« Love ya 'Stros! | Main | Kurtz on the THK kurfluffles »
Friday, October 22, 2004
NYT review of "Stolen Honor"
Like many others (e.g., InstaPundit, Just One Minute, Smash, and PrestoPundit), I was surprised to see this generally sympathetic review of "Stolen Honor" in the NYT — especially this beginning statement:
"Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television.
I'm less surprised after pondering it a bit, however. The rebound risks from attacking ex-POWs are frankly higher than from attacking the Swiftees who've joined the SwiftVets' campaign, and the folks who've tried — with comments to the effect of, "Well, those POWs weren't really tortured all that much" or "there really were atrocities committed by the American military in Vietnam" — have done Sen. Kerry's campaign no favors. This NYT review is consistent with the smarter pro-Kerry strategy of saying, in effect, "Well sure the ex-POWs are miffed, and they have understandable hard feelings about the way the American public treated them upon their return, but that's an old grudge that really doesn't have much to do with Kerry's current fitness to be President."
I'm still miffed, however, that after finally admitting its repeated errors in describing Kerry as having met with "both sides" in Paris, the NYT continues to repeat its separate mistake about whether his trip was secret:
The imagery is crude, but powerful: each mention of Mr. Kerry's early 1970's meeting with North Vietnamese government officials in Paris is illustrated with an old black-and-white still shot of the Arc de Triomphe, an image that to many viewers evokes the Nazi occupation of Paris. The Eiffel Tower would have been more neutral, but the film is not: it insists that Mr. Kerry "met secretly in an undisclosed location with a top enemy diplomat." Actually, Mr. Kerry, a leading antiwar activist at the time, mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.
The clear inference here is that Kerry was forthright about revealing the details of his Paris trip. Yet he's been anything but. As I've previously written, Kerry's first trip to Paris to meet with the enemy was in May 1970, immediately after his marriage. His Fulbright Committee testimony didn't come until almost a year later, in April 1971. If there's any record of Kerry revealing that trip to Paris to the public prior to his Fulbright Committee testimony, I haven't seen it.
Rather, as far as I can tell — and I'd welcome any further or contrary information, with links, from any of my readers — the May 1970 trip was a secret at the time it was made and for almost a year afterwards; and later, it was pointedly left out of both Brinkley's biography and the Kranish et al. biography, as well as Kerry's campaign website. By April 1971, Kerry and the VVAW certainly knew they were under investigation by the FBI, according to rabidly pro-Kerry and pro-protest movement historian Gerald Nicosia. My strong hunch is that Kerry mentioned it in his Fulbright Committee testimony because he expected details to be leaked by the Nixon administration to try to discredit him, and decided — to use a trial lawyer metaphor — to pull the teeth on this monster himself, before it bit him.
And of course, the NYT still ignores Nicosia's claim (based on FBI records released on the basis of Nicosia's Freedom of Information Act request) that Kerry made at least one other trip to Paris to meet with the enemy. The dates and details of that trip, if Nicosia's right, continue to be secret — which I continue to find outrageous.
Posted by Beldar at 02:58 AM in Mainstream Media, Politics (2006 & earlier), SwiftVets | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to NYT review of "Stolen Honor" and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
» New York Times Review Of "Stolen Honor" - It Should Be Shown Everywhere from CALIFORNIA YANKEE
Tracked on Oct 22, 2004 8:23:46 AM
» Friday Morning Reads from ~Neophyte Pundit~
Tracked on Oct 22, 2004 9:16:02 AM
Comments
(1) Va Jim made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 7:29:41 AM | Permalink
With all respect, Kerry's freedom from censure on this issue is your and your profession's fault. Even from a 'libertarian' stance --as the strictest measure-- liability is clear. The existance of lawsuits for sexual innuendo aggravates the lack of legal action for (blatantly obvious) real pain, real suffering, real loss of health among POWs. Some of that loss is clearly and unmistakably due to Kerry's role supporting North Vietnam.
