QandO

"But for those with intellectual honesty"...

Well, that's always been the crux of the problem, hasn't it? The problem is how to instill such in Kerry's suporters after so many decades of it not being there.

Posted by: Bithead at August 10, 2004 09:21 AM

'So where are you Newsweek? Time? NY Times? LA Times? Washington Post?'

Thwe unspoken response is 'In the tank'

Posted by: Jack Tanner at August 10, 2004 09:44 AM

The only upside to Mainstream media ignoring the story- it's another nail in their coffins.

Posted by: shark at August 10, 2004 10:30 AM

Catch 22; If they don't mention it, who knows about it?

Posted by: Bithead at August 10, 2004 10:41 AM

"....with Bush, what you see and know is what you get. His past is acknowledged."

Oh really? Can you fill me on all of the still-outstanding missing information concerning GW's "war service"...?

Steyn writes:

"He's publicly opposed to the Vietnam War. But he volunteers for it."

This isn't even logical. He opposed the war AFTER having volunteered and served. Duh. You know, live and learn. Like the man who visits the slaughterhouse and becomes a vegetarian.

"denounces his fellow veterans as war criminals, torturers and rapists"

I'd like exact quotes.

Also,

One thing I notice repeatedly about the far right that I find very disturbing is there is no gray to them, just black & white. There's either right or wrong, up or down, hot or cold -- nothing in between. Everything is framed in stark, strident terms contrasting one thing versus another with hardly any blending or attempts to find a middle ground. In fact, I almost named my blog, "Embrace The Gray."

There are two reasons I believe this to be the case. The first is it's too difficult to ponder the many nuances in the middle; it's much easier (lazy thinking) to quickly lay down the two opposite views and simply pick one. It could also be the case they lack the intellectual capacity to actually surmise what could be in the middle, which most of the time is where the real complexities of an issue dwell (of course, now I'm sounding like an "elite").

The other reason, and more likely, is the gray or "muddled" middle is simply not polarizing enough, i.e. it's boring. The priority of the far right is to excite their base and keep them in a state of anger, with fangs showing, claws slashing. They can't have them consider the many sides of an issue and then choose the most reasonable, i.e. they can't have them consider a topic carefully and afford it the time for introspective thought it deserves. If they allowed for this to happen, they'd likely lose voters and even more so, given the many right-wing TV and radio hosts, they'd lose viewers/listeners. After all, the last thing the far right seems to do is encourage their base to think for themselves.

Here's an example of the above: after Kerry's speech on Thursday, a right-wing radio guy proclaimed that the delegates cannot rightfully cheer for the Band of Brothers on stage supporting Kerry and at the same time be against the Vietnam War. Again, on the surface, this would seem to be a black-and-white logical constant, however that's simply not the case (if you at least think about it for a minute).

It is a completely A-OK stance to support our soldiers that go to war while at the same time not support the war they're fighting. As Americans, we will always support our brave soldiers no matter where they go to fight. They had nothing to do with the politics leading up to the decision to go to war; therefore, it's logically consistent that one can support the efforts of our fellow human beings who must do what they're told (or face court martial / jail) while at the same time not support the war itself (due to faulty reasons for being there, political lies & distortions, etc.).

Is this "grayness" to complex for the far right to handle? Likely not. Instead, it simply doesn't fire-up their ravenous base and therefore is of no use to them.

http://theangryliberal.blogspot.com/

Posted by: ed at August 10, 2004 11:03 AM

Ed, opposition is more palatable when it starts from absolute facts.

I would ask just what you think is 'still missing' from W's military records, and whether you think the loss of those records by the Pentagon and the military archive system mitigates that from being a failing by W?

Oh, and does the phrase 'honorable discharge' have any weight?

As to Kerry:
I can't give you any authoritative links, but I've heard, certainly, that he was against the Vietnam war BEFORE he volunteered for it. As in, he disagreed with the war, volunteered so as to get a commission instead of a drafting, then came back to protest it.

