Sun 31 Oct 2004
Make of it what you will. We covered this topic at some length two months ago. Jason Leith ‘03 notes that
It saddens me to hear that this is a legitimate topic for the high-school classroom.
Spoken like someone who has not read a word about what the Swiftvets and POW’s actually have to say.
Happy Halloween!
October 31st, 2004 at 4:17 pm
maybe they have read it, but saw this (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820_SWIFT_GRAPH.html?YOUR_REG_SYSTEM_MAKES_MY_BLOOD_BOIL) as well.
and anecdotally, my uncle is a disabled Swift Boat vet who was blown off his boat by a rocket and subsequently saved by a boatmate, and he’s got no regard for the claims whatsoever.
October 31st, 2004 at 8:18 pm
Four months in Vietnam (including one month of training) and Senator Kerry receives three purple hearts? He chooses to go home before his tour was supposed to end and let someone else fight the enemy. His injuries were minor. He spent no time in a hospital. There is only one explanation — Senator Kerry overstated his injuries and his heroism. He has continued that pattern by overstating nearly every claim in his Presidential campaign. For example, he promises to reduce the budget deficit by 50 percent in five years and promises not to raise taxes on the middle class. He will raise taxes on those earning over $200,000 but that money will not come close to paying for the two additional military divisions, a tax cut for the middle class, taking over the State portion of Medicaid, providing health insurance for all Americans, increasing spending on education, providing more first responders and that is just to name a few of the his new spending proposals.
Senator Kerry has similar character flaws to those of President Clinton and in this age of terror we cannot afford an indecisive leader.
You may say President Bush did not find weapons of mass distruction in Iraq and thus he “mislead us to war.” Unfortunately, Senatory Kerry said everything President Bush said about going to war but now pretends he meant something else. Every intelligence service in the world believed Iraq had WMD. I did and so did you! When a leader says something of significance, he should stand behind it. Senator Kerry lacks the backbone to do so.
October 31st, 2004 at 10:16 pm
I was trying so very hard not to get involved in any of Ephblog’s political discussions…so very, very hard. As anyone who overlapped with me at Williams, I perhaps spent too much time being politically active. Yet here I go.
This last post pains me. Partly because it is from someone who didn’t bother to read the earlier swifties stuff here (or likely, anywhere else that actually criticized them), but mostly because it is such terribly un-ephworthy logic. He was in Vietnam for a short period of time, he must be making it up.
Here’s some other facts left out of the last post: Kerry volunteered for an unpopular war. Cheney took many student deferments. Bush, whether helped (likely, but not proven) or not, got into the champagne unit of the National Guard. And back then, as my father pains to remind me anytime he sees a swiftie ad, the National Guard was a way to avoid war. Not a back-door draft like it is now (thanks Bush!). Plus, we can’t even find any proof he reported to duty when he said he did. The evidence that Bush missed duty is at least as strong as the evidence Kerry was not as heroic as he and his supporters claim.
Whether or not you agree with his stance later against the war (taken out of context, but understandably so by the SBVFT), he served in Vietnam and for every veteran who questions Kerry, there are many more (including the men ON HIS BOAT) who don’t. There are records that don’t.
But let’s move beyond the spurious claims of the swifties (ahh…attack ads, isn’t “democracy” sweet? Attack ads, voter challenges in the thousands, electronic voting machines that are hackable and have no paper trail, and six hour lines to vote EARLY. Impressive), or if you don’t think they are spurious, at least not directly connected to the issues of this election. Unless you link Kerry’s overstating his heroism to his campaign promises. Which, I will be the first to admit are pretty impossible (who was the last candidate to fulfill his campaign promises? GW and his “no nation-building”? Clinton and health care? Bush #1 and no taxes? I was too young for Reagan, but I’m sure he promised something other than huge budget deficits). Campaign promises are signals of what a candidate believes is important, and ideas on how to make things better. Further, looking at Bush’s promise (an aspect of fair commenting that the above post misses) leads to an equally, if not more so, ridiculous stance: that making his tax cuts permanent will reduce the budget, that he’ll magically fund programs he failed to fund in his first term, privatize social security without busting the bank, find Osama…oh wait, he’s stopped mentioning that…, etc, etc. (I don’t want to bother to find the rest of his platform. My apology, if you don’t believe he’s as ridiculous as Kerry, I’ll look at the platform after a complaint. Please don’t make me, I’m lazy and I have grad school apps to fill out)
You write that Kerry has “similar character flaws to those of Clinton”. I’m trying ti figure out what you mean beyond insinuating that Clinton is an adulterer and so is Kerry (because he got remarried? where’s the beef?). That’s completely inappropriate and unfounded. And talking about overstating things, there’s this guy, I think he’s President…might overstate things sometimes (Uranium from Niger, anyone? Sadam Hussein and Al Qaeda are connected? Most of his tax cuts go to the middle class? “Compassionate conservative”? last one was mostly a snide joke.)