Why no former POWs have pursued lawsuits is beyond me, except perhaps due to a misplaced sense of patriotism or pride. There are ambulance-chasers at the bar, admittedly a minority but highly visible. Golden Boy John Edwards got $23 million in one award for one individual death. Why respectable members of the profession haven't pursued Kerry and company is beyond me. The damage done is real and horrible, the link between Kerry's actions and subsequent POW treatment is clear. If the tort system doesn't exist to compensate these victims of brutality, just what in Sam-h*ll does it exist for?
Kerry's words alleging American war-crimes, brutality and inhumanity were quoted to the POWs by their captors. Kerry's meeting in Paris with the enemy delgations, tied in with his apparent credibility in Congress, gave real teeth to the North Vietnamese. The torture didn't continue, it increased. Kerry's currently not afforded protection from suit as he would be as President. Even if the trial gets delayed or suspended by his election, the evidentiary and discovery process could continue. Much of what's now glossed over or ignored would become more interesting to the press.
Vietnam is a sore point in American history. I'd contend it's a still-festering sore that needs to be lanced, exposed and washed out with antiseptic. The too-late justice due the former POWs would be a part of that healing.
"....of the jury, Mr. Kerry's recent remarks of September 18th, 2004 are the direct cause of a severe, damaging psychological episode with my client. That Mr. Kerry was complicit in the root cause of my client's poor physical health throughout his life aggravates this. I will show you how Mr. Kerry, above all others, did this. "
(2) Geek, Esq. made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 9:39:27 AM | Permalink
1. What was Kerry supposed to do, Beldar, hold a press conference? I believe you're conflating "secret" with "unnoticed at the time."
To put it another way, I was in Rome recently. While there, I had drinks and dinner with an employee of the US Embassy.
This was no secret. But, you wouldn't find any mention of it because it's a wholly unremarkable event.
Kerry's meeting with the North Vietnamese seems much, much, much, much more interesting and important now than it would have back in the day, when he was essentially a nobody.
2. The idea expressed above of a liability suit against Kerry is simply absurd for a number of reasons. And people complain about liberals protecting frivolous lawsuits.
(3) jackson white made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 9:57:47 AM | Permalink
Unlike the Kerry campaign itself, the NYT realizes that Sinclair has sandbagged the Left and exposed them as neo-communists who want to squelch free speech. The Times is trying to clean up after Kerry, but Sinclair has won this round.
(4) Davod made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 10:00:38 AM | Permalink
Beldar,
The only reason this is a topic in the NYT is because they think it is to late for it to have any effect on the election. What everyone needs to do is view Stolen Honor on their computers via pay-per-view and invite their friends and neighbors in to watch and listen at the same time. Don't let the MSM win on this one.
Geek.Esq,
1. I am not a lawyer so I don't know how they would do it - but frivolous! I do not think so. A case could certainly be made that Kerry did indeed cause physical harm by his actions.
2. Kerry met with the enemy in a time of war. To suggest that this could be considered unnoticed instead of secret is simply silly.
There is no justification for what Kerry did. He should have paid for his actions a long time ago.
(5) Geek, Esq. made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 10:10:44 AM | Permalink
Davod:
The First Amendment kills any chance your proposed lawsuit would have. My definition of a "frivolous" lawsuit is one that would have no chance of succeeding on the merits. This would be a frivolous lawsuit.
Kerry was in Paris at the time. Who would have reported what he did? Was there a reporter assigned to follow him around? Were there posters of Mr. Kerry at the hotel, so that reporters could file stories detailing his visit?
(6) perfectsense made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 10:10:57 AM | Permalink
Geek.Esq:
Kerry was not a "nobody." He was a US Navy Officer giving aid and comfort to the enemy. If he was a "nobody" why did the communists take time to meet him?
(7) davod made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 10:20:14 AM | Permalink
Tokyo Rose, an American citizen, was jailed after WWII for what she did. Lord Haw Haw was pinished as well allthough I cannot remember what happened to him.