As to him denouncing his fellow vets, I have the following links that are, at least, not explicitly partisan:

A richmond.edu summary of Kerry's Winter Soldier story,

A transcript of the Winter Soldier hearings

On the rest of your comment:

There is black, there is white, and there is grey. There is also something called the Grey Fallacy: Group A says white, Group B says black, people assume that the reality is grey and deny the possibility that one group is flat-out not stating the truth. What if it's White? Group B is then absolutely wrong, yet those who subscribe to the grey fallacy would say, without having ever seen evidence to either side, that "Well, if they both say different things, it must be somewhere in the middle."

Posted by: Dave at August 10, 2004 11:24 AM

Another fallacy, of course, is 'assumed mendacity'. Happens on the Right and the Left, and goes something like this: "They're taking a position I don't agree with, so they can't have a logical basis for their beliefs, instead it must be out of political expedience/eagerness to deceive the nation". Happened with Clinton, happens more loudly with Bush. I don't remember it happening much with Bush The Elder, but then I was in Elementary School or Jr. High and not paying attention to the political scene.

Posted by: Dave at August 10, 2004 11:28 AM

Ed, you may be surprised to discover that I tend to agree with you on some of the points you raise. (and that we QandO bloggers sometimes disagree with each other)

"One thing I notice repeatedly about the far right that I find very disturbing is there is no gray to them, just black & white. "

- - -I'm not sure why you limit that to the right. God knows there's plenty of it on both sides, and arguing about which is worse is akin to arguing whether there is less air in a vacuum or in outer space. (see: Halliburton, oil, wmds, 2000 election, etc...all of which have been demagogued silly)

However, I agree that people tend to argue in absolutes, rather than the margins. It's more effective with the general public, but I find it less satisfying. I refuse to believe that there are not self-consistent, real arguments on both sides. (though, I acknowledge that not all arguments are such) People tend to avoid those arguments for strawmen, and absolutes.

And I agree that John Kerry did not denounce his fellow veterans as "baby-killers", etc. It seems clear to me that he was indicating that some of it had occurred. And that seems fairly obvious.

I didn't see an attempt to extrapolate those actions to damn all solders. Not by Kerry, at least. I'm perfectly willing to believe he acted honorably, and credit him for that. I think he was, in some ways, foolish...but that's a different argument.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 10, 2004 12:00 PM

Oh, give me a break. You scold me regarding absolute facts, but then you provide very little in that regard (which is the norm for most right-wing blogs).
So, we are to accept that it's all the Pentagon's fault, otherwise we'd have all the evidence re GW's lack of evidence he served. And the honorable discharge means nothing (family connections, i.e. dad, might have had something to do with that). I can just see Karl Rove saying people will expect us to avoid Kerry's military service given GW's huge problems in this area, but we'll show them, we'll shock them by taking it to him exactly on this subject....

And back to your "facts':

"I can't give you any authoritative links, but I've heard,"

Oh, that's priceless.... I heard that Bush wears girls underwear... c'mon....

As for Gray Fallacy, again, a fave of the far-right (seen this used before), but of course it's used to imply that the White (correct side) is them, and that the liberals simply don't wish to see the White, but rather go wishy-washy half-way (Gray).... I'm not saying on some issues that there is not a 100% correctness (and then I vote liberal = White), but rather on many issues there is no definitive simple answer, but rather compexities -- which often times a Hannity or O'Reilly do NOT get into..... if you don't see this point, then what is the point....

Posted by: ed at August 10, 2004 12:05 PM

Re Gray (and logic), please respond to this part of my post:

... after Kerry's speech on Thursday, a right-wing radio guy proclaimed that the delegates cannot rightfully cheer for the Band of Brothers on stage supporting Kerry and at the same time be against the Vietnam War. Again, on the surface, this would seem to be a black-and-white logical constant, however that's simply not the case (if you at least think about it for a minute).

It is a completely A-OK stance to support our soldiers that go to war while at the same time not support the war they're fighting. As Americans, we will always support our brave soldiers no matter where they go to fight. They had nothing to do with the politics leading up to the decision to go to war; therefore, it's logically consistent that one can support the efforts of our fellow human beings who must do what they're told (or face court martial / jail) while at the same time not support the war itself (due to faulty reasons for being there, political lies & distortions, etc.).

Posted by: ed at August 10, 2004 12:09 PM

Oh really? Can you fill me on all of the still-outstanding missing information concerning GW's "war service"...?