I say Bush mislead us to war because there were no weapons, Hussein was not an immediate threat, there was no connection to Al-Qaeda, and recently overlooked, Bush had the chance to attack Zarqawi and didn’t. Twice. That’s not taking the fight to the enemy…or, let me say, to the right enemy. I say Bush failed as a commander in chief when he did not list Al Qaqaa as a high priority sight to defend when the IAEA said it was an important site to protect. I say Bush failed when no one has stepped up to take the fall for Abu Ghraib (how could this happen on our watch? Someone high up should be in serious trouble), for his disrespect of civil liberties, for passing acts like “clear skies” (orwellian if there’s ever been one) and for the Patriot Act’s overreaching parts. He failed by not keeping North Korea from becoming a nuclear weapons producer. And most worrisome now, not doing something to make sure our elections go smoothly.
Let me be clear on the gist of my message (I apologize, it’s gotten rant-esque, but it’s two days to the election and I’m looking forward to January’s regime change): it was honorable to be in Vietnam, it was honorable to be in Vietnam and then protest it (or to be in it and then not protest it, or even to dodge it as part of protest). It was not honorable to support the war, but dodge the draft. Senator Kerry may have served a short time in the war zone, but the second he stepped onto a swift boat (the casualty rate was staggering on those things) and got injured, minor or not (and he doesn’t claim it was life threatening. An injury in combat gets a purple heart, hospital or not. Three means home, minor or major. That’s the rules of the game). Kerry and Bush exaggerate with their campaign promises, but they are ways of understanding what they believe in. To perhaps oversimplify, Kerry believes government can help lift society, that an international consensus, whenever possible, is critical to success against terror, and that the US must be aggressive in fighting against terror, but not stupidly so. Bush believes government needs to get out of the way, the rich deserve to be rich no matter how they made their money (because capitalism really works and the scandals we constantly see don’t point to the need for governmental intervention and rule-making), and that terror cannot be isolated to those who have or actively want to attack us, but also people who just generally hate us. I’m probably too harsh on Bush, you can read Oren Cass’ article in the record for a Bush defense (not such a fan personally, but so be it) if you need it. But to link the (generally extremely weak) attacks on Kerry’s service in Vietnam to “character flaws” he shares with Clinton to his campaign promises as you did is, at its best, sophistry.
And, by the way, when you say “I did and so did you”, you were wrong. Sorry, but there were millions of people, including former weapons inspectors who specifically did not believe Iraq had WMDs (those of us at Williams had a group called ACT). And if all it takes is believing a country has WMDs, why not North Korea or Iran? Hell, even Brazil is starting to be shady about its nuclear program.
November 1st, 2004 at 4:05 pm
“Spoken like someone who has not read a word about what the Swiftvets and POW’s actually have to say?”
Spoken like someone who hasn’t paid attention to any of the news organizations that have fact checked the SBVFT claims. Just because a group published a book doesn’t make it true.
November 1st, 2004 at 7:51 pm
Rory says, “Kerry volunteered for an unpopular war.”
Wrong. Kerry opposed the war from the beginning. He attempted to get a deferrment and when that failed he tried to go into the Naval reserve. When he could not do that he went into the Navy and sought out swift boats because at the time swit boats were not likely to see much action. Now, Kerry claims he is a gung-ho war hero. It simply is not the case.
When Bill Clinton ran against Bob Dole, all you democrats said Clinton’s lack of service was irrelevant. Now all of a suddent Bush’s honorable service in the guard is the same as AWOL. Sounds like hypocracy to me.
