Another Vietnam Vet on Kerry
Wed October 6th, 2004 17:42 MSTOn September 12, the Vietnam Vets for the Truth held an anti-Kerry rally at the Capitol in Washington, D.C.
One inspiring speakers earned his purple heart the hard way. Read Dexter Lehtinen’s story.
Meanwhile, Vietnam Vets for the Truth continues. We are sponsoring Operation Street Corner throughout the nation, and are putting up anti-Kerry billboard messages where appropriate. Contributions to VVR of any size are appreciated at our web site.
I have some questions for you.
I have a friend who believes that Kerry’s behavior in front of the senate was appalling, so I am trying to understand this line of thinking better. I don’t agree with it yet, so I’d like to hear a different point of view than my own. I found your blog in my web research. Here is my line of thinking, and I’d like you to help me understand yours.
In the past thirty years since the war, with the benefit of the 20/20 vision of hindsight and history, almost everyone from all political persuasions believe that the Vietnam initiative was un-winnable, partly because it was a guerrilla civil war. It is believed that although our heroes who fought over there deserve our deepest respect, the initiative itself did not and could not make the world safer for democracy. And it is believed that the “domino theory” that made so much sense in the sixties and early seventies did not hold true as we thought it would. Although our government was working with the best insight and knowledge it had at the time, these are the facts that we see from this perspective. Even those in government at the time who were strongly in favor of the war at the time, have later stated this.
Here is my first question for you - do you disagree with this? If so, tell me your research and data sources so I can research it myself. I would really like some hard facts if you do disagree, not emotional statements.
My second question has to do with what Kerry said about some of the behavior that occurred over there. My best understanding is this has been common knowledge for the past couple of decades or so. I am sure not all of our brave vets were situated in such a way that they did or saw these events, but there have been hundreds of sources discuss this very thing. To the best of my understanding, it has been common knowledge for quite a long time. The Vietnam vets I personally know have talked about similar things. And this has been discussed from a variety of different sources, from people of different political persuasions - conservative, moderates, liberals, uncommitted. We also know in part why it happened, in terms of the unique horrific stress that our brave vets endured over there, the nature of guerrilla tactics in a civil war, and such. So there is no surprise for most people when they read Kerry’s words from that period of time, because so many others have said exactly the same thing.
My second question is - do you believe these various sources who have said the same thing as Kerry are incorrect, and what are your hard facts and data sources for that?
My third question is this. I certainly understand how upsetting it would be for vets to come back and hear Kerry saying what he said, at that time. Whether it was right or wrong, it would be have been very disturbing and upsetting.
However, if he was saying what history seems to have borne out as true, and if he was saying what so many others have stated, and if he did not name names or personally betray any soldier, and was seeking to bring the war to a quicker end for reasons that history again has shown to be true, why is he so bad for stating what conservatives/liberals/every other political animal now agrees are the facts?
I believe in the power of honest dialog and exchange of ideas, and I’d very much like a factual and logical explanation of your viewpoint. I obviously know it differs greatly from my line of thinking, which is why I am hoping to profit from your reasonable analysis of your position. I am hoping that you don’t berate my questions, as I know emotions run hot on the subject, but hope you give me some good reasons to understand this viewpoint.
Thanks in advance!
Questions:
It seems to me that you’ve already answered your questions in the various propositions you’ve have already made about the war. Paragraph One of full of them. Your conclusions about Kerry are also similarly tainted.
Rather than ask us for facts…and someone here might provide them…you need to understand that context is everything. You can’t predict the symptoms of a disease by looking at a slide of the pathogen.
Vietnam occurred in the context of the Cold War, and it was a piece of the policy of Containment posited by George F. Kennan in Foreign Affairs mag. His pen name was “X”, and I suggest you read and understand it.
Second, it’s impossible today to overestimate the genuine threat of communist expansionism in the post war years. I can hear the Left groaning now, but it is nevertheless true.
Without at least a working knowledge of the international scene at the time, I don’t see how anyone can answer you.
Rhod,
Thanks so much for answering me.
Although it is quite possible I don’t have as good a grasp of the international scene at the time as you and others here might, I do have some grasp. I was a teenage girl in the late sixties and early seventies during the latter part of the war with a strong interest in both current events and history, and have done a lot of reading over the years on American history and American politics.
I do agree that context is important. And I certainly agree that all of us bring assumptions and presuppositions to the table - some of them more right than others.
And I do understand that the Vietnam conflict occurred during a time when we were gripped by the domino theory, and operated from the policy of containment.
However, although I’ve stated my views within my questions, so it is clear what my thinking is, my hope is to understand this line of thinking better. So I don’t want to “answer my own questions”. I don’t agree with the viewpoints stated here yet, but part of that is that I don’t fully understand the thought process here yet.
And as mentioned, I have an email friend who also adheres to these suppositions. (She isn’t answering my question on it either; I believe she thinks if it isn’t obvious then it isn’t worth explaining to me).
My hope is that if someone(s) could address my questions, then at least I would have clearer way to think about these viewpoints.
Thanks in advance for any other input you have to offer. (Do you think I might get more response if I posted these questions elsewhere on this board or on another board? I’d like to here from people who are very familiar with this material).