What missing information, Ed? Everything that is available, per the military, has been released. Where's the rest of Kerry's records? Why won't he releast those?

"He's publicly opposed to the Vietnam War. But he volunteers for it."

This isn't even logical. He opposed the war AFTER having volunteered and served. Duh. You know, live and learn. Like the man who visits the slaughterhouse and becomes a vegetarian.

Speaking of black and white thinking Ed, here's a perfect example on your part. Of course there's a perfectly plausible "gray" scenario.

Kerry can't get a deferrement to study in Paris. Kerry decides he'd rather join the military (and thus pick the service he'd like to be in v. being drafted and ending up in one he didn't want to be in). He joins the Navy. He goes to OCS (who's want to be a common sailor for heaven sake). JFK (the real one) is his political hero. Kerry has political aspirations. While he's done his best to avoid the war and he doesn't support it, he does know that a war would look good on his political resume. He researches the matter, finds out swift boats are pretty safe (they're doing coastal patrols) and he volunteers for swift boat duty in VN. Lo and behold, he no sooner gets there and there's a mission change. He whines and cries about it, but like a man on a mission, manages three PH's in 4 months and drops his "band of brothers" like a hot rock. Now, taking the early out, he has the bona fides he seeks for political viablity and he can speak out against the war he was against with some credibility.

Possible "gray" scenario? You bet. In fact, in my opinion, it falls more under "probable" than "possible."

As Americans, we will always support our brave soldiers no matter where they go to fight.

That, sir, is absolute bravo sierra. While I understand where Jon Henke is coming from in all of this (he's not a VN vet nor did he grow up in the VN era, so this is all history which he can look at much more dispassionately than can I), it is PERSONAL with me. I'm one of the guys Kerry was talking about when he said the atrocities he claimed were "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

I was one of those officers, Ed, and what John Kerry said in his testimony before congress is a flat out lie. And its a terrible lie which puts lie to your claim that "As Americans, we will always support our brave soldiers no matter where they go to fight."

No sir, we don't. Accusing me of santioning atrocities and crimes as a part of the chain-of-command doesn't support me at all. It denigrates what I and other officers and NCOs there did and lumps us in with criminals. That's right ... you don't "honor" American soldiers by accusing them of sanctioning crimes, Ed. If you didn't live through the Vietnam era as a soldier, sailor, airman or marine in uniform, then sir, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Last but not least, call me crazy, or call me old fashioned, but serving your country honorably in a War and keeping faith with your fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines while the conflict is raging is what honor and service is truly about.

In my estimation Kerry failed that test miserably.

That may be a black and white far-right opinion in your world, Ed, but its shared by one hell of a lot of VN vets and vets of later wars. John Kerry is not a member of any "band of brothers" I'd associate myself with.

Posted by: McQ at August 10, 2004 12:53 PM

I understand how his phrasing can be interpreted as a blanket attack, but I think that's a tendentious interpretation. Based on the circumstances, it seems clear to me that Kerry believed--with some justification--that the war crimes were being committed, and that officers at all levels (though, not "all officers at all levels") were aware of it.

In fact, that seems like a probable conclusion. I would assume it was true of every major war in history to one degree or another.

The problem--the one people like you, McQ--ran into was the immediate conflation of the average and honorable soldier with the few bad guys who were committing/ignoring crimes of various degrees.

For the record, I also think it's quite probable that Kerry was willing to engage in hyperbole to advance his cause.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 10, 2004 02:00 PM

I understand how his phrasing can be interpreted as a blanket attack, but I think that's a tendentious interpretation. Based on the circumstances, it seems clear to me that Kerry believed--with some justification--that the war crimes were being committed, and that officers at all levels (though, not "all officers at all levels") were aware of it.

That's fine if that's as far as it goes, but here's the problem .... while he may not have meant "all officers at all levels" since he provided absolutely no names and no speecific events, by fiat it became "all officers at all levels".

One of the things each of the services tried to get the VVWA to do was name names and provide specifics to their charges. They planned on investigating the charges.

The VVWA, and John Kerry, refused to do that, thereby ensuring that suspicion fell on "all" in the absense of those specifics.