(8) Geek, Esq. made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 10:31:32 AM | Permalink
Kerry did nothing that was legally wrongful. Rose and Haw Haw did.
(9) Geek, Esq. made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 10:33:06 AM | Permalink
Perfect Sense:
How many press clippings was Kerry generating in 1970?
(10) Patrick R. Sullivan made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 10:46:27 AM | Permalink
"What was Kerry supposed to do, Beldar, hold a press conference?"
and
"How many press clippings was Kerry generating in 1970?"
So many that Garry Trudeau was lampooning him him in Doonesbury. See, for instance his interview with the Harvard Crimson where he came out for United Nations control of American military action.
He was running for Congress in 1970,fgs!
Also, these meetings would be a perfect source of extortion of a President Kerry. The North Vietnamese Communists haven't revealed what was said in Paris in 1970. YET.
(11) Geek, Esq. made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 10:59:44 AM | Permalink
Pat Sullivan:
Okay, you've established that he was an unsuccessful candidate for a primary nomination in 1970. And that he managed to schmooze his way into an interview with the Harvard Crimson in 1970 (as part of his election campaign).
That does not change the fact that in Paris, dressed in civilian clothing, he would have attracted zero press attention.
(12) A Hermit made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 11:35:15 AM | Permalink
So, we should hate Kerry because he met with the North Vietnamese in an attempt to find out what was happening to the POWs and get them out?
Forgive me for seeing this whole thing as disingenuous. Apart from the libel lawsuits I don't have a lot of faith in anything produced by a propagandist for Sun Myung Moon, for one thing. For another, other POWs have spoken up to contradict the film's account:
" Phil Butler, who spent eight years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, took issue with suggestions by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that Kerry's antiwar protests caused the POWs to be treated badly. "I lived with two of the POWs who are now in that group -- Mr. [Ken] Courdier and Mr. [Paul] Gallanti -- and I am telling you, they are full of it. We never heard a blooming thing about John Kerry while we were there," said Butler, who contacted the campaign months ago to support Kerry and only recently heard back from Kerry's veterans coordinator, John Hurley.
Butler said that while he was tortured and mistreated until 1969, by the time Kerry was protesting the war and speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1971, the POWs were better treated."
At the very least Kerry's actions are being grossly misrepresented here.
(13) Beldar made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 11:50:02 AM | Permalink
It's not a question of "hating" Kerry. It's a question of whether he showed such poor judgment in letting himself become a tool of North Vietnamese and Viet Cong communist propaganda some of which was fed back to our POWs, and all of which affected their status as pawns in the ongoing peace talks as to indicate that he'd be an untrustworthy commander in chief.
Hermit, suggesting that the torture of our POWs had "gotten better" is a profoundly unconvincing argument.
Geek, Kerry's own extremely abbreviated and uncomfortable reference in his Fulbright Committee testimony to his 1970 Paris trip showed that he was keenly aware that besides raising fierce political objections, his meeting could potentially subject him to criminal consequences. He specifically referenced the statute's language. (This was several years before he attended law school, by the way.) I think it's reasonable to assume absent contrary proof, which I still invite, but still haven't seen that he deliberately kept the trip secret before the Fulbright Committee testimony in April 1971. You're right that he wouldn't have attracted press attention in Paris, meeting as he did at a location away from the talks, picked by the Viet Cong; nor did he seek it, and indeed, I believe he shunned it. That's rather the point Kerry wanted it to be a secret, and kept it secret for almost a year.
If his actions are today subject to misinterpretation or exaggeration, the only folks who could put a stop to that are Sen. Kerry whose public statements on the subject I can count on one hand, and all of which are extremely vague or the representatives of the enemy with whom he met.