Questions:
We can take a couple points for starters:
The Domino Theory. It’s difficult to prove a negative; to the extent that this theory has been discredited, it’s been discredited by those who have other reasons for doing it, notably The Left.
They start with the assumption that the VN War was lost, and follow with the “fact” that most of SE Asia didn’t fall to communism. Hence, the DT is discredited. This is bit like saying that if I recognize that flu is caused by a contact virus and I protect myself against it, there’s no such thing as a contact virus because I didn’t get the flu.
Nixon correctly observed that the Domino Theory works where people or countries think of themselves as dominoes. They institute policies to protect themselves, which is essentially what NATO was, and was successful in preventing Western Europe from being dominoized. Other countries in SE Asia did essentially the same thing on their own.
Also, the war exhaused the enemy on the VN Peninsula, and they were less able to do extend their reach except into Cambodia and Laos, where they ALREADY had a presence. The Cambodia situation, BTW, proves at least one feature of the Domino Theory, which has been converted by The Left into a condemnation of the US (we caused The Killing Fields).
The Viet Minh had a presence in Cambodia and Laos LONG before our Cambodian incursion. Cambodia was a real mess by 1970, with the Viet Minh and Khmer Rouge working together, moving inland from the border in spite of the fact that they had disagreements. A civil war was underway, the reasons for which go back to the 1950s and Sukharno. We installed Lon Nol, who happened to be friendly to the US (a fatal flaw to The Left), and began in April of that year a bombing campaign to take out the Khmers and the Minh.
We failed and emboldened the Khmer Rouge, but we DID NOT create the Khmer Rouge. What strength they had came from their association with the North Vietnamese, and the rest is history. Even the Vietnamese eventually were repulsed by them and took out what was left of them by the end of the 70’s.
I will always believe that it was necessary to go toe to toe with our enemies in those years, and that measures of victory or defeat are almost impossible to determine and are usually qualities defined and used for political purposes.
We quit the field there because we had nothing more to gain and too much to lose. This is not necessarily an exhibition of weakness, and I’m convinced that our enemies around the world knew it, too. More at another time.
Addendum:
The Left is unabasashed in its compulsion to blame the US for the chaos and disorder that resulted in the Khmer Rouge and the horrific things that followed.
The narrowness and downright disgusting impulse to do this ignores the facts of Cambodian history, the Cold War and Sukharno’s pathological stupidity. He was a monarch with Marxian ideas, he flirted and emboldened every single radical group in the country, right to left. He was a genuine nutcase and spent more time in Beijing than in his own country.
He was responsible for the disease there. To suggest that our response to destroy supply lines to combatants killing Americans was the end of history for Cambodia, is malignant nonsense. If we alienated the Cambodia population in doing so, how much more alienated could they already have been? Lefties have a fetish for the things they call popular movements, which is an extension of the diseased ideas of radical egalitarinaism. They had no problem with the Khmer Rouge until they started paving streets with skulls.
Sorry. Not Sukharno, Norodom Sihanouk. Not paying attention.
Rhod,
The election must be getting to you. A sober and reasonable response without the entertainment of the world-class vitriol that usually accompanies any questioning of the neo-con orthodoxy. But really, ‘ you must answer your own questions!”. that’s a bit zen is it not? You should have addressed her as ” grasshopper” with a comment like that. Answer the main point, man- So many people commented on the mistakes in Vietnam- why is Kerry held up for unique vitriol? It always looks like your a republican diehard first and foremost. therefore, Clinton must have killed and Kerry must be a traitor.
It’s a terrible burden to have all these lefties and liberals going for you Rhod but I’m afraid the rest are a lost cause. you’ve still got enough cynicism to see the weaknesses/ stupidity/venality on your own side. i’m not claiming equality but I also am prepared to denounce the stupidities of the left. In the spirit of reaching out, i will share one memory which will confirm your prejudices.
In the mid 1970’s , I remember hearing a tannoy announcement from the vice-president of my students’ union rejoicing in the triumph of the new Cambodian government over the reactionary U.S. forces. He was, of course, referring to the Khmer Rouge.
Tony:
Please, Tony, this is just too good. I think you’re fixated on me; have never really gotten over our previous encounters. So much of what you’ve said in your last post has boiled up in your own over-heated imagination and has nothing to do with what I’ve said here.
I haven’t the time to answer you right now, not that it would matter to you anyway. “Vitriol” is a good word if you don’t overuse it, BTW. Believe me, having lefties and liberals “going” for me and attacking my “weaknesses/stupidity/venality” doesn’t keep me awake nights. Venality? Tony, I get no financial reward from doing this. Weak and stupid I might be in some areas (not anything YOU would ever admit), but liberals and lefties cause an occasional distortion in the view, but that’s about all.
P.S. to Tony:
You need to focus and to stop sprinkling your posts with sly references to right-wing cruelties and injustice. Did I say Clinton killed someone? No. Did Kerry commit treason? Probably according to the terms of the 14th Amendment and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Organized societies have rules, Tony, and we can argue about dishonor and illegality, but one or both of them applies to Kerry.