Rory says, “I say Bush mislead us to war because there were no weapons.”
Here is what John Kerry said:
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Rory, will you now admit that Kerry mislead us into war with his vote to go to war?
Rory says, “I say Bush failed as a commander in chief when he did not list Al Qaqaa as a high priority sight to defend when the IAEA said it was an important site to protect.” You cannot prove the 380 tons of explosives existed when our troops went to the site. Once our troops were there, it would be impossible for anyone to remove that amount of explosives without our troops knowing about it. Plus, your criticism is not actually directed at Bush but is at our troops who were in control of the site and did an outstanding job.
Rory says, “He failed by not keeping North Korea from becoming a nuclear weapons producer.”
Who do you think gave North Korea the technology to build nuclear weapons? It was President Clinton. This is precisely why character matters. We do not need a repeat of Clinton telling us we are safe while he is selling out our security.
Rory says, “there were millions of people, including former weapons inspectors who specifically did not believe Iraq had WMDs.” In a world of billions, millions is nothing, but let’s see what other “informed” U.S. leaders thought:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
It sure is a good thing that Rory and his ACT group is so much smarter than the above people who misled us all into going to war in Iraq. I guess ACT will demand an apology from Bill Clinton for dropping 450 cruize missiles on Iraq in 1998 when Clinton lied about Iraq having WMD.
Those of you who vote for Kerry are making the biggest mistakes of your lives. North Korea and Iran present clear and present dangers to our nation. John Kerry will talk tough and do nothing . When President Bush talks to them, they know he means business. Bush’s strength may be what prevents the next major terrorist attack.
November 1st, 2004 at 8:50 pm
And the anonymous “comment” responds. I’ll keep it short as my anger has defused on this and is now more focused on the election histrionics at work by both (but mostly, it seems, one) parties.
Let’s dissect what we’ve got above. What we see is someone grasping at straws. First, Kerry isn’t honorable because he didn’t get a referral then went to war and tried to stay alive (hmmm…that’s really bullcrap of him to try to stay alive when drafted). Then, Bush is honorable for avoiding the war by staying stateside as part of the champagne unit. Then, democrats are hypocritical because they point out that Bush missed chunks of his time and may not have completed his agreed duty. But the records (the same official type of records that the swifties keep on mocking in their campaign) say Bush was honorable, so he is.
As I pointed out, there were four options during the draft: Support the war, go to war. Perfectly honorable. Oppose war, go to war because the country drafted you (after deferments not working). Honorable. Oppose the war, dodge a draft. Honorably consistent. That’s Clinton, by the way. Support war, dodge serving (a la Bush). That’s shady. And to not stop the smearing of a veteran is disgusting. I don’t think you need to serve in the forces to be a leader, but I doubt a veteran would have been so callous about the cost of war in the lead up to Iraq.
Next, you may note that I said there are no weapons. This is undeniably true. Just like we should have known from over a decade of inspections. Now, I don’t like voting for a guy who gave Bush the authority to go to war, but Kerry did make clear that he wanted war as a last resort, and I don’t think Bush did. Was Kerry’s position what I like? No. Is it my best answer in this election season?? yes. You may also note Kerry, even then in your quote, being nuanced. Man, some nuance would be good right now in my government. And the buck doesn’t stop at one senator in the senate, it stops at the President who pushed us into war. Should Kerry have voted no? yes. Is that comparable to being commander in chief at the helm of this mistake? Not quite.
holy crap, are you really arguing that the al-qaqaa fiasco might have happened before we got there? Even in the face of videotape and eyewitnesses? Are you serious? I’m not sure if that self-deception is better or worse than Giuliani’s criticizing the troops for not protecting the site instead of criticizing Bush for it. Support the war, hate the troops, from good ole Rudy. Oh wait, you do that too. I support the troops (and I’m patriotic, I’m sure you’ll insinuate somethign about that next as you reach further into the barrel of excuses), and think they are doing everything they are asked (which is far too much) and more. Don’t play that card, it’s a loser.