(14) Geek, Esq. made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 12:49:43 PM | Permalink
1. Regarding the wisdom of his statements--If he honestly believed what he was saying (I don't know what transpired at those meetings re: who said what), then he had a duty to speak up, not to keep quiet. Just like CBS had an obligation to run its story on Abu Ghraib (note: I'm not giving CBS a whole lot of credit on this--those pictures fell into its lap). An honest debate about grave matters like war is essential in a democracy.
Regarding the secrecy and his knowledge of the statute, I would imagine that was SOP for anyone publicly opposing the Nixon junta. Dissent in a (quasi)police state is risky business.
My major point is that this seemed to have been done in the open. Does failing to publicize something make it a secret? To be honest, this strikes me as sophistry--
let's be honest about the real reason the word "secretly" is being used is to convey the sense that there was some sort of clandestine espionage-type of activity going on. As far as I know, there were no denials, no coverups, no deceptions--nothing like that--merely the exercise of discretion and not actively advertising the fact. The use of the word is intended to mislead.
(15) A Hermit made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 1:26:58 PM | Permalink
"Hermit, suggesting that the torture of our POWs had "gotten better" is a profoundly unconvincing argument."
Well, you;ll have to take that up with Phil Butler, who was actually a prisoner of the North Vietnamese and therefore knows better than either of us, wouldn't you say?
He's also calling the people in Sherwood's hit piece liars. I would think they might want to challenge that characterization, but the only person I see being sued for libel in all this is Carlton Sherwood himself. This might explain why:
" Carlton Sherwood, the producer of "Stolen Honor."
" Sherwood calls Sen. John Kerry a traitor for opposing the Vietnam War and concedes he never asked to interview Kerry for the documentary he made about him. This incident is not out of character for Sherwood, who has a history of erroneous reporting. In 1983, Sherwood leveled charges against the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. In a four-part series for a local Washington TV station, Sherwood suggested that the veterans responsible for creating the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall were misspending -- if not stealing -- donated money. One year later, when Sherwood's charges proved to be baseless, his former television station employer was forced to air an extraordinary retraction and donate $50,000 to the fund in order to fend off a lawsuit. "It was a hit piece," Bob Doubek, who served as project director for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, told Salon. "All of Sherwood's stuff was conjecture, smoke and mirrors."
I continue to be astonshed at the lengths to which John Kerry's opponents will go. It seems they are perfectly willing to smear veterans, distort the facts, call the whole Naval service and the awarding of medals into question, and then have the temerity to accuse others of demeaning veterans!
The hypocrisy here is astounding, but par for the course for the chickenhawks in the Bush campaign.
(16) Joshua Chamberlain made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 1:58:43 PM | Permalink
Hey, news for ya Hermit, but NOBOBY INVOLVED WITH THE BUSH CAMPAIGN HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH STOLEN HONOR OR UNFIT FOR COMMAND. You can claim it's a dirty trick all you want, but the vets are speaking for themselves.
(17) ed made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 2:03:02 PM | Permalink
Hmmm.
"Regarding the secrecy and his knowledge of the statute, I would imagine that was SOP for anyone publicly opposing the Nixon junta. Dissent in a (quasi)police state is risky business."
(quasi) police state? Well that's an interesting statement of fact. So. How many people did you know that were taken away in the middle of the night by jackbooted thugs? Tortured and then murdered?
*shrug* if you're going to make statements like that, then you need to back them up with something more than hot air. So, let's hear it.
(18) ed made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 2:05:01 PM | Permalink
Hmmm.
"My major point is that this seemed to have been done in the open. Does failing to publicize something make it a secret? To be honest, this strikes me as sophistry--"
I have to absolutely agree with this statement. After all there were all those reporters there to cover the event. And afterwards everyone stood together for the final "smile" photo-shoot for the Paris newspaper article.
Yeah. Open. Got it.
(19) Michael B made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 2:06:17 PM | Permalink
"I continue to be astonshed at the lengths to which John Kerry's opponents will go." A. Hermit
Oh dear, we're all afright with moral umbrage and being "astonished." What a rarefied moral universe you must be accustomed to.