You are still too cute by half. That I suggested, to “Questions”, that self-study in this matter is valuable is not a Zen configuration nor an expression of arrogance on my part. You are in a permanent snit, Tony. You might recall from your college years, which obviously still provide the only real vivid experience you’ve had, that self-study often results in a waiver or audit of a course. Learning, in other words. Take the advice yourself.
“Answer the main point, man”. I’ve communicated with “Questions” by EMail prefatory to continuing this subject here. But, I’m too busy destroying the flimsy siege machines of Lefties on other blogs. You’re right. It is a burden. So much stupidity and so little time. You remind me a little of a voyeur whose target has decided to keep the panty hose on a little too long.
I’m having trouble deciphering your post, too. Your perambulatory and diffuse ideation is too undisciplined to make any sense. I think, that what you mean by your ability to “denounce the stupidities of the left” is that you can denounce someone who praised the Khmer Rouge.
Just on the face of it I’d say that doesn’t take a lot of courage. If a pile of a million skulls is what it takes to convince a lefty that another lefty is off the beam, then I’ll put my trust elsewhere. Your objectivity in this case is a little strained.
Questions:
I’m having a very difficult time answering your questions about Kerry.
Kerry’s testimony in 1971 was based on false testimony by many of the men who claimed to have committed war crimes in Vietnam. I think this is marginally useful in understanding the Kerry Phenomena, and how it affected the country and Vietnam veterans specifically.
I was home from Vietnam for three four before Kerry came along. I disliked him for reasons other than his testimony, which was pretty standard stuff for the anti-war Left. To me Kerry was exploiting his questionable status as a war “hero”, and his testimony was only a piece of his anti-war activities and association with radical groups in this country. The difficulty in the vast assortment of arguments against John Kerry is that each of us APPEARS to emphasize only a part of the total man.
My complaint with Kerry is that he claimed, not uncertainly, that it was the POLICY of the United States to fight in the way he described. Having himself admitted to activities he described as criminal, he later said that he was not referring to the people he served with in the Swiftboats, but all the others (me and the rest), which means that Kerry was the ONLY man in his unit to have done these things, and the rest of us provide him with the cover for doing it.
This is the most despicable and loathesome quality in this man. When faced with accusations by men he knows (the Swiftvets), he subtracts them from his charges, but still includes the 2.5 million of us HE DOESN’T KNOW in the long and anonymous list of war criminals in Vietnam. If I were to confront him with this, he would probably exclude me, too. Does he believe it nor not? No, he doesn’t. Not for a minute. The man’s a liar, and in this case, lying made a huge difference. To the POW’s and the men still in Vietnam.
In my fourteen months there, early in the war when it was still a counter-insurgency, there were multiple opportunities and emotional urges for the type of bestial behavior Kerry accused us of committing. Never once did I witness it on our side, but I witnesses some of the cruelest, most disgusting and gratuitously sadistic acts imaginable committed by the Viet Cong. Committed against civilians, Catholics particularly, and our captured soldiers.
Kerry saved us NOTHING, and his “principled protest” could have been made in a number of other places. But it wasn’t about the war, it was about Kerry and his political future.
Every vet, I believe, has some questions about the war, how it was fought, what we did, what we failed to to. But about seven out of ten of us would do it again, even KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW.
I was born just below the launchpad for the Baby Boom; I was raised in the shadows of WW II.
For some reason, maybe the ambient quality of the Cold War, I came of age with a fear and loathing of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism of all kinds. Of political, economic, intellectual, moral or educational authoritarianism everywhere.
Here or abroad.
Institutionalized totalitarianism of all kinds made the 20th century a slaughterhouse, and threatens to do it with this one. I saw it in action, and my comrades here did too. All of us. Kerry claimed essentially that we Americans were the totalitarians, the murderers, the torturers, the imperialists, both by his Senate testimony and by his anti-war activities. I will never forgive him for that.
This is just my opinion. If you need more, it’s certainly out there to find.
Rhod,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful answers to my questions. I was hoping to get an informed viewpoint, with some substance, and I have learned from your answers. I appreciate it!
Thanks!
Rhod,
Of course I am prepared to admit you are weak and stupid.
You see! Ambiguity and undisciplined writing can confuse. At the risk of lecturing a right winger on personal responsibility, I would say you haven’t had to try too hard to make sense of my witterings. Where your prose edges a bit close to the teeth-breaking eg. ” diffuse ideation”, I just get on and make the best of it. We could use Oscar’s quote to explain away trans-atlantic misunderstandings but I prefer just using context to get by on the gist of what is being said.
As for voyeurism, maybe I am mistaken here. Is the blog supposed to be the sole preserve of the confirmed believer? Do you think I should be getting my kicks on Michael Moore’s site. No, you’re safe enough there, lad. Rest assured there’s nothing sexual in it and you are not being stalked. I explained the reasons why I addressed you rather than the blinkered hacks who preponderate here. Your explanation to Questions on Kerry’s “betrayal” was considered, although, I think, a little fixated in its own way. Why was Kerry’s portrayal of U.S. injustices in Vietnam so reprehensible to you? Did atrocities occur?- of course, they did. Are all portrayals of such an affront? Then, where is the vitriol against Michael Herr, Cimino, Stone, Kubrick, Coppolla etc:? But, they’re not running for office now, are they? But you would elect Reagan, Arnie and Clint.
