Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

The only thing I can think of that could counter the "Bush is completely inept/nuts" argument is that we are publicly doing dumb, counterproductive, and irrelevant things as reverse chatter to confuse potential terrorists.

If that is *NOT* what they are doing, some of us are f***ed and the rest of us are *VERY* f***ed.

Of course, the question really is how do cheney, rumsfeld, rice, powell, hadley, and feith all still have jobs.

And the answer is that bush wouldn't know what to do without them....

Why would hitting Colombia or Indonesia be a surprise to Al-Qaeda, apart from a pleasant one? (Obviously I'm not addressing anyone here, unless someone can channel Feith for me.)

Maybe we could have surprised North Vietnam in 1965 by invading Cuba (a second time).

Or in 1942, we could have invaded Spain.

It's hard to believe that this is true. It's like the police saying it is hard to find the criminals' headquarters, so let's just go beat up their (possibly, but maybe not) connected buddies in the suburbs, or, hey, maybe just go beat up people in the street that look like them. Maybe that will intimidate them. Or do something or other because it makes us look tough (though actually it makes us look like fools). So yeah, let's call that an effective response, even though the criminal headquarters and most of the infrastructure are miles away and remain untouched.
I really believe the dirty secret behind the counter productive "heavy manners" of the Bush admin are due to simple incompetence, and total lack of imagination. They cannot imagine how to recruit US Muslims or Arabs to infiltrate cells here, or just get close enough to them and maybe get the scoop. No, they cannot imagine that, and it would take people who really understood good police work, and it would be difficult and take a long time, so they decided to just round up and humiliate people, and conduct obvious, absurd, heavy handed "voluntary" interviews.
Of course, I suppose there could be secret recruitment going on (some one let me know if there is a program), but after the fiasco of the Muslim-American round-ups, the effectiveness of any program must be severely compromised.
It is hard to believe some of this stuff is true. I find it difficult to believe that Bush wanted to go into Iraq before he resolved the Afghanistan problem, and that Blair had to talk him out of it. That is hard to believe and I hope it is not true, but apparently it is.

Tommy Franks said of Feith "He is the dumbest f*ing bastard on the face of the earth" or something to that effect. He must have seen this memo.

Regardless of my thoughts on the proposed strategy. I fail to see how anyone offering up ideas on anything should be sacked. I'd hope the people that are offering advise to the president offer a wide range of possibilities. From the radical to the ridiculous. From your post it appears that - if the decision were yours to eventually make - you'd prefer a room full of yes men. Or at the least toed your ideological line.
Using this as reason to "fear" bush and vote Kerry. You actually gave me reason to concern myself with the opposite.

I imagine the GOP would appreciate your effort.

MS

Bush doesn't appear to pay much attention.He clearly hasn't been able to prevent a number of ridiculous plans being put into effect.

And anyway, there's thinking outside the box, and then there's drooling like an idiot on top of it. I'm with General franks on this one.

So they were aware that Alqaeda?Sp were not in Iraq!

"Hit 'em where they ain't" might be a good strategy in baseball, but it's sheer idiocy in "warfare".

This memo was, indeed, written. And frankly, I don't think it's at all unbelievable. What is still unbelievable to me is how many Americans, and most of them not in the administration, went along with the logic of this memo. In fact, we're still going along with it.

Speaking as someone outside of the country who has a deep interest in your troubled condition, I would suggest that you are governed(loosely applied) by brutal demagogues who resemble no one so much as Cleon and his gang of bullies. They plunged the Athenian assembly into repeated frights. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Feith do not believe in using fair words in a fair fight. They will use any device to destroy their opponents. Foreign observers shudder at the results of this modern "Sicilian expedition."

G-lex:

Wow! Sicilian expedition! How apt!

What about Melos? Is that yet to come?

An American attack in South America? Wouldn't the Argentines and Brazilians have something to say about that? If you had enough specificity for an "attack", wouldn't issuing some Interpol arrest warrants do the job?

John Kerry will never win when the electorate finds out that two thirds of all Vietnam Veterans can’t stand him.