Yet Kerry himself could alleviate much of the speculation by signing the relevant form and permitting all of his records to be released. In fact, a significant portion of the speculation is either made necessary or is at least understandable precisely because J. Kerry refuses to sign that release.
Further, taking the SwiftBoat Vets as one example only, no doubt, given the fact there are well over 200 SwiftBoat Vets for Truth, at least a small number of them may well be exaggerating and/or inaccurately remembering some of those past events. On the other hand, the same can be said for the dozen or so that have come out in support of J. Kerry. Yet here too some portion of this speculation could at least be alleviated if Kerry would simply sign the proper release forms; yet he fails to do so.
(20) A Hermit made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 2:31:28 PM | Permalink
Michael, the difference between the 200 or so SBVFT vets and the "dozen or so" vets supporting Kerry is that the dozen or so actually served on a boat with Kerry. Most of the 200 weren't even there, and those who were, like Larry Thurman, are contradicted by the official records and others who were on their boats (like Thurlow's gunner), or by their own comments in past campaigns!
As for Kerry releasing the forms; why should he dignify a smear campaign by cooperating with the slanderers?
This is all tinfoil hat territory. I'm surprised anyone on the right is willing to be associated with it, especially with the Moonie connection coming out!
----
Joshua said (or shouted):
"NOBOBY INVOLVED WITH THE BUSH CAMPAIGN HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH STOLEN HONOR OR UNFIT FOR COMMAND."
Sure Joshua. Except for Ken Cordier, of course. Oh and that Bush campaign lawyer, and the Texas developer, friend of Karl Rove and Bush supporter who gave the Swifties their start up money....
Nope, no connection there at all...move along folks, nothing to see here...
(21) Va Jim made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 3:38:00 PM | Permalink
...Vietnam POWs Ken Courdier [sic] and Paul Galanti claim their captors used Kerry's anti-war statements against them. Courdier also appeared in the Swift Boat ads.But in a Washington Post interview last month, ex-POW Phil Butler said Courdier and Galanti were "full of it." "We never heard a blooming thing about John Kerry while we were there," he said.*
Nice turn of words, since nobody claimed the words "John", "Kerry", or even "John Kerry" were used to justify further POW torture by the North Vietnamese captors. It was the allegations made by Kerry that were used against the POWs, false allegations of war crimes.
Nonetheless, to adopt A Hermit's 'value-free' judgements, we are left with Butler's word against Cordier and Galanti's...... and Larson's and Warner's and Gaither's and the others. For that matter North Vietnam wanted to claim war crimes by the POWs --they were already claiming it-- but Kerry's claims gave them validation. It's against any logic that the NVA wouldn't use them to validate their torture.
Between common-sense, Butler's weasel around the NVA treatment, and a slew of other eyewitnesses who contradict him; the evidence is overwhelming that Kerry's statements caused further physical and psychological torture of Americans held prisoner by the North Vietnamese.
(22) A Hermit made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 4:03:58 PM | Permalink
So what's your point Jim? That no one should speak out against atrocities commited by "our side" in case the "other side" uses that for propaganda? Would you be comfortable with the Abu Ghraib torture continuing unabated? Are the American people not entitled to the truth?
And make no mistake; Kerry told the truth. He reported what other decorated veterans had told him. He did not call American GI's war criminals, he called Nixon and Kissinger's policies criminal.
(23) Michael B made the following comment | Oct 22, 2004 4:14:23 PM | Permalink
A. Hermit,
No, one doesn't "dignify" an allegation by releasing, once and for all, military records. Much to the contrary the release of the historical records would clarify, or contradict, Kerry's own assertions. If he were to sign the release form and thereafter refuse to answer questions that were already answered by the release and publication of the information, that would be much more understandable to people. But that's not what he's doing.