Atrocities happened in the war. The U.S. was not immune from them nor were they uniquely wicked. Should you have only spoken in private for fear of offending? Of course not. Peace and reconciliation will only come from honest dialogue.
It comes across as a cheap shot to state that since the young Kerry said it was policy, that means he has personally blamed every participant as a war criminal. You should be tough enough not to twist and take offence so easily. It sounds like you want to be offended in order to make your line of argument easier. Read it again- ” Kerry claimed “essentially” that the Americans were the totalitarians.” that’s entirely your construction and not anything to which Kerry would be prepared to put his name. You can do better than that. Try and condemn the man with his own words not your version of them.
Finally, as I have said before, you do not need to worry about the current neo-con orthodoxy being overturned by a Kerry win- if he does win. Clinton tried, at least, to create a climate for discussion of taxes, healthcare etc; but he was hamstrung by the one-eyed sexual puritanism of the sham religious. After his defeat, away from the ballot box naturally, Kerry is not going near those issues. Bush v Kerry is just two millionaires bought and paid for by different big business interests and nothing much will change.
Get over it!
Tony:
Thank you for your advice. That, and your presence here as the prototypical authoritarian personality of the Left is useful for the “hacks” who “preponderate” on this blog. Apart from Dispatches Michael Herr, your reliance on the celebrity of pop culture to adapt a political philosophy for yourself is pitfiful. Your generation is certainly visual, but you seem to be something even less than that. A gruesome solipsist with “thoughts” so pathetically derivative that one might wonder if you have an objective identity at all.
Sometime before middle age, Tony, try to cleanse yourself of your poison and work on an original idea. Your strategy, if it rises to that level, is a form of vandalism. You complain and complain about the thoughts and opinions of others and build upon them a wretched little citadel of your own. You’re a cuckoo, a parasite.
You project yourself onto other people’s screens. There’s no paying audience, “lad” (save the Britishisms old boy). If this blog distresses you so, stay the fuck off it. You’ve made the worst and most vile accusations here of any poster over the past year. I thought long ago that you might have a good heart and were affected by your native culture and the sustained burdens of trying to live a good life. You aren’t.
You hate life and everything that passes your way. Your first visits here were litanies of lefties complaints: Kissinger, Nixon, McCarthy, the wealthy, you were “stomping the earth on Reagan’s grave, on and on. When you left the first time you implied that the vets here were homosexual sadomasochists.
You accused me of cowardice and hatred and when you’re challenged on it, you revert to your whinging martyrdom about being attacked for visiting the blog. I don’t discuss much with you because you lack the level ground to even BEGIN a discussion of where we differ. You’re empty of good will, empty of decency and confined in the tiny emotional dungeon that you deserve. Not ONCE have I seen in with a shred of softness, of forgiveness, of self-doubt, of understanding or compliance to the possibilities that you might be wrong. I have strong opinions, you have campaigns.
The most revolting feature of all this is that you soak yourself in concern for the proletariat. You’re the LAST PERSON who should be consulted on any matter that has to do with mankind.
I also do not take as accidental that your measure of courage in denouncing your side was that praise for Pol Pot was, how did you put it, a “stupidity”. You were truly unaware that this remark was just a bit mad. Far from being unusual, this is typical of your thinking. This is the fishbowl you swim in. You don’t listen to yourself, which is something I asked you to do months ago. Listen to yourself!
Your remark about the Khmer Rough is the same as saying that Hitler “went too far”. At what point along the trail did Hitler go too far? At what point along the grave-strewn history of authoritarianism, does complicity fall simply to the level a “stupidity”. I don’t think you know.
Goodbye for the last time, Tony. Say whatever you want and just go away.
Damn. With your indulgence, Tony, one more point.
It’s your habit to crudely avoid context in replying to my posts. Your comments on stalking are in this category.
Your stuffy Drone’s Club locution to “Answer the main point, Man”, indicated impatience with my delay in answering “Questions”. Maybe your working class Bertie Woosterisms mean something else, but to me you seemed to be sitting near your terminal awaiting an answer you could reinvent or denounce at will. Hence, the joke about voyeurism.
I would remind you too, old son, that long ago you attacked me and Robert for using these British tags in our posts, but you have reverted to type once again.
Rhod:
Why do you keep feeding this troll? I remember his posts from last Spring. He’s abusive, he’s dishonest and he will make an asshole of himself to be noticed. You take him too seriously. He’s a lonely clown with no life. Anyone who thinks his college experience of the mid 1970’s is still relevant hasn’t changed since the mid 1970’s. Ignore him.
Tony - I’m about to feed the troll myself. Just going thorough the archives here. Tony at one time said he paid no attention to the political posturing of Hollywood stars. He must have meant actors. Tony’s idea of the VN war comes from “The Deer Hunter”, “Apocalypse Now”, “Full Metal Jacket” and “Platoon”. Maybe his ideas about Kansas come from “The Wizard of Oz”, too.
