McCain: Hanoi Hilton Guards Taunted POWs With Kerry's Testimony

http://<b>http://www.newsmax.com/arc...4410.shtml</b>

Quote:

---

These days, former Vietnam War POW Sen. John McCain has nothing but praise for his fellow Vietnam veteran Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' current presidential front-runner.

But after he was released from the Hanoi Hilton in 1973, McCain publicly complained that testimony by Kerry and others before J. William Fulbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee was "the most effective propaganda [my North Vietnamese captors] had to use against us."

"They used Senator Fulbright a great deal," McCain wrote in the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S. News & World Report. While he was languishing in a North Vietnamese prison cell, Kerry was telling the Fulbright committee that U.S. soldiers were committing war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, a key Kerry presidential backer, was "quoted again and again" by jailers at the Hanoi Hilton, McCain said.

"Clark Clifford was another [North Vietnamese] favorite," the ex-POW told U.S. News, "right after he had been Secretary of Defense under President Johnson."

"When Ramsey Clark came over [my jailers] thought that was a great coup for their cause," McCain recalled. Months earlier, Sen. Kerry had appeared with Clark at the April 1971 Washington, D.C., anti-war protest that showcased his testimony before the Fulbright Committee.

"All through this period," wrote McCain, his captors were "bombarding us with anti-war quotes from people in high places back in Washington. This was the most effective propaganda they had to use against us."

McCain biographer Paul Alexander chronicled the Arizona Republican's anger toward Kerry during their early careers in the Senate together.

"For many years McCain held Kerry's actions against him because, while McCain was a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, Kerry was organizing veterans back home in the U.S. to protest the war."

In his 2002 book, "Man of the People: The Life of John McCain," Alexander says that the two Vietnam vets finally reconciled in the early 1990s after having "a long - and at times emotional - conversation about Vietnam" during a mutual trip to Kuwait.

Later, Kerry sought to minimize the rift, telling Alexander: "Our differences occurred when we were kids, or at least close to being kids. It was a long time ago, and we both came back and realized that there were a lot of difficulties in the prosecution of that war."

NewsMax gratefully acknowledges the help of U.S. Veteran Dispatch editor Ted Sampley for supplying McCain's revealing 1973 account in U.S. News.

---

I don't see that one can use this against John Kerry any more than simply reiterating the fact that he was opposed to the war in Vietnam. It's not his fault that the Viet Cong used his words out of context to propagandize their prisoners. He wasn't directing his statements at the POWs like Jane Fonda did. (What she did was completely incredible in its stupidity and self-delusion, and it is even more incredible that she never got in trouble for it.)

While doing something like this is horrendously evil, because it is one thing to say that the administration or congress is committing crimes... but to claim that your ACTIVE soldiers in an ACTIVE war zone are committing war crimes opens them to a world of backlash, withdrawing public support for people that so dearly need it.

On the other hand Kerry's war background may be moot... We have his entire voting record to point at and laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frobozz
While doing something like this is horrendously evil, because it is one thing to say that the administration or congress is committing crimes... but to claim that your ACTIVE soldiers in an ACTIVE war zone are committing war crimes opens them to a world of backlash, withdrawing public support for people that so dearly need it.

---

Well, that was almost a complete sentence.

Anyone with any common sense, however, would probably point out that as a soldier serving in Vietnam, Kerry was particularly positioned to comment on whether or not troops were engaging in atrocities. Furthermore, one could argue that as a citizen of the world's greatest democracy that perhaps it's not so strange that after his return home Kerry felt that he had at least some moral obligation to comment on these atrocities.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frobozz
While doing something like this is horrendously evil, because it is one thing to say that the administration or congress is committing crimes... but to claim that your ACTIVE soldiers in an ACTIVE war zone are committing war crimes opens them to a world of backlash, withdrawing public support for people that so dearly need it.

---

I would say that it would be a greater evil to witness what you consider to be atrocities during your time of duty and then when you return to the states, to fail to speak out against them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jabriol
I would say that it would be a greater evil to witness what you consider to be atrocities during your time of duty and then when you return to the states, to fail to speak out against them.

---

It is one thing to speak out against the administration ordering such acts, then to speak out against the soldiers following orders.

This is all such a non-issue to me.