This is the issue that can determine the outcome of this election if we can get the word out. It will have no impact on the 30% of the electorate who hate Bush and America, but it will keep some Bush haters from voting and it will flip enough of the undecided to totally preclude a Kerry victory.

I recently asked a Viet Vet buddy if he knew any Viet Vets who liked Kerry and he thought for a moment. He then said...

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/08/john_kerry_will.html

Hate to break it to you, but the percentage of the population who have decided, and are hardcore about it, that Bush needs to be replaced is well over 30%. Also hate to break it to you, but your friend does not a scientific sample make.

Adrian, we liked you better when you just posted links that we could ignore.

How anyone knows what the 2.7M Americans who served in Vietnam think is beyond me, whatever your "buddy" may think.

I had an amusing conversation with a Vietnam vet in a bar where he claimed that no one who had served in Vietnam would ever support Kerry. I told him I knew three Vietnam vets who were voting for Kerry and offered to give him their names and email addresses. When I handed the piece of paper to him he threw it in my face, called me a liar and wanted to fight. He was ejected from the bar in short order. I guess this is why you shouldn't discuss politics in bars.

g-lex:

Unlike Bush, Cleon did go and fight himself, and was, unfortunately for the Atheneans, initially successful. Bush&co, on the other hand, have had one uninterrupted series of miserable failures.

Website margins are wrong in Mozilla. Works fine in IE 6.0, but Mozilla now shows super-wide screen. Not sure what changed.

cw

I have just read Robert Fisk's latest report in the Independent UK on the catastrophic conditions in Iraq. Our TV is not informing us of how very devastating that war is going, and how much killing and destruction has already been done, and how hopeless the future. The details are sickening.

Apropos Adrian and Kerry.

A very libertarian acquaintance (who, incidentally, plans to vote for Kerry) tells me a group of Viet Nam vets - 250 by his claim - will tell all about why Kerry's medal are undeserved on 17 Aug.

I've marked it on my calendar. I'm very curious what sort of crap John O'Quinn will try this time. One thing I thought amusing was the specificity of the information - usually this sort of BS is vague and unsourced.

Of all the things I hold against Doug Feith, this is small potatos. It's just an internal memo, trying to think ouside the box.

Of course, it's also likely he's using the Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) strategy:

Mom, can I jump off the roof?

No, Calvin.

Mom, can I hammer nails on the coffee table?

No, Calvin

Mom, can I have a cookie? (invade Iraq)

Someone above mentioned that the website margins
are bad in Mozilla. They are also bad in Safari.

Here's something interesting -- Clinton actually took a majority of the Vet vote in 1996. YEs, against war hero Bob DOle. Vets are not one group at all. My guess is that there are some Vietnam Vets who dislike Kerry, partly for political reasons, and partly for his anti-Vietnam war stance, there are others who like him, and others who are neutral (and will vote in their regular fashion).

Kerry definitely needs to counter some of this Hanoi John lies and nonsense being spread by the right. He needs to explain clearly that he was accusing the architects of the war, not those who fought it. And of course Republicans will try to link him to Jane Fonda -- that will have to be countered as well -- theres a vast differnce between protesting a war on your soil and going to an enemy which has American soldiers tcaptive.

Speaking of Hanoi John, here's a rally that all Vietnam vets are invited to: http://www.kerrylied.com/

Better Kerry's honest feelings over Vietnam than AWOL Bush any day of the week.

Philip Carter at intel-dump also has something to say about Doug Feith:

http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2004_08_00.shtml#1091457472

"According to this report by Michael Hirsh and John Barry in Newsweek, all the way to the top of the Pentagon. Since reports of abuse first broke in April 2003, there has been speculation over how high the legal, political and moral culpability would go. Sy Hersh's report in the New Yorker on "Copper Green" -- the official sanctioning of the Abu Ghraib abuses by senior Pentagon leadership -- pointed fingers directly at SecDef Rumself [sic] and USD(P) Feith."

How anyone knows what the 2.7M Americans who served in Vietnam think is beyond me, whatever your "buddy" may think.

Posted by howard

THE PUBLIC ENQUIRY PROJECT HAS CALCULATED THAT FIGURE OF 2/3 OF VIETNAM VETERANS DISLIKING KERRY USING EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS OF NUMEROUS DATA POINTS UTILIZING A PROPRIETARY ANALYTICAL SYSTEM.

ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SERIOUSLY DISPUTE OUR FINDINGS IS INVITED TO PERFORM THEIR OWN SCIENTIFIC POLL, IF THEY DARE.

ADRIAN

"Kerry's honest feelings" = war crimes accusations against all Vietnam veterans.

Most remember. Many are still mad and looking to get even. The election campaign is a propitious time to do so.

Mike wrote, "Regardless of my thoughts on the proposed strategy. I fail to see how anyone offering up ideas on anything should be sacked."

Uh, depends on the ideas being offered, doesn't it?

"I'd hope the people that are offering advise to the president offer a wide range of possibilities. From the radical to the ridiculous. From your post it appears that - if the decision were yours to eventually make - you'd prefer a room full of yes men. Or at the least toed your ideological line."

Offering the ridiculous *might* be OK, depending on the context it was made in. Given that other evidence indicates Feith is seriously disconnected from reality, there's no reason to give him this benefit of the doubt.

So...yes, we *should* have yes men if the question is "Does 2 + 2 = 4?"

Adrian Spidle wrote, "...It will have no impact on the 30% of the electorate who hate Bush and America..."

The implication that many/most of those of us who don't think much of Bush also hate America is a repugnant slur.

Go slink back into your cave, you anti-American troglodyte.

'"Kerry's honest feelings" = war crimes accusations against all Vietnam veterans.'

Not true. I've actually read his testimony. Firstly, he spotlighted the Winter Soldier statements, not introduced his own. Secondly, it seemed clear that his main focus was on the architects of the war -- the McNamara's and others.

Will some Viet vets hate him for that ? Yes, but unless lies are used to connect him to Jane Fonda or the like, I believe most will treat him based on his positions. [ Which probably means that many will still go for Bush, but not based on lies]

'THE PUBLIC ENQUIRY PROJECT HAS CALCULATED THAT FIGURE OF 2/3 OF VIETNAM VETERANS DISLIKING KERRY USING EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS OF NUMEROUS DATA POINTS UTILIZING A PROPRIETARY ANALYTICAL SYSTEM.'

TRanslation -- we pulled it out of our Ass.

Speaking as a statistician;

"EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS OF NUMEROUS DATA POINTS UTILIZING A PROPRIETARY ANALYTICAL SYSTEM"

translation: buyer beware.
A "proprietary analytical system" = canned mystery meat

There is some truth to the saying "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Only corrective is to let people know exactly what has been done to get the results. "proprietary analytical system" is a real alarm bell in that respect.

Hanoi John is not going to get any benefit of the doubt with a lot of Vietnam vets. He put himself out there in public charging them with war crimes and now it's those vets turn to charge him with lying.
Turn about is fair play wouldn't you say?

I dare say that there are many other Vietnam vets who have participated in atrocities and/or knew of others who did. What their feelings may be, who knows. Any soldier who was not a REMF in Vietnam (and maybe some who were) is probably aware of them.

'Hanoi John is not going to get any benefit of the doubt with a lot of Vietnam vets. He put himself out there in public charging them with war crimes and now it's those vets turn to charge him with lying.'

Except that he didn't (charge all vets with war crimes). So its easy to see who's lying.

"I've marked it on my calendar. I'm very curious what sort of crap John O'Quinn will try this time. One thing I thought amusing was the specificity of the information - usually this sort of BS is vague and unsourced."

Since the 250 are his former colleagues on Swift Boats, it's not at all surprising they're being specific.

"Since the 250 are his former colleagues on Swift Boats, it's not at all surprising they're being specific"

With possibly one exception, none has ever served with him on his boat. And 250 people have specific knowledge about his war wounds ?

Are the trolls here always like cardboard cutouts?

That's a smart angle. Play up Vietnam. Decorated Vet vs. A Man who went AWOL from his freaking National Guard duty.

"THE PUBLIC ENQUIRY PROJECT HAS CALCULATED THAT FIGURE OF 2/3 OF VIETNAM VETERANS DISLIKING KERRY USING EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS OF NUMEROUS DATA POINTS UTILIZING A PROPRIETARY ANALYTICAL SYSTEM.

ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SERIOUSLY DISPUTE OUR FINDINGS IS INVITED TO PERFORM THEIR OWN SCIENTIFIC POLL, IF THEY DARE."

BWAAHAAAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Douglas J. Feith, Sept. 20, 2001: "a non-al Qaeda target like Iraq"

> Since the 250 are his former colleagues on Swift Boats....

Must have been damned crowded.

My observation about most of the vets that dislike Kerry seem to be that they blame him for the bad reception they got when they got home.

The VN vets that were called baby killers
rather than being honored for serving their country are the ones who blame Kerry for this.

Do not confuse people with the facts.

Adrian, as others have noted, i guess the answer is: you don't have any idea how 2.7M americans who served in vietnam think and feel.

Lawrence, you're of course free to have whatever opinion you want of kerry, but please tell us that you've actually read kerry's testimony and aren't relying on right-wing distortions of it?

"Are the trolls here always like cardboard cutouts?"

Yes, their purpose seem to be to prevent any intellegent discussion of the posted topic... It's perhaps a good sign, though, it must mean we're onto something. ;-)

Could it be that most Vietnam veterans will examine the respective miitary records of Senator Kerry and President Bush in making their decison as to which one gets their vote?

(Also, could it also be that many Vietnam veteran have heard about the buzz among active servicemen and women as well as about the anger from retired military brass? I mean, how can these right-wing troll assume that Viet veterans don't have a brain?)

Feith's memo is just like the old Doonesbury cartoon where a Pentagon general is telling a congressional committee about plans to invade Belgium.

"But Belgium is a U.S. ally," a senator interjects.

"Yes, sir, we expect to achieve complete surprise."

Except Doonesbury is make-believe, and Feith (alas) is not.

Do no Vietnam or Vietnam-era vets read this blog? I'm one of the latter, and I'll cancel out Adrian's friend by saying I'm all for Kerry.

Good one, Waffle.

AWOL! That'll play real well. And who cares that it simply isn't true, right? It sounds cool. And since We All Know Bush Is Bad, that makes it okay, doesn't it?

Look. Say you don't like Bush. Say you don't like [Bush Policy] for [vaguely logical, articulated reason]; that's all fine and dandy and probably even within the realm of patriotic behaviour (depending on the policy and the reason for disliking it, but we'll grant, that for sake of argument, none of them in question are un-patriotic), but brazenly lying (which is all I can call it, since the AWOL meme has been disproven thoroughly; if you still believe it, then it's wilful ignorance, and that's no better than deliberate deceit) about the President to score some points is not kosher, okay?

Disapproving of the man or his policies is within the bounds of vaguely reasonable political discourse; lying about him makes you look worse than it does him.

(PS. I also suspect, frankly, that the reason such tactics are resorted to is that those doing so are at least subconsciously aware that they cannot compete in terms of actual ideas, policies, or substance. But maybe that's just me being mean. Certainly it's true that some people resorting to that are unable to.)

The original topic before Mr. Spidle conveniently hijacked it with his wishful, specious and proprietary thinking, was the fact that Mr. Feith had advocated initiating warfare against countries that had not attacked the USA and were completely, admittedly unrelated to both Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks.

This would make the man an advocate for war crimes. That his superiors did not immediately suspend his employment and seek a non-deranged, rational replacement speaks volumes. Birds of a feather flock together, etc.

That this is being feebly discussed 2 years after the fact on an obscure blog instead of having been front page news informing an outraged citizenry speaks volumes about the moribund, feeble and essentially corrupt the 4th estate has become.

Sigivald wrote, "...since the AWOL meme has been disproven thoroughly..."

LOL! Yeah, right.

"PS. I also suspect, frankly, that the reason such tactics are resorted to is that those doing so are at least subconsciously aware that they cannot compete in terms of actual ideas, policies, or substance. But maybe that's just me being mean."

LOL! You must be joking. Policies? You mean like (a) bankrupting the Treasury, (b) attacking countries that pose no substantial threat to the US, lying about that threat to get away with it, and in the process diverting resources away from the real threat (e.g. al Qaeda)?

