congratulations for helping your chosen candidate lose in your small way by falling for it hook line and sinker.
Posted by: pdq332 at September 4, 2004 08:13 AM
A few questions for Tamany:
In his April 1971 testimony, did Lt. JG Kerry convey the impression that war crimes were routinely committed by a large number of soldiers with the full knowledge of the chain of command?
If yes,did he intend to convey that impression?
If no, what was his point?
Posted by: vnjagvet at September 4, 2004 08:52 AM
He did not accuse "everyone that served in Vietnam" of these heinous crimes. The full testimoy is available, you can read it for yourself.
In that testimony, he said the US military was murdering 200,000 Vietnamese every year. That's a bald-faced lie.
Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense during that period and wanted to eliminate the very same jets.
Except that Kerry ran in 1984 on the platform of eliminating those jets: long before Cheney was Secretary of Defense, long before the Cold War had ended.
Posted by: Steverino at September 4, 2004 09:06 AM
Tamany, oh put a sock in it for god's sake.
I think Mark Steyn sums it all up better than I ever could.
That seems to be the way John Kerry likes it. Americans should be free to call Bush a moron, a liar, a fraud, a deserter, an agent of the House of Saud, a mass murderer, a mass rapist (according to the speaker at a National Organization for Women rally last week) and the new Hitler (according to just about everyone). But how dare anyone be so impertinent as to insult John Kerry! No one has the right to insult Kerry, except possibly Teresa, and only on the day she gives him his allowance.
Posted by: capt joe at September 4, 2004 09:41 AM
You big sillies - can't you see Tamany is here to enlighten and inform? You clowns might have facts and figures, maybe you read the testimony, but you didn't understand you see?
You're just interpreting the facts wrong.
Many of you were probably in Vietnam, possibly heard Kerry's testimony as it happened, but Tamany has read some stuff and knows a little more about it than you, so there.
And if Tamany took the time to step you through the lies and distortions, well, you wouldn't read them anyway, so there's no point in doing that. Instead you ought to just trust Tamany.
But you big sillies will marshal your facts and assemble them, and display them and discuss them, while Tamany will still, deep down inside, know that you are wrong, and, probably fascists who just cannot be, and will not be, re-educated at all. You are hurtful people who don't understand how much time and effort Tamany has expended to come down from on high to help you out of your ignorance.
Come on you guys, ask for more. Request enlightment!
Posted by: looker at September 4, 2004 09:50 AM
Even the quality of the trolling has taken a hit, alas. Where is Pighound when we need him?
Posted by: vnjagvet at September 4, 2004 11:26 AM
Hey guys, Tamany almost had a logical argument. I hear the Kerry camp is looking for more advisors, he/she/it seems somewhat qualified (read: imaginative) to run the campaign.
In all honesty though, I have to pity the Kerry camp people, especially Terry McAuliffe. There is only so much you can do with a dud.
Posted by: Chris at September 4, 2004 11:57 AM
He did not accuse "everyone that served in Vietnam" of these heinous crimes. The full testimoy is available, you can read it for yourself.
Yeah, I have read it myself -- so I know that Kerry also told the Senate that his examples -- the ones quoted in the notorious Swiftvet ads -- were taken from testimony of other veterans about "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." That's a direct quote from John Kerry.
So no, he didn't say that "everyone that served in Vietnam" committed war crimes -- he just said that the military forces in Vietnam were committing war crimes on a day-to-day basis, and that such war crimes were not isolated incidents. He also said that if you happened to be an officer in Vietnam, at any level of command, it's likely that you had full knowledge of these day-to-day incidents. By implication -- since he and his fellow Winter Soldiers were revealing these day-to-day war crimes in his testimony and there had been no protest by the serving officer corps in Vietnam -- Kerry was also saying that if you were an officer in Vietnam it was likely that you were, by your silence, condoning day-to-day war crimes.
Maybe you find the distinction significant. I don't, particularly.
Posted by: Tom O'Bedlam at September 4, 2004 12:25 PM
great scott, stuff that no one knew.
Gary Younge of the Guardian also writes for zmag
Wow, I guess Kerry Edwards really can't win on substance. I guess the AP lie was the opening shot.
Posted by: capt joe at September 4, 2004 01:32 PM
GW admitted he used to drink and was an all around bad boy. As the Clinton's were so fond of saying, "we've already addressed that. Let's move on".
If this is all they have as ammo the next thing we'll see is another volley of Kerry's ribbons flying at Bush.
Posted by: looker at September 4, 2004 03:33 PM