Ok, let’s be clear here. Those soldiers were told where to go, where to stop, and what the priority sites were. Those priorities are set by their commander in chief (still with me?) those priorities did not include al qaqaa. That’s Bush’s fault. Had he posted soldiers to protect it and they decided not to, that’d be their fault. Problem is, he didn’t. There weren’t enough troops to fight an unnecessary war successfully. That’s doubly painful. At least when you f-ck up, do it right:)
Clinton gave North Korea the tech to create nukes? That’s a character problem? I’m beyond confused by how to respond to this innuendo (did he do that also because he’s an adulterer? Does Kim Jong Il have incriminating video or something I’m missing?)
Lot’s of quotes. Curious where you got them (not doubting their veracity, just curious if you spent all that time finding them yourself). ACT didn’t exist in 1998, but there’s a difference between air strikes designed to take out specific illicit sites (like Israel’s air strikes in the 80s or Clinton’s approach to Iraq) and regime change and nation building. And I hate to say it, but it seems that, looking with our 20/20 hindsight, we didn’t need to nation build here and now, at least not for the reasons we were given. I have no idea what ACT would have done in 1998, but again, apples (targeted air strikes) and oranges (full scale invasion). Here’s the clear version: if you want to invade a country, you better have rock-freakin-solid reason. We didn’t, and that’s why Bush #1 and Clinton both didn’t make the mistake Bush #2 did. And when I praise Bush #1, you KNOW something’s wrong:)
As for the millions, I was just using the confirmed number of people who actively demonstrated against the war. I’m sure it was more, but honestly, I don’t care if a farmer in central China or a businessman in South Africa thought there were WMDs. They weren’t involved.
I find this “Bush is strong” type logic sorta ridiculous. What we also know (beyond the fact that Bush is resolute) is that he’ll rely on weak intelligence (many CIA analysts before the war voiced serious reservations, btw), will manipulate language and focus on Iraq instead of more serious threats. When Bush gets around to talking to North Korea and Iran, they’ll also know that our military is overextended, that North Korea now has nukes, that our country is amazingly divided, and that Bush doesn’t seem to understand the concept of compromise and diplomacy. No wonder neither of those countries are running to work with us.
Finally, it might be John Kerry’s understanding of complexity and the real face of terror (I’ll give you a hint: he looked really rested in a recent video) that will actually protect us from the next attack. This idea that Bush has succeed because we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 is the most porous logic ever. Until you can show me that he’s stopped attempted attacks, his record is no better than Clinton’s (one attack a piece from foreign terror).
Damn, I was gonna keep this short, but there was so many things to say…
November 1st, 2004 at 11:04 pm
If you really want to know the truth about John Kerry check out this link:
http://www.stolenhonor.com/home.asp
November 2nd, 2004 at 1:46 am
and anonymity strikes again. Wow. You mean the documentary Sinclair was going to broadcast until it was threatened with numerous lawsuits? The one that caused it to fire its washington bureau chief because he admitted the documentary was biased to the Baltimore Sun and inappropriate to show on television? The one that made its stock price plummet more than 15% in three days? the one that makes Fahrenheit 9/11 look fair and balanced? That one? You sure?
That “documentary” is your proof. Reaching for straws is really unbecoming.
Let’s just go to John McCain to end this nonsense. In his words “I believe Senator Kerry served honorably”. Or perhaps more depth: “As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam”
Let’s just point to a good non-partisan site, perhaps on Dick Cheney himself pointed out…factcheck.ORG:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=231.html OR, for less non-partisan, but still telling:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_10/004927.php
Or, about the stolen honor fiasco
here’s the partisan but still truthful: http://mediamatters.org/items/200409100003 MMM…Regnecy and Reverend Moon. Sounds like a good source of unbiased, reliable info to me!
And while I’m pointing out stuff, here’s David Kay (chief weapons inspector post invasion) on al qaqaa: “Well, at least with regard to this one bunker and the film shows one seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through and there were others there that were sealed, with this one, I think it is game, set and match.” Hmm…
Time to sleep before getting my vote on!
November 2nd, 2004 at 9:47 am
Another site worth a look:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1023-23.htm
November 3rd, 2004 at 8:10 am
Congratulations to all who enabled the President to be re-elected for a second and even better term.
November 3rd, 2004 at 1:07 pm
I only wish I thought it couldn’t get any worse.