I won't get into a prolonged tit-for-tat concerning the SwiftBoat Vets for Truth. I will note two things though. First, I'm not asserting the SwiftBoat Vets for Truth represent the undiluted and not-to-be-questioned truth, in fact I suggested otherwise. By contrast you're suggesting Kerry's assertions virtually do represent the truth, even though he refuses to sign the release forms. We already know he lied about the Christmas in Cambodia episode and that he lied a great deal during his Winter Soldiers propaganda campaign. What else has Kerry lied about?
Secondly I'll note that by signing the release form it would also help to either corroborate or contradict statements concerning all or most of J. Kerry's medals. Specifically, that they were, or were not, justified and earned. This is a set of allegations that was brought up prior to the SwiftBoat Vets for Truth organizing. Hence Kerry's refusal to sign the release form predates that organization. Or are any and all questions directed at Kerry deemed to be, ipso facto, "smear" tactics. Nice job, if you can get it; but you can't fool all the people all the time.
That you've so quickly moved on from expressions of "astonished" moral umbrage to meagerly supported and entirely unsupported categorical dismissiveness is telling in and of itself. What doesn't comport with your and Kerry's assertions is simply to be denied and dismissed as being below, seemingly far below, your contempt. I wouldn't dismissively place that in the "tinfoil" category, I'd more simply note the presumptuous and speciously arrogating quality being forwarded therein.
J. Kerry needs to sign the release form, if he did it would begin to clear up a significant portion of the speculation and even render much of it moot, either affirming it or contradicting it. What does Kerry have to fear from the historical record?
(24) ed made the following comment | Oct 23, 2004 1:24:37 AM | Permalink
Hmmm.
"Michael, the difference between the 200 or so SBVFT vets and the "dozen or so" vets supporting Kerry is that the dozen or so actually served on a boat with Kerry. Most of the 200 weren't even there, and those who were, like Larry Thurman, are contradicted by the official records and others who were on their boats (like Thurlow's gunner), or by their own comments in past campaigns!"
Oh GOD not this again!
Here's a clue. If you're positing this then I don't think you've got any credible arguments whatsoever so I'll just ignore you. Considering the vast number of times this has been thrashed out on this blog alone, let alone the hundreds or thousands of other blogs, trying to even push this is just plain ridiculous.
Particularly when people don't apply the same standard when they attack President Bush's record.
What complete nonsense.
(25) Where's The Beef? made the following comment | Oct 23, 2004 7:08:16 PM | Permalink
That Kerry said what he did is uncontested. That he has not retracted even the proven falsehoods and misrepresentations, is uncontested. That he is proud of what did, has been confirmed by Kerry himself.
What influenced did Kerry seek to exert and of what precisely is he so proud today?
Kerry told the truth. He reported what other decorated veterans had told him. He did not call American GI's war criminals, he called Nixon and Kissinger's policies criminal.
He was not playing a child's game of "telephone". Kerry spoke as if making a confession on behalf of millions of Vietnam Veterans. It was an unmistakable promise that his word was their word, yet unrevealed to the country. He chose to represent the stories of others; he vouched for those stories as a decorated naval officer.
If relaying what others have said is "telling the truth", then, his relaying of the VC demands was also just "telling the truth". No. He vouched for the words of others.
He added his first person account as well. He added his flawed analysis of communism, the war, and the demands of the enemy. He went further and advocated abandonment of the Vietnamese people to the VC who were the true war criminals in-country and in the POW compounds. Kerry inverted the truth for the sake of what accomplishment? He has not said he is proud to have misled the country, but that is what he did when he stood as the darling accuser of his own comrades. He did not reveal the truth, he obscured it.
If, as his defenders now revise, his testimony and subsequent speeches constituted a mere echo of the falsehoods of others, he took on ownership when he made every effort to amplify the supposed experiences of others. He embraced the accusations against even his own chain of command in the Mekong Delta. In his Fulbright appearance, Kerry advocated the VC demands and portrayed the plight of the Vietnamese as the "biggest nothing".