When confronted with the problem of why he never reported any such atrocities, Kerry has admitted that he never saw them himself. I've talked to a few people, most notably one of my calculus profs, who were against the war at the time but that, looking back, see how abandoning it was the wrong course, and reactionary. I think looking at Kerry's development from then to now, it is apparent that he still harbors a great deal of that reactionary mindset. He goes to opposite poles with equal zeal. I don't see that as being politically expedient. If all it was about was pandering to his constituents, I would be more forgiving. Unlike what I hear a lot of in the press, I do not judge politicians badly for being politicians. That's their job. But, I see it as being someone who lacks a certain amount of perspective. That is a fundamental problem, and to me it doesn't appear that he has outgrown it. It's not that he had this or that view 30 years ago. It's looking at his views NOW that people should be focusing on. You don't need to go back 30 years and open up Viet Nam ad nauseum to figure that out about him.

I am no huge fan of McCain either. Like Kerry, he is a war hero who takes politics somewhat too personally. How in the world are you supposed to get the "special interests" out of politics? The special interests are why you have politics in the first place. It's really all rather absurd. If someone doesn't have some intrinsic political interest, they stay home and they don't worry much about it all, don't they? The question is, whose special interests benefit the most by changing the system in this or that way? I hear almost no debate about that anywhere. So to me, it ends up being just another wedge issue.

I think the makeup of the electorate is becoming more and more clear as different splinter groups try their hands at becoming third parties. You get a clearer view of who was depending on whom as part of their constituency as these various parties form and try their own hand. The left was underhappy with the direction of the Democratic party, and have been trying to jerk power back, but much like Buchanan from the right, when they field people as candidates it becomes clear that theirs is not the cause that middle America identifies with. Hopefully, this will make it harder and harder to toss some red herring out there to get people off on a tangent about. This years wedge issue is shaping up to be gay marriage. I am sick to death of these sorts of micro-interests taking center stage in national debates.

The major issues are defense and economics. There will be little "Compassionate Conservative" rhetoric this year I imagine. Whatever else you may believe about the deficit, it seems clear that Bush meant to stage a conflict between security interests and domestic interests, and it is no big mystery which of the two he will be leaning on to be cut back when push comes to shove. I don't blame Bush for the economy. That was largely a function of the attack on our nation I think. But to turn around and gut the federal coffers to deal with it and set up a situation where cut backs will need to be made is politically cynical. He was not honest about his compassion. He is a typical "get off your ass and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" conservative, made all the more offensive because he himself is such a typical little spoiled rich kid. If the Dems would focus on this while reassuring the American people that they aren't going to sell us out the minute the Almighty U.N. squawks and ruffles its furious little feathers, they would win hands down.

Still in all, I prefer a spoiled little rich kid who surrounds himself with people who know how to prosecute a war to someone who harbors too much latent guilt to defend this country's interests abroad. I mean seriously... Damn Nixon and Johnson to hell for trying to support our allies and keep valuable resources from being sucked into the vacuum of the communist block, as if there has ever been any doubt which of the two governments was more humane.

Anyway, obviously I have -way- too much time on my hands as this is like the 3rd book-length post I have made in 2 days. :eek

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jabriol
I don't see that one can use this against John Kerry any more than simply reiterating the fact that he was opposed to the war in Vietnam. It's not his fault that the Viet Cong used his words out of context to propagandize their prisoners.

---

The reason it is a problem is because he MADE UP what he said. He never witnessed any of the things he claimed he "knew" soldiers were doing.

If he had witnessed soldiers committing atrocities than I would consider him a hero for being the whistleblower.

Instead, he was slandering them without basis and then his words were in turn used as a tool of POW torture.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eorick

Anyone with any common sense, however, would probably point out that as a soldier serving in Vietnam, Kerry was particularly positioned to comment on whether or not troops were engaging in atrocities. Furthermore, one could argue that as a citizen of the world's greatest democracy that perhaps it's not so strange that after his return home Kerry felt that he had at least some moral obligation to comment on these atrocities.

---

If he had SEEN some, then yes.

He hadn't seen ANY. He just invented his comments for political and personal expediency. What a great way to "move on up" in the Anti-War Political Ranks than to invent particularly titilating details.

Kerry admits that he never witnessed ANY of the things he said were widespread. That is what makes his comments so despicable.