Let’s see. Rhod endorsed the abuse at Abu Ghraib. That’s charming, but I can’t find anything Rhod said about Abu Ghraib. Churchill was a “right wing hero”, too. Tony’s an Irishman, he doesn’t speak German and Churchill is reduced to a “right wing hero”. There’s gratitude for you. This is good. We’re bottom spankers here. Thanks, Tony.
Tony never answers direction questions either. Let’s see, Rhod’s a hater, a coward who refuses to face his enemies. Rhod is stupid, weak and venal. He’s full of “world class vitriol”, he’s arrogant and said that Clinton killed people. Only problem, Tony, is the YOU said that, not Rhod. I could go on, but why bother.
I have some advice for Tony. Try another blog. Go to WWW.Rogerlsimon.com. Traffic is slow on Useful Fools lately. You’ll find a lot of liberals on Simon’s blog and you can also argue there with the crypto-fascist Rhod.
Ganny:
Thanks for the defense. But did you have to point out that I’m a crypto-fascist? All those security clearances I had to get and you spill it.
My business card says “Stupid, Weak and Venal since 1945″, right under “Neo-Con Inc” but I keep the crypto-fascist thing under wraps.
Rhod,
Too bad!! You’re “gonna havta” face it, man–your cover has been blown and now the whole world knows you are a “closet crypto-fascist”. The only thing you can do now is get a new security clearance and get back under wraps. “I have the yo-yo” (Rowan) “I have the string” (Martin)
Questions,
I’m glad Rhod was able to help you with his personal insights. He and other vets here are trying to get the truth about Vietnam and Senator Kerry out to the American people. I was never in Vietnam myself, but my first husband was over there with the USAF (Sept 1964-Oct 65) and what he told me was much the same as Rhod has stated here–he never saw nor heard of any atrocities committed by American troops while he was there, in fact, they did a lot of good, being of help and aiding the villagers in many ways. There were, however, many horrible things done to the Vietnamese and Montangnards by the Viet Cong, for the “crime” of helping the Americans.
You stated you also wished to find statistics and facts, as well as personal stories, so I have been searching the internet for more info on the history of the Vietnam War, and found these two websites that might be helpful to you, and they corroborate what we are saying here about the atrocity questions and “domino theory”, among other points. There has been so much “politically correct” propaganda fed to us over the past 40 years or so, that it is difficult to separate the fact from the fiction. I found them under the heading “Vietnam War myths”:
http://www.vietnam-war.info/myths/ and
http://www.rjsmith.com/war_myth.html
Another excellent source of info is Mr B.G. Burkett, who is the author of the book “Stolen Valor”. You can find him on the internet by typing his name into your browser. Also, C-Span has a special titled “Vietnam War Myths” with Mr Burkett, which is very interesting and informative. I happened to catch it last Sunday night by flipping through the channels, but if you watch the schedules you may be able to see it before the election. John Moore has many good references and links here on his blog: one is www.wintersoldier.com, which will explain why these vets and VN War wives like myself believe Kerry committed treasonous acts during the VN War, and in fact still champions Communist dictators and causes.
I am glad you found this blog, and hope this info will be of some help.
Rhod,
I’ve been reading with interest and amusement yours and Gannymede’s comments to our “resident troll” tony, and I must say your swords are as sharp as ever! Tony suffers from classic CDP (Cognitive Disorder of Progressives) with prominent symptoms of Projectionism, and perhaps a touch of Paranoia and I wouldn’t be surprised to find Narsissistic in there somewhere. He will go completely ballistic before the week is out. “When will they ever learn?”
Please do “Carry on”!
Sharon:
Thank you for your preponderating hackery. Tony suffers from a lot of things. Like Ganny I went back in the archives to see just what causes him so much grief. I was surprised at how well he was treated, although I did offend him by describing him to himself. He seems really upset with me and no one else in particular.
Last time he was here I rudely called him a “maundering little shit” when he tarred me, and by implication, one of my sons, with endorsing the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and said I was unwilling to “confront (my) enemies”. I let Vietnam come to the surface at that point and was a little angrier than I should have been.
Anyway, I was wrong. Tony doesn’t maunder all that much. You flatter him with the “progresssive” label; he’s described himself as a socialist, if I recall. He can correct me if I’m wrong on that. My main complaint is that Tony almost never offers anything of his own. He’s a destroyer. If he ever presented a coherent set of ideas, we would talk about it.
He doesn’t, he makes pronouncements like (Clinton was) “hamstrung by the one-eyed sexual puritanism of the sham religious.” Never mind that we could argue all kinds of issues about the Clinton administration, but what is “sham” religion and how does it differ from REAL religion. Do the “authentically” religious accept Monicas in the Oval Office and the Sears version reject it? I don’t know. Neither does Tony. This is standard BS from these fools.
It’s stuff like this that The Left is famous for. They have a massive catalogue of superstitions and totems and dances and chants and hexsigns and spells and shrunken heads and potions that help them explain a world they hate on general principles. You’re right. They’re paranoid and everything is about THEM.