If Kerry's accusations had been against the VC, his words -- or echo -- would have stung the enemy and given comfort to his comrades. And his words would also have had the advantage of being truthful.
Only a useful fool could miss the symbolism, the political concession of untruths, and the direct contradiction of the individualized resistance of men who were subject to torture by an enemy desirous of the very sort of confession that Kerry volunteered and amplified for all its propagandic value. And although Kerry played the part of that useful fool, he cannot now pretend that his testimony was naively truthful nor that his analysis was full of insight and portent. In the years subsequent to his calculated outburst, Kerry was proven wrong on all major points. But has he the courage to admit that and to learn the lessons of the Vietnam war?
It is more of the same today -- he is very fond of referring to "grand distractions" and "collossal mistakes" of others and cannot come to full account for his own damnable errors and miscalculations. He behaves as if the truth is a "nuisance" that bites at his heels. No Commander-in-Chief should be so self-deceptive, and deceiving, as this man, John F. Kerry.
(26) Massachusetts Gothic made the following comment | Oct 23, 2004 11:39:57 PM | Permalink
Beldar,
With all due respect, I believe that it was Claude Pepper (D-FL)who was defeated by his opponent's charges that Pepper's sister was a "thespian" and his brother "a philatelist."
(27) Beldar made the following comment | Oct 23, 2004 11:48:36 PM | Permalink
Yup, Gothic, it was. See the last couple of links in the hat-tip on this post. It's unclear whether it's an urban myth, but it's definitely linked to Pepper and his opponent Smathers, at least as a matter of political lore.
(28) Where's The Beef? made the following comment | Oct 24, 2004 11:53:46 PM | Permalink
A.Hermit said:
[quote]
So, we should hate Kerry because he met with the North Vietnamese in an attempt to find out what was happening to the POWs and get them out? Forgive me for seeing this whole thing as disingenuous.
[/quote]
That's so very predictable.
But in the current issue of The Weekly Standard, Joshua Muravchik drives the point home:
[quote]
John Kerry says he is "proud" of his activities in opposition to the Vietnam War. Why, then, have he and his spokesmen consistently misrepresented them?
--
Today, Kerry and his surrogates make it sound as if his meetings with Communist officials were motivated by concern for American POWs. But this stands history on its head. Disregarding entirely the Geneva convention in their treatment of American prisoners, the Communists used the POWs as hostages, pressing America to capitulate in order to get its men back.
--
Just as he has never brought himself to apologize for having said that committing war crimes was the norm for American soldiers in Vietnam, so Kerry could never voice remorse for what happened to the South Vietnamese when the Communists took over. Although his campaign themes often sound like a litany of second-guessing (in Iraq, Americans did too much of the fighting; in Afghanistan, Americans did too little), Kerry seems never to second-guess himself. Whatever he did, he's proud of it, even if he has to misrepresent it. That would be a worrisome trait in a president.
[/quote]
Citation:
Joshua Muravchik
Never Apologize, Never Explain
The Weekly Standard,
November 1 / November 8, 2004 issue
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
(29) Veteran330 made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 6:14:19 PM | Permalink
Kerry did nothing that was legally wrongful. Rose and Haw Haw did.
Geek,
Sorry you are dead wrong on that. Then Lt Kerry was a member of the US Naval Reserve in 1970, he was not discharged from the military until 1978.
According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 104 part 904, anyone who without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
In other words, Kerry committed a capital crime in talking to the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese delegates to the Paris Peace talks.
That is rather a few light years away from "did nothing that was legally wrongful".
The only reason Kerry didn't stand in front of a firing squad is that Nixon didn't want to create a Martyr (listen to the Nixon white house tapes for confirmation of that.)
(30) SemiPundit made the following comment | Oct 26, 2004 6:47:57 AM | Permalink
Veteran330,
Would you stand by your position of prosecution and lethal punishment if Mr. Kerry had successfully negotiated a truce and won the release of the POWs?