As I already noted, if he had actually witnessed such things, then I would have no problem with him blowing the whistle.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jabriol
I would say that it would be a greater evil to witness what you consider to be atrocities during your time of duty and then when you return to the states, to fail to speak out against them.

---

You'd be correct.

Unfortunately for Kerry, by his own admission he did not witness any.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frobozz
It is one thing to speak out against the administration ordering such acts, then to speak out against the soldiers following orders.

---

Well from what I've read, the problems that occurred were not always the adminstrations's policy but stemmed from a combination of pervasive racism and the severe fucked-upitude of the overall situation in vietnam.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
You'd be correct.

Unfortunately for Kerry, by his own admission he did not witness any.

---

Well, that's obviously a fucked-up thing to do. I respect the man for serving, and for speaking out, but that loses a good deal of that respect.

Still, if he's the democratic nominee I'd vote for him. If my vote mattered, that is. Which it doesn't since I live in New York which is pretty much a guaranteed win for whichever democrat runs.

I guess I'll vote for a third-party candidate. Who're the libertarians running?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jabriol
Well, that's obviously a fucked-up thing to do. I respect the man for serving, and for speaking out, but that loses a good deal of that respect.

---

It speaks well of you that you are open minded enough to evaluate the facts yourself.

Yes, it is outrageous that he would make such extreme accusations without witnessing even a SINGLE such action. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jabriol
I guess I'll vote for a third-party candidate. Who're the libertarians running?

---

I imagine Harry Browne again. Heh. Who knows.

It sounds like you are experiencing a common dilemma: how to pick from a couple of bad choices. That's how I feel as well. I am not happy with ANY of the candidates of either party. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
He just invented his comments for political and personal expediency. What a great way to "move on up" in the Anti-War Political Ranks than to invent particularly titilating details.

---

Actually, having looked into Kerry's speech to the Fulbright Committee, a couple of things leap out. Firstly, Kerry went before the committee as a spokesman for a group of veterans opposed to the Vietnam War, so that his statements were intended to reflect not only his own impressions and opinions of the war but those of the people he was speaking for:

Quote:

---

I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony....

---

Secondly, his claims are hardly inventions, or if they are they are not his inventions as he was passing on information supplied by other veterans:

Quote:

---

They told the stories 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 Genghis 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.

---

Given that there is now a tremendous amount of anecdotal and documented evidence from both American GIs and Vietnamese civilians that these sorts of acts did in fact occur, I think it would be fair to say that he was acting on pretty reliable information.

Quote:

---

As I already noted, if he had actually witnessed such things, then I would have no problem with him blowing the whistle.

---

I don't really understand what the big deal is. History has sided with Kerry's statement to the Fulbright committee. The Vietnam War was a fuck up through and through. Certain conservative websites seem to be making a lot out of these statements right now because they somehow conclude that such statements should make him ineligible to run as a war hero, instead of pointing out the more obvious reason he should drop the war hero routine, which is that it's getting pretty fucking tiresome listening to him answer every other question with a reference to his service in Vietnam (he's starting to remind me of Walter from The Big Lebowski).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eorick
History has sided with Kerry's statement to the Fulbright committee. The Vietnam War was a fuck up through and through. [/B]

---

No. No, it has not. And you have a -very- bad habit of speaking as some sort of authority on everything from religion to history to science. How many phd's do you have?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
No. No, it has not. And you have a -very- bad habit of speaking as some sort of authority on everything from religion to history to science. How many phd's do you have?

---

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on exactly what was accomplished in Vietnam? Tens of thousands of American soldiers and considerably more Vietnamese and Cambodians were killed. But what exactly did we accomplish? Was America made any safer? The war failed to contain communism in Southeast Asia (if such containment were ever even necessary). The war failed to address any impending threat to American security or sovereignty (as there wasn't any). The war failed to prevent the oil embargo and economic recession (because these were based on arguably more important American interests elsewhere in the world). The war failed to prevent the introduction of the Ford Pinto and the Chevy Vega and eventual rise of disco. What exactly did it accomplish? Maybe you should some day bother coming up with some explanations before you just start screaming, "You're wrong!"

Certainly.

The war in Viet Nam was prosecuted badly for several reasons, most noteably in that it was being fought as a small version of WW II. Our nation had yet to learn how to deal with the sort of political/guerrilla war, whereas that sort of war was precisely what had been going on in the far east for a long time.