I visit a lot of blogs these days, and by comparison, Tony is treated much better here than he would be elsewhere. He, like that creaky pinwheel Jim Finkelstein, get a lot of space. If he landed at Roger Simon’s blog or Tim Blair’s (Australian), both of which are very thoughtful blogs, he would be made to look foolish all that much quicker.
Thanks for the note Sharon. Your contribution will be seen by Tony as evidence of a right-wing cabal here, or worse, a tumble of NEOCONS. Keep looking over your shoulder, Sharon.
Rhod et al,
We appear to have lost any patience we had with each other and , as the invite is there, I will make my final post here. Should you be sad enough, you can celebrate that along with your soon to be announced election result.
I cannot see Bush losing after Osama’s recent intervention- well seeing what result he’s bet on!
You are inviting me to relocate to Mr. Simon’s emporium. I am not sure what is behind that. If I am not welcome here because I do not toe your party line, surely the same feelings will be generated there. Are you presenting them as more capable of refuting arguments? They would not have to improve much to do so, I’ll grant. From the beginning, the efforts at rebuttal have consisted of attributing my mistakes to my nationality- erroneously guessed yet-, my occupation- ditto, my age, and even my lack of faith. These ad hominem arguments are surely unconvincing. I’ll present myself as gay, or worse still, French, in order to make it easy for you, but without any engagement with the argument I’ll have no satisfaction from these attempts at jousting in the enemy’s den.
I noted early on, that my full name appeared in a post even when I had not previously proferred it. Now I am proud of my name, nationality ,and ancestry but I am careful with whom I share my identity. Why should it bother anyone to look for this? I presume it was supplied on request by Mr. Moore. Were you hoping for dirt in the same way as when you googled Mr. Finkelstein in order to have a group snigger. Do you need personal characteristics to laugh at? Go ahead and make them up if it helps but, guys, no-one is gonna be impressed by that approach.
When you leave off from the ad hominem, the rest of the arguments have been pretty banal. There are several of you out there who are black belt standard in grabbing hold of the wrong end of the stick. Then, there’s the plain silly. I mention a 70’s incident and I’m stuck there, I cite film and journalistic representations of Vietnam as alternatives to your orthodoxy and that means ” I only get my Vietnam info from Hollywood”
( an infant would be embarrassed by such specious argumentation). I mention books and I’m a snob, I mention TV or music and I’m too stuck on meaningless pop culture, and I mention going out to a football match and I am accused of inventing a social life. I have criticised this level of response as Argument 101, only because I don’t know what the kindergarten equivalent would be. You guys have got to try harder.
There appear to have been a couple of incidents where the misunderstanding has been largely my fault. When I made the assertion which you took to imply an accusation of homosexual sadomasochism, was merely a weak attempt at teasing. The strength of your reactions to this suggests the joke fell far short and you felt it was serious. Secondly, the mention of Clinton was too much in the way of a shorthand reference. I was trying to place the swift boat vet / Kerry’s Vietnam dishonour argument into the same category as the election arguments against Clinton i.e that he had his aide killed by a hit man. These assertions appear and are prosecuted in the few months prior to an election only to disappear forever after. They come across as no more than Republican dirty tricks. If your argument was genuine it should have been prosecuted vigorously elsewhere and tested before now.
Though Kerry will probably fail, in the end it will come down to a genuine concern over changing leader’s while at war, even though people recognise the faults in that war and in that leadership.
On the issue of sham religion, I don’t fully get the Sears reference but i understand my own argument. Namely, neo-cons and baptist/ evangelicals have developed an image of God and Jesus in their very own not very likeable likeness, as a believer in guns and low taxes. The more naive of the evangelicals got their fingers burned by Reagan, when he appointed a female judge with some sane views on Roe v Wade, and by the time they lined up against G.W. Bush they learned some real harsh lessons on realpolitik and dirty tricks. When the Falwell-PTL- scandal derailed Pat Robertson 2 weeks prior to election day, he blustered to the press about the timing of the revelations and practically begged them to go and question Bush Snr. about them. He said something along the lines of “you should never trust the Bushes”. Yet they are back in bed with Dubyea, becuse they can see he’s a ” real deal born-again”. I would question the judgement of these characters who so signally failed to spot any unreal deal characteristics in Falwell or the Bakkers. They are the same people who eat pork and shellfish while quoting Leviticus as an anti-gay text. They have the same closed-mindedness and overexaggerated confidence in God’s guidance in their views as the maddest of the mad Mullahs on National Mad Mullahs Let’s be Completely Mad Day! Do they share the same bible as South America’s liberation priests or even the recently departed Cardinal Hickey?
I offer no apologies for my views on Reagan and Thatcher. I uttered them at the time of his funeral as a counterbalance to the revisionist history being attempted. The downfall of communism took the man by complete surprise so it can hardly have been the cleverest of master plans . Among faults not previously mentioned, he saw no contradiction in his professed Christian faith and his astrology obsessions, his belief in the End- days scenario and his wish to contribute to them, and his conflation of memories from movies with real life. In mature circles these would be considered pretty big barriers to any entrustment of responsibility, but, in the tame climate of the time, they were presented as endearing quirks. While we still live and remember the real history of the time, it cannot be rewritten.