We didn't wear badges around which said "no war crimes here".

Posted by: McQ at August 10, 2004 02:37 PM

That's a good point, but I think the fault there lies with inference, rather than implication. Did Kerry use that inference to advance his cause? Perhaps. But then the same allegation has been made against Bush, in regards to the Iraq/Al Qaeda matters.

I'm willing to call Kerry naive and foolish. I'm willing to believe that his experiences in Vietnam have unfortunately colored his view of foreign policy. I'm even willing to believe that his "band of brothers" shouldn't feel so brotherly towards him.

I'm not ready to accept that it implies a personal failure that should be relevant to current politics.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 10, 2004 03:26 PM

That's why I made the remark I did about your ability to look at it more dispassionately than I am.

I'm unable to write it off to "youthful foolishness" when I remember having to live with the aftermath of his "foolishness".

As for the latter, character or lack thereof at all parts of a candidate's adult life are important in helping one assess whether the character evident is that which you want in that office.

I don't want Kerry for the reasons stated and many others. But it is evident his VN service wasn't at all what it was cracked up to be and his anti-war activites were very cynically plotted to advance his political career. Both reflect negatively on his character in my opinion.

While I'm sure that "youthful foolishness" can be used to write off a number of things, this isn't one of them. I can't forgive a person who went out of their way while myself and others like us were engaged in mortal combat, and foolishly characterized what we were engaged in as "crimes" and "atrocities".

The lack of specificity in his metaphorical atrocity arm-wave indicted us all because he refused to name names or incidents. He didn't have to live with his accusations, but I and those of us who were in the military did.

I can remember to this day the looks, smirks and comments directed at me and my friends if we were in any other place than an Army town (and we even got them there, but the townies were less likely to do so because they were so outnumbered). One of the real problems we had at the time was with hair. Soldiers wanted to be able to grow their hair longer, not just because it was the style, but because longer hair helped them deny they were military when they were in civies. I can remember the post commander sending out a memo telling us if we were traveling to travel in civilian clothes and to avoid showing our military ID for identification (i.e. use your driver's license) to avoid confrontations. Civilian busses were hired to move troops to avoid having military vehicles being off the bases where they might be vandalized. Yeah, it was America always supporting "our brave soldiers no matter where they go to fight" as Ed claims.

It is those sorts of conditions (and those only give a hint as to the horrific atmosphere under which those in the military had to live) that Kerry's "youthful foolishness" brought, and having suffered through it for those years, I just have nothing but contempt for the man.

But like I said upfront ... its a personal thing for me.

Many years later its easy to sit back and parse his statement and decide it really isn't as bad as it seems. But that removes what he said from the reality of what it wrought. It takes it out of context and removes it from the atmosphere it created in which the US military was then perceived and treated. It painted a generation of soldiers as criminals and by God I'll never forgive the bastard for it.

Posted by: McQ at August 10, 2004 04:01 PM

If (when) we meet, I'd like to hear more about those years of your life. You're right....I wasn't there, and I can't understand the psychological impact of his actions.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 11, 2004 05:48 AM

ed:

""denounces his fellow veterans as war criminals, torturers and rapists"

I'd like exact quotes."

OK, will Congressional testimony do?

JOHN KERRY 1971 TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS (excerpt): [quote] 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. These were 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, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped 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 Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside 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. [end quote]

Of course, those 150 were from VVAW, and those charges were complete bunk (some of them had never even served in the military, much less been to Vietnam). So, there you go, "denounc[ing] his fellow veterans as war criminals, torturers and rapists". In the Congressional record.

And if you hand't sen that before, you haven't been paying attention, so you are uninformed. If you HAD heard of it before... well, I will assume you hadn't.

Go read up on the facts.

Posted by: Deoxy at August 11, 2004 10:06 AM

Just what Deoxy said. That is, after all, why I linked that transcript, Ed. If you read it, you'll find about the most authoritative source you can find on Kerry accusing his fellow vets of war crimes - his own words as per the Congressional Record.

I was going to write a long point-by-point response to Ed, but it's been several posters in between by now.

Posted by: Dave at August 11, 2004 07:33 PM