We pulled out and the pretense was that it had been a bad war, but then Carter comes along and makes that into official policy, and before long our nation is mired in international helplessness.

Ronald Reagan took up precisely the same overall strategy that spawned Viet Nam, but he surrounded himself with people that were willing and able to make that policy work. I think it took the hostage crisis to open America's eyes to the fact that all the poor beset third world coutryies are not necessarily innocent victims of our greed. In any event, since that time we have gotten better and better at that sort of warfare, and actually, with nothing but a little half decade hiccup, our entire military history during the late 20th century is defined by many, many wars a lot like Viet Nam, most of which we carried off well.

To characterize Viet Nam as an unmitigated failure is to ignore all the military victories that were carried off even in that country. There is one main failure of Viet Nam, and that was moral relativism and a lack of political will. Most of our nation has learned that lesson from Viet Nam and moved on. It's time for liberals to do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
The war in Viet Nam was prosecuted badly for several reasons, most noteably in that it was being fought as a small version of WW II. Our nation had yet to learn how to deal with the sort of political/guerrilla war, whereas that sort of war was precisely what had been going on in the far east for a long time.

---

Interestingly enough, this is a pretty close paraphrase of one of the points Kerry made in his statement to the Fulbright committee. We tried to fight a war in a terrain we didn't understand, among a people we didn't understand, against an enemy far more skilled at guerilla warfare and the political uses of terror than we could have anticipated, and in a theater that, even if you accepted the necessity of containment, was not of so paramount importance as to be worth throwing away lives on. All the political will in the world probably couldn't have kept the American people from figuring out this was a bad deal for the Americans.

Quote:

---

[QB]Ronald Reagan took up precisely the same overall strategy that spawned Viet Nam, but he surrounded himself with people that were willing and able to make that policy work.[/QB]

---

No, Reagan employed a more thoroughly tested strategy (one that had been working at since the mid-50s and the coups in Iran and Guatemala). He and his people favored low-intensity conflict when it came to the use of force abroad, the idea being why send in American troops when third world troops with perhaps some CIA assistance can do the job just as well. This is why, for example, we never saw large invasions of Honduras or Nicaragua or Afghanistan. Even Grenada was, in terms of warfare, a very limited action that, in retrospect, could probably have been carried out by most of our larger cities' SWAT teams.

Quote:

---

In any event, since that time we have gotten better and better at that sort of warfare, and actually, with nothing but a little half decade hiccup, our entire military history during the late 20th century is defined by many, many wars a lot like Viet Nam, most of which we carried off well.

---

This has as much or more do with technological progress and the end of the Cold War and Cold War thinking than with lessons learned from Vietnam. The Army I served in during the mid-80s, Reagan's army, was no more prepared to fight a war in Vietnam (or Nicaragua or Honduras or Afghanistan) than it had been 15 years earlier. The US military as it has been redesigned under Bush I and Clinton is a whole different monster, capable of fighting in probably just about any zone of conflict imaginable.

Quote:

---

To characterize Viet Nam as an unmitigated failure is to ignore all the military victories that were carried off even in that country. There is one main failure of Viet Nam, and that was moral relativism and a lack of political will.

---

What does moral relativism have to do with it?

As for political will, would you rather our government had stuck with a war whose costs were rapidly outweighing any possible benefits? Unnecessary wars are all well and good, but either (as in the Spanish-American War) keep them brief or (as in the Mexican War) get some good, sparsely populated real estate out of it. Most Americans supported the Vietnam War prior to the Tet Offensive, only to lose their taste for it when the casualties started to mount. The biggest political hindrance to Vietnam was not a bunch of hippies dancing around Haight-Ashbury, but was working and middle class Americans becoming increasingly antsy about their neighbors' children coming home in body bags from a war that most Americans could see wasn't necessary to preserve their freedom or way of life. If there is a lesson there, it is to not get involved in wars that you can't get the American people to stand behind.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frobozz
On the other hand Kerry's war background may be moot... We have his entire voting record to point at and laugh.

---

I agree. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jabriol
I guess I'll vote for a third-party candidate. Who're the libertarians running?