You may wonder why I reserve my vitriol for democratically elected politicians. Again, I make no apology for this. This is where my political voice exists. I never campaigned for the Soviets or China or even Cuba. I agree they should be elected democracies too but I am not one eyed about it- Chile , Nicaragua, El Salvador , S. Africa( remember Mandela was a terrorist in Thatcher’s eyes and her boy still carries the White Man’s Burden to the despots of Africa, at least those with diamond mines) and Panama deserve the same. We cannot promote the interests of dictators there and satisfy ourselves that it suits US economic interests to have a jackboot regime. You claim to be fighting totalitarianism- that’s a good thing to fight- there’s some common ground- but you cannot attribute all the totalitarian tendencies to the left. You have tried the Hitler line with me one too many times. It was not the grouping most equivalent to the neo cons in the Weimar republic which fought the fascists. The elite and the bourgeois mucked in enthusiastically- so you can keep Hitler if I am to have Uncle Joe. But it should not come to that. There are genuine islamofascist tendencies out there. If we retreat into an equivalent stance to them by demanding we rally round the Republican Party, not the nation or alliance, the battle is as lost as were we to do nothing. Rather than alienate Islam and have it as our replacement bogeyman for Communism, we need to build alliances there, not by Diktat but through genuine shared interest. It has been diffficult to get a genuine alliance developed by a US political philosophy which championed isolationism and withdrew the US from Kyoto, The Hague and anywhere else where counterbalancing voices could be heard. It stiil looks a bit schizophrenic but the French, Germans and other mature democracies have to be encouraged to overcome mistrust of your stability and sanity because we have more in common than what separates us.
Though I haven’t a soft bone in my body- i’ll finish with the re-assertion that I am pro-America. I don’t fall for the right wing trick that it is your America. The Sun’s pet rotweiller Mr. Littlejohn tried that line in our recent election special when he said ” Michael Moore came over here to spill bile on President Bush and, by implication, the US troops and people.” I love that, “by implication”- you guys should use it. If your opponent does not say it, imply that he meant it.
So, Cheerio then. I did not mean to make such a lengthy contribution to your blog but we may both express thanks that it is at an end now. Long live the America that gave us Lincoln, Roosevelt and Johnson; Herman Melville, Emily Dickenson, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, e.e. cummings, Bellow and Franzen; Fred Astaire , Buster Keaton and the Marx brothers; Dylan, Buddy Holly, Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson, Levi Stubbs, Loudoun Wainwright, and Mary Chapin-Carpenter.
I don’t release confidential information to people, so you’re wrong in suspecting me of this.
Tony:
The temptation to review the content of your posts here and our (my) response to them is overcome…almost. John Moore activated my pain collar this morning but I’ll be as nice as I can.
You’re persuasive, but still a fraud. Again, we have a laundry list of complaints from you about response to YOUR posts, the things you have said, implied, charged and sentimentalized. This is the internet, Tony. One can’t rely on facial expression, posture, gestures or anything else but the WORDS used and the concepts constructed to make your case (s).
Your first and second posts here were an apocrypha of Lefty complaints about Joe McCarthy, Nixon, Creationism, Reagan, Thatcher, greedy capitalists, Bush, gun possession and excused killers in Florida and a dozen other imbedded thorns about the people, beliefs and institutions you loathe and abhor. I responded to your first post as, I think, it deserved, and from there your temper descended to the bitchiness and self-pitying moan so typical of your kind.
Along the way I expressed my impression that you were probably a decent and somewhat over emotional young man…who used Brit expressions and idioms (it was obvious, Tony, that you’re either an expat or from the UK. No one made it up). What’s wrong with that?
If anyone of us had made the slightest mention of, or teased you about sexual preferences, you would have exploded with another charge of homophobia against us, so it’s interesting that The Left has free use of the broad range of public mechanisms for “teasing”, but no one else.
And, yes, in the interest of reconciliation as you put it, you agreed to criticise the president of your student union for his endorsement of the Khmer Rouge. This is your standard? These are YOUR words, Tony. Not mine. Can you find NOTHING on your side other than that? Your list includes Liberation Theology, the bogeymen of Fallwell and Baker, Hitlerian charges (never made, analogies made), implied red-baiting, and other bouncing betties too numerous to mention.
My final problem with your post…and it contains a lot of good points, is that America is more than its POPULAR CULTURE. On YOUR list are three controversial presidents and the rest writers, poets, philosophers and entertainers of one kind or another. And by your own admission, you posed the four VN or anti-VN MOVIES as alternatives to our “ORTHODOXY” (your words) and when called on it, your feelings are hurt, and you call us “infants” for bringing it up.
You demanded that I “Get over it!” (VN and Kerry), but you can pound me with a hideous bullshit “Heart of Darkness” allegory cobbled together by Coppolla! You fool! I WAS THERE!
America is more than its literature and entertainment. It’s also it’s veterans, housewives and househusbands, mill workers, its teachers, patriots, CHURCH GOERS, and thousands of other keepers and protectors of the liberties that you dismiss as rude, narrow, parochial, vicious, damnned or too potentially dangerous to entertain.