The reason folks point out that Bush avoided meaningful service in Vietnam is merely because he (like most right wingers) likes to drape himself with the flag.

Please ignore Adrian Spidle and his delusional trollish rantings. He is obviously not all there, and anyone who might disagree is invited to peruse his demented weblog that he continually vomits upon us. Like I've said before, his philosophy is an abominable mixture of Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard.

Adrian- time to talk to your doctor about neuroleptic medications. The newer, atypical antipsychotics have surprisingly few side effects!

The only thing worse than a rightwing troll who tries to hijack this thread is a demented, stupid rightwing troll. Are you reading, Adrian? Now bugger off!

Adrian has body Thetans.

And about that Bush AWOL stuff being "debunked":

http://www.glcq.com/fraud.htm

"Lawrence, you're of course free to have whatever opinion you want of kerry, but please tell us that you've actually read kerry's testimony and aren't relying on right-wing distortions of it?"

I've read Kerry's Senate testimony and I feel that he was taking a shot at all Vietnam veterans with his war crimes allegations. Moreover, I've compared notes with many other Vietnam vets and they feel the same way. Kerry lied.

For whatever reason (political ambitions seem to be the conclusion of a Navy Seal friend of mine who was in MA in 1971), John Kerry chose to alledge that all Vietnam veterans (excepting himself I suppose since he was going to run for Congress in '72) committed war crimes or at least had knowledge of them. He wallowed in this war crimes charge malignity and we Vietnam veterans who choose have every right to call John Kerry a liar.

Kerry has had plenty of time to apologize to Vietnam veterans and say that he was wrong and ask forgiveness. But, he has never done so. Now it's our time to call him on his lie that he probably thought he would never have to answer for.

Surprise, John.

"John Kerry chose to alledge that all Vietnam veterans (excepting himself I suppose since he was going to run for Congress in '72) committed war crimes or at least had knowledge of them"

Could you give a specific statement where he said that or something like that ?

'Kerry has had plenty of time to apologize to Vietnam veterans and say that he was wrong and ask forgiveness'

He has said that he was not accusing all veterans of war crimes. And he has said that his statemetns were excessive, and reflected his anger at that time.

You're certainly free to oppose Kerry, express your opinion of him, or your own dislike of him. However, there are vets who hold different opinions -- even in the Senate, all the other Vietnam Vets (McCain, Hagel, Kerrey, Clelland) although political opponents at times do seem to be personal friends.

I'm starting to wonder if the Republican apologists posting here are in fact Kerry-supporters in disguise trying to make the Republicans look even more stupid and cynical (if that's even possible).

By all means, keep the debate going on Kerry's military service vs. Bush's. Bush is going to l-o-s-e that comparison, and the unsubstantiated sniping and speculation on whether Vietnam vets will whack Kerry in November think come across as really pathetic. My hunch is that most will vote according to their interests, and will not be pleased to support an incumbent who presided over the wiping out of their retirement, their jobs, and their health care.

Well, Lawrence, all i can say is that your "feelings" about what you read in kerry's testimony seem to have overwhelmed your rational self in reading kerry's testimony.

Here are the two comments that Kerry made with respect to "taking a shot at all veterans:"

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

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 {Page 181} the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

(snip)

"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we {Page 185} are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything."

Kerry also returned to this theme when questioned about Lt. Calley and the My Lai massacre:

"SENATOR PELL: Finally in connection with Lieutenant Calley, which is a very emotional issue in this country, I was struck by your passing reference to that incident.

Wouldn’t you agree with me though that what he did in herding old men, women and children into a trench and then shooting them was a little bit beyond the perimeter of even what has been going on in this war and that that action should be discouraged. There are other actions not that extreme that have gone on and have been permitted. If we had not taken action or cognizance of it, it would have been even worse. It would have indicated we encouraged this kind of action.

Mr. KERRY. My feeling, Senator, on Lieutenant Calley is what he did quite obviously was a horrible, horrible, horrible thing and I have no bone to pick with the fact that he was prosecuted. But I think that in this question you have to separate guilt from responsibility, and I think clearly the responsibility for what has happened there lies elsewhere.