---

You could always vote for Ralph Nader. He's announced that he'll be running as an independent. I hear most democrats are pissed at him for pulling some votes away from the democratic nominee. :) Oh well...such is politics.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
It sounds like you are experiencing a common dilemma: how to pick from a couple of bad choices. That's how I feel as well. I am not happy with ANY of the candidates of either party. :(

---

Well if my vote mattered I know who I'd vote for. I can't imagine any way that Kerry could be worse than 4 more years of Shrub. Note the damning with faint praise.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyrosama
I agree. :D



You could always vote for Ralph Nader. He's announced that he'll be running as an independent. I hear most democrats are pissed at him for pulling some votes away from the democratic nominee. :) Oh well...such is politics.

---

The problem with voting for an independent instead of a 3rd party candidate (as Ralph was in 2000 with the Greens -- and the Greens are a whole other issue I intend to pick apart one of these days) is that independents are purely vanity candidates. 3rd party candidates are at least promoting their party, making it known that there are other organizations out there. And if they manage to get 5% of the vote they'll get more funds next go-round which can be used to build grass-roots support and get candidates elected in local positions which is the real way to build support and eventually maybe offer a real alternative.

The two party system we're in is very detrimental, in my opinion. I suspect that a system with more parties where the leader needs to build a coalition would be better. However, lots of countries have that too and I don't know for certain that they do better than we do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jabriol
Well if my vote mattered I know who I'd vote for. I can't imagine any way that Kerry could be worse than 4 more years of Shrub. Note the damning with faint praise.

---

Well I can imagine a few ways.

1) Raising taxes

2) Being less aggressive in fighting terrorism.

Remember, Kerry is on record saying that terrorism is a "law enforcement action" and not a "war."

Honestly, there is nothing worse than raising taxes. Stealing from the people is unacceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jabriol

The two party system we're in is very detrimental, in my opinion. I suspect that a system with more parties where the leader needs to build a coalition would be better. However, lots of countries have that too and I don't know for certain that they do better than we do.

---

I agree.

The two party system also makes it a lot easier for groups like the pharmaceutical industry to buy 100% of the politicians.

If you had to buy 3, 4, or even 5 parties it would be a lot harder.

Our system HAS more than two parties, it's just that all of you seem convinced your extreme left of extreme right wing splinter groups somehow represent a broad set of disenfranchised voters. They do not. People want a moderate but effective government regulation of the economy, AND effective defense of our national interests abroad. Unfortunately, no one has made a new party that unites those two moderate goals, and the two major parties have split those two issues between themselves.

I doubt that a large third party will be necessary. Sooner or later the political liability of the extreme groups is going to force one or both of our major parties to abandon its "base" and make a mad dash for that rich and fertile middle ground that they always try to get back to after they are done whipping up their "base" in primary season.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
What moral relativism has to do with it is that it was never any real mystery which of the two dominant world governments during the cold war was more humane, but it took the lesson of the hostage crisis and seeing a gentle heart like Carter getting older by the day, completely unable to deal with the situation, to get Americans back in the mode to vote for someone who would take the ongoing strategy of resistance against the Soviet Union to the next level

---

The next level being the spending race, of course.

Your paragraph makes sense except for the first clause. "What moral relativism has to do with it is that..." What does moral relativism have to do with the rest of what you're saying here? If you start your sentence "It was never any real mystery" and continue from there what you're saying is fairly accurate. But it's a real mystery how it relates to moral relativism.

Some interesting light is being shed on John Kerry's organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW).

http://www.wintersoldier.com

and

John Kerry's Radical Past


One of the more interesting documents at wintersoldier.com is the minutes of a VVAW executive meeting where members decided to take down American flags from all VVAW offices.

The VVAW was more about anti-Americanism than being anti-Viet Nam War.

Quote:

---

On January 31, 1971, members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) met in a Detroit hotel to document war crimes that they had participated in or witnessed during their combat tours in Vietnam. During the next three days, more than 100 Vietnam veterans and 16 civilians gave anguished, emotional testimony describing hundreds of atrocities against innocent civilians in South Vietnam, including rape, arson, torture, murder, and the shelling or napalming of entire villages. The witnesses stated that these acts were being committed casually and routinely, under orders, as a matter of policy.