Your posts for me are always a double-bind. You seem accepting and interested in exchanging views, but subtly and regularly dismiss and damn your opponents with sly criticism and scorn. You cuddle your rage and fury with a cloak of concern and broad-mindedness, but it always comes through.
Good bye and good riddance.
Just voted early, and I was really disappointed that Kyoto and The Hague weren’t on the ballot in some way. Nothing either about listening to the “mature democracies” of France and Germany. And Tony should stay away from charges of “revisionist history”, I think, because he’s involved in doing it with his own posts.
Rhod wasn’t clear enough about the movie reference. What Tony did was deny the statements of veterans here that atrocities didn’t occur on their watch, or were as widespread as Kerry claimed. As evidence of atrocities, Tony presented the names of four director-producer-screenwriters, who developed four lurid films about Vietnam, This was Tony’s evidence that the vets here were either wrong or lying. To Tony, Drama doesn’t reveal and elaborate upon Life, it’s a substitute for it.
When called on this, Tony then said that the complaint was specious and only an infant would make it. Yes, he also mentioned Michael Herr, whose most important book was “Dispatches” as an authority, but also casually dismisses 265 of the Swiftvets for their memories of Kerry, and compares their observations to a nutcase who said Clinton killed an aide. What to make of this?
This exchange of charges and counter-charges is important because it illustrates Tony’s style, and explains his complaints about being insulted. Someone else said in the archives that Tony doesn’t get upset because someone lies about him, he’s upset because someone tells the truth about him. If you argue Kyoto, Tony would find some reason to be offended. If you argue religion Tony is offended. Pick a subject, Tony will be offended.
I recommended Roger Simon’s blog to Tony because there are a lot of liberals there, who have or had similar views. He finds nothing but abuse here, and might find friends or more patient enemies there.
Tony:
Being puzzled about your complaint and paranoia about having your full name referenced, I went into the archives and discovered the offending post. Well, your surname is easily deduced from information YOU provided when you post, and my guess is that the revelation was inadvertent.
Second, no one had to “google” Jim Finkelstein. He recommended his OWN website to the people here, as well as furnishing other info about himself.
Don’t worry. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy doesn’t consider you a threat.
Rhod/ Mr. Moore,
I promised not to post here again and I will stick by this as far as political comment is concerned. My query is technical. How was my surname easily deduced? Genuinely, I am puzzled. There is no paranoia here, just a mystery.
Tony:
I’ll give you my answer in an EMail rather than broadcast it here. I think it is the right answer.
Tony,
I honestly don’t know.
Rhod,
Here I go again with some more “preponderating hackery”! Tony cannot compete, with his “revisionist theories”, against those of you here who have lived “real life” history in “real time”, and know whereof you speak. I didn’t read where tony described himself as a socialist rather than a progressive, but it was clear that he thought his viewpoint is the only “progressive” and enlightened one (as opposed to the “stagnating” viewpoints of those on this blog who don’t agree with him) And I really love John Moore’s diagnosis of CDP. You stated that tony “is a destroyer” and that is so true. Tony seeks to tear down and destroy the beliefs of anyone who will not espouse his brand of thinking. What tony does not realize is that the Marxist philosophy is a destroyer that, in the end, ultimitely destroys the soul, mind and heart of those who have embraced it.
Tony:
Just in case you are continuing to visit this blog to see what is being written about you, I am one of the housewives and CHURCHGOERS whom Rhod mentioned earlier, who happens to also inhabit this blog. I am part of what you call the “vast right-wing conspiracy”, even a part of the so-called “radical religious right”, and one of those nearly 60 million “how could they be so dumb” voters brought to the world’s attention on the front of the London Daily Mirror. I feel sorry for you, because you are on the wrong side of History and your values system will not emancipy you, but will end up being the source of your destruction. Regardless of whether or not you believe it, God is the Author of freedom of the mind and soul, not Karl Marx.
Sharon:
Tony’s last post began with the observation that we had lost patience with one another. I think that happened last Spring, but I feel his presence even now. I know he visits the blog. It’s too quiet out there, as the cowboy said (uh oh, cowboy references). He’ll send out a probe now and then, won’t you Tony?
His last post had a lot of strange and inflammatory ideas about religion in America. This subject among all others, seems to open the gates with him. I wish he would elaborate on the topic a bit.
I shouldn’t speak ill of the departed, but whenever I read one of Tony’s screeds, I somehow expectthe last sentence to be “And that’s why I’m blowing up the power plant, you bastards! Try and stop me!”
Just kidding, Tony.
To Everyone on this Blog,
You have all missed one very important point. That is the Vietnam War and the Korean War both started about the same time with the communist against the Western Demoracys. In Korea we stayed the course and won, in Vietnam we lost but we lost at home basically the same way the French did. The French pulled out not due to defeats on the battlefield even though they had many but due to pressure from the communist in France.
Greece had a civil war of its own that we won, Angola we lost. Plus there was Cuba where we lost but won in other South and Central American Countries. All of these were proxy wars between the US and USSR. Kerry basically sided with the communist.