(31) SemiPundit made the following comment | Oct 26, 2004 6:50:19 AM | Permalink
John McCain was held as a POW for seven years. What is his recollection of his captors' use of Mr. Kerry's activities?
(32) Where's The Beef? made the following comment | Oct 26, 2004 9:19:12 PM | Permalink
Kerry did not negotiate for the release of POWs. That's yet another distraction.
Kerry wanted to cut and run immediately. The fight against communism was "the biggest nothing in history", according to Kerry, the self-appointed so-called negotiator.
Kerry met with the enemy in Paris and then became their bullhorn in Washington. In his Fulbright testimony he drew no attention to the war crimes of the enemy. He made no plea for the humane treatment of POWs. He did not argue for the immediate release of his comrades. He did not offer support for his Vietnamese comrades -- he mocked them. He did not argue for the safekeeping of the Vietnamese people -- he abandoned them to the enemy. And he argued in favor of compensating the Communist regime in Hanoi.
Kerry was a dupe, at best. On the other hand, even as a dupe, there are words in the UCMJ that certainly can apply to Kerry.
(33) Veteran330 made the following comment | Oct 27, 2004 6:53:31 AM | Permalink
Semi Pundit,
Would you stand by your position of prosecution and lethal punishment if Mr. Kerry had successfully negotiated a truce and won the release of the POWs?
I would volunteer for the firing squad. UCMJ104.904 is there to keep people from doing things which are way out of their range of knowledge and pay grade.
99.99999% of the time a junior officer doesn't know enough to negoatiate with the enemy and the result would be horrendous for the country.
(34) SemiPundit made the following comment | Oct 27, 2004 11:23:11 AM | Permalink
Wasn't he out of the military by then, and acting as a civilian?
(35) Where's The Beef? made the following comment | Oct 28, 2004 2:37:41 AM | Permalink
Rhetorical question? Make your point explicit.
(36) SemiPundit made the following comment | Oct 28, 2004 5:38:05 PM | Permalink
The point is that it is not the American way to try, convict, and execute a veteran who served with an untarnished record.
Would you advocate the same treatment for a veteran who has just returned from Iraq and has been discharged if he should intervene and try to bring an end to the conflict?
(37) Where's The Beef" made the following comment | Oct 28, 2004 7:47:03 PM | Permalink
Do you claim that Kerry has an untarnished record?
(38) Paul Gill made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 11:28:43 AM | Permalink
Where's the beef, you quoted The Weekly Standard: "Disregarding entirely the Geneva convention in their treatment of American prisoners, the Communists used the POWs as hostages, pressing America to capitulate in order to get its men back."
Well, if we're going to bring up disregard for the Geneva Convention by the Vietnamese, can we please bring up disregard for the Geneva Convention by Bush?
(39) Where's The Beef/ made the following comment | Oct 30, 2004 6:37:29 PM | Permalink
As a matter of proposed policy, Kerry advocated an immediate withdrawal (surrender) as a precondition for the START of negotiations for the release of POWs.
Do you claim that Kerry has an untarnished record?
(40) Todd in San Jose made the following comment | Oct 30, 2004 7:48:12 PM | Permalink
John Kerry........
1. Rarely votes as a Senator;
2. Has no record as supporting strong military action;
3. Served 3 months in Vietnam and found a way to piss off 200 swifties(this kind of oppposition is almost unheard of from Vets)
4. Has not released all military records(Brokaw interview on 10/28/04);
5. Is purposely unclear on deference to UN;
6. Has not spoken against UN OFF fiasco.
etc etc etc
This guy is worse than Carter.
Todd
(41) Where's The Beef? made the following comment | Oct 31, 2004 5:46:11 AM | Permalink
Paul Gill,
It might be useful to demonstrate whether or not current legitimate complaints about GWB are relevant to Kerry's direct amplification of the POW-related demands of the enemy in the early 1970-71.
The comments to this entry are closed.