---

This is called the Winter Soldier Investigation. At this 3 day conference, "one of the most shocking quotes comes from Kerry himself, claiming that he had committed war crimes in Vietnam, then suggested he was merely following orders. "

A tale that does not get enough coverage in the media:

Quote:

---

It appears that Kerry was also something of an impostor. During a massive rally in front of the U.S. Capitol, a number of veterans threw their medals over a high-wire fence. One was Kerry. Or at least so it appeared.

The section “Busted by the historians” contains an excerpt from Stolen Valor by B. G. Burkett, Glenna Whitley. The key quote: “But years later, after his election to the Senate, Kerry’s medals turned up on the wall of his Capitol Hill office. When a reporter noticed them, Kerry admitted that the medals he had thrown that day were not his.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Well I can imagine a few ways.

1) Raising taxes

2) Being less aggressive in fighting terrorism.

Remember, Kerry is on record saying that terrorism is a "law enforcement action" and not a "war."

Honestly, there is nothing worse than raising taxes. Stealing from the people is unacceptable.

---

As opposed to running up a tremendous deficit that the people will have to pay down with interest? Or the government will have to repudiate? Which is worse?

Calling taxes 'stealing' is empty rhetoric unless you argue that the government has no right to collect taxes at all. If you concede that our elected representatives have the right to tax us, then you can only argue about what level of taxation is most effective. This doesn't mean that I don't agree with you that taxes are too high. But calling it stealing is erroneous, particularly if you only consider *raising* taxes to be stealing.

I don't think Kerry would be likely to raise taxes, especially considering he'll most likely still have to contend with a republican congress.

As for being less agressive in fighting terrorism, he may end up inheriting an untenable situation from Bush: a reorganized, decentralized Al-Qeada, combined with a morass in Iraq that requires continual presence of the best and brightest of western experts in the middle east, drawing them away from the *actual* war on terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jabriol
As opposed to running up a tremendous deficit that the people will have to pay down with interest? Or the government will have to repudiate? Which is worse?

---

What is worse? That is an easy one. Raising taxes.

Believe me, I hate, hate, hate the way Bush is over spending. It pisses me off. Fortunately, since I did not vote for him I don't share the blame. :)

But raising taxes is the absolute worst thing because Americans already pay way too much in taxes. Raising taxes is absolutely horrendous for the economy in addition to being exceptionally unfair.

We need to cut spending, not raise taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jabriol
I don't think Kerry would be likely to raise taxes

---

Follow the news much? He says he will *start* by repealling the tax cuts. That means taxes get raised.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jabriol
As for being less agressive in fighting terrorism, he may end up inheriting an untenable situation from Bush: a reorganized, decentralized Al-Qeada, combined with a morass in Iraq that requires continual presence of the best and brightest of western experts in the middle east, drawing them away from the *actual* war on terrorism.

---

There is nobody to blame for terrorism other than the terrorists themselves.

I'm sick of people blaming Clinton- even though new reports come out every few weeks about opportunities he ignored to capture critical Al Qeada terrorists (including Bin laden). Yes it was a bad decision on Clinton's part to slash the CIA, to cut back on the number of operatives, and to make the executive order that outlawed paying informants that MIGHT also be felons (good lord, how many traitorous informants AREN'T felons). But regardless of that bad decision, it is still the terrorists who are to blame.

I am sick of people blaming Bush (either one)- both of them worked hard to catch terrorists and shut down terrorist networks.

I do, however, blame both Bushes for being far too cozy with the Saudis who are a major component to the evil force of radical islam.

The people to blame here are the terrorists and the radical islamicists. Period.

The fact that Kerry considers terrorism a "law enforcement" issue rather than a "war" absolutely horrifies me.

The fact that he actually CARES what our non-allies in Europe think makes me sick.

As Charles De Gaulle said, there are no allies there are only interests. Europe (with the exception of Great Britain) doesn't give a damn about the US any more. We need to stop giving a rip what they think because they do not have our interests in mind.

Our allies in the next century will come from Great Britain, Australia, and Asia.

Mainland Europe no longer fears Russia/USSR and has gone back to their jealous hatred of the USA.

It was a nice run, but they simply don't care about us any more. So let 'em rot and stop caring what they think.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jabriol
The two party system we're in is very detrimental, in my opinion. I suspect that a system with more parties where the leader needs to build a coalition would be better. However, lots of countries have that too and I don't know for certain that they do better than we do.

---

The problem with coalition governments (which most European countries have) is that the parties in them often have to bargain away too many of their principles in order to be included, which means that they won't be able to do what they promised in the elections.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Solmyr
The problem with coalition governments (which most European countries have) is that the parties in them often have to bargain away too many of their principles in order to be included, which means that they won't be able to do what they promised in the elections.

---

The parties aren't able to do what they promise during elections in the two-party system we have here in the U.S. either, (even when one party controls all three branches of government and both Houses of Congress, as is the case now) so I don't agree that this a "problem with coalition governments" but is rather a problem associated with any government where decisions are made via a political process. That is to say, the only time a party could fulfil its campaign promises is if it put into office an honest dictator.

Well, whatever you do, just don't switch to a parliamentary election system. Nothing like having the parties control which candidates you may vote for. The US system is much better in that respect.

Oh, and to get back to the original topic, here's an article on Kerry's statements and just where they originated:

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0402260828.asp

Wow.

I am starting to think that Kerry made a severe tactical error in making such a big issue of his military service.

This is a scathing attack on his actions from a Green Beret who served in Viet Nam.

Quote:

---

I was a green beret officer who volunteered for duty in Vietnam and fought in the thick of it in 1968 and 1969 on a Special Forces A-team on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, just for starters. We were the elite. We saw the most action. Everybody in the world knows that. But we did not just kill people; we built a church, a school, treated illnesses, passed out soap, food and clothing, and had fun and loving interaction with the indigenous people of Vietnam, just like our boys did in Normandy, Baghdad, Saigon and everywhere American soldiers ever served. We all gave away our candy bars and rations to kids, our hearts to oppressed people all over the globe.

My children and grandchildren could read your words and think those horrendous things about me, Mr. Kerry. You are a bald-faced, unprincipled liar and a disgrace, and you have dishonored me and all my fellow Vietnam veterans. Sure, there were a couple bad-apples, but I saw none, and I saw it all, and if I did, as an army officer, it was my obligation to stop it, or at the very least report it. Why is there not a single record anywhere of you ever reporting any incidents like this or having the perpetrators arrested? The answer is simple. You are a liar. Your medals and mine are not a free pass for lifetime, Sen. Kerry, to bypass character, integrity and morality. I earn my green beret over and over daily in all aspects of my life.

---

And regarding more recent actions taken by Kerry:

Quote:

---

ohn Kerry, you personally derailed the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, H.R.2883, in 2001, after it had passed the House by a 411 to 1 vote, and thousands of pro-American Montagnard tribespeople in Vietnam died since then who could have been saved, by you. Earlier, as chair of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs, you personally quashed the efforts of any and all veterans to report sightings of living POWs, when you held those reins in Congress. You have fought tooth and nail to push for the U.S. to normalize relations with Vietnam for years. Why, Mr. Kerry? Simple, your first cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi, worth BILLIONS of dollars for Collier's International to become the exclusive real estate representative for the country of Vietnam.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Solmyr
Well, whatever you do, just don't switch to a parliamentary election system. Nothing like having the parties control which candidates you may vote for. The US system is much better in that respect.

---

*laughs and slaps his knee*

Good one, good one.

Err... you *were* joking, right?

Eorick,

Every single thing I have ever read, heard or seen until this post of yours acknowledges the primary role that American demoralization played in our withdrawal from that war. If you can't at least acknowledge that common knowledge aspect of this in the midst of your dizzying deconstructions and line by line responses that address almost nothing of the overall thrust of my posts, then what is the use? Nixon's decision had NOTHING to do with political pressure at home? What? Most Americans didn't really regard the attrocities supposedly being done by our side, or the rhetoric that it was an unjust war, effect their thinking on the matter? What?

You tell -me-, since you seem to know, why this nation could not wrest control of South Viet Nam from a rag-tag group of guerillas. And why did Carter fail? And why did Reagan succeed? And do you honestly believe there has ever BEEN a truly democratic election of an educated populace that would lead a country to align itself with the old Soviet Block or Communist China?

The huge "moral relativism" tanget has been removed.

Please note the title of this thread.

Massive tangets need to go in their own thread.

I have received a number of PMs from folks who are actually interested in some of the topics in this forum. They become discouraged from participating when they see 2+ pages of a tangent instead of any discussion of the actual topic.