I think it lies with the men who designed free fire zones. I think it lies with the men who encouraged body counts. I think it lies in large part with this country, which allows a young child before he reaches the age of 14 to see 12,500 deaths on television, which glorifies the John Wayne syndrome, which puts out fighting man comic books on the stands, which allows us in training to do calisthenics to four counts, on the fourth count of which we stand up and shout 'kill' in unison, which has posters in barracks in this country with a crucified Vietnamese, blood on him, and underneath it says 'kill the gook,' and I think that clearly the responsibility for all of this is what has produced this horrible abberation {sic}."

In fact, Kerry spent far more time talking about how to end the war, far more time talking about the problems veterans face in returning to the US, far more time talking about the ARVN and the corrupt south vietnamese government, far more time talking about the problems of drug abuse among american soldiers in vietnam.

he also made it very clear that " I don’t want to get into the game of saying I represent everybody over there."

The senators to whom he testified were all very respectful; Senator Pell hoped that Kerry would be a colleague of theirs in the Senate some day; no one even questioned him about the Winter Soldier investigation, which provides some idea of the contemporary reaction.

So i ask you, Lawrence: out of all of this (or go ahead and go back into the testimony and see if i missed something), could you please tell us where kerry "took a shot at all veterans?"

2Fair said:"Bush&co, on the other hand, have had one uninterrupted series of miserable failures."

Isn't "miserable failure" the drumbeat of one of the contenders in the Dem primary, but couldn't win his own parties primary in his own state? Gep.....or something, as I remember....so long ago now.

Guess even the Dems weren't pick'in up what he was put'in down.

Kerry told the truth then and now, which is a reflection of the honor in the man. It's sad that some still don't have the courage to admit reality and need to distort history. Even McNamara, the Sec of Def who was more responsible than most for the escalation, has said the war was a mistake. But some persist in wanting to believe that the problem was backstabbing liberals...as if they held the reins of power then or now.

The horrible fact is that then, as now, the leadership sent good young men to die, suffer and perform extreme violence--in the service of egregious lies and failures of judgment.

The notion that Kerry said all soldiers committed attrocities is a lie. But do you, Lawrence, dispute that war crimes were committed? That, in fact, many were committed? If so, than at best you are living in denial and need to educate yourself. The fact remains that Kerry said then and says now that he didn't believe all soldiers committed atrocities, and that the (mis)leaders bore the responsibility for orchestrating the madness, not the grunts who had little choice. So stop spreading lies if you have any respect for the truth.

The facts remain that Kerry volunteered to serve when his country asked. A noble and brave act. Kerry then told the truth about the madness he witnessed when he came back. A courageous act. Bush never volunteered and used family connections to escape danger. Opportunistic, not heroic. Bush has never told the truth about it then or since. Quite dishonest. Most vets have a low tolerance for bullshit and can see who behaved honorably, risked death in the service of others--and who has been the opportunistic, privileged moral failure.

To parrot lies, presumably one must believe them and have a preference for leaders who tell soothing lies. If your conscience tells you to vote for Bush, so be it and good luck to you. But the rest of us see that Bush is deeply unfit to lead and that Kerry is and has been his superior in countless ways. I am relieved that a man of Kerry's quality is actually the candidate. Now if only the zealots in Congress can be ejected as well.

"I find it difficult to believe that Bush wanted to go into Iraq before he resolved the Afghanistan problem, and that Blair had to talk him out of it. "

He did invade Iraq before settling Afghanistan. Afghanistan is far from settled now.

I emailed Professor Delong about the display problems. I believe it is a stylesheet problem with the blockquote tag.

"...It's like the police saying it is hard to find the criminals' headquarters, so let's...just go beat up people in the street that look like them. Maybe that will intimidate them...."

This commenter has hit the nail on the head. None of what has transpired is puzzling if you understand the "conservative" notion of law enforcement, whose central tenet is that the deterrent effect of punishment does NOT depend on getting the right guy.

Bush left Afghanistan to its inevitable doom, and let Bin Laden go free. He failed to catch Bin Laden at Tora Bora, and now the world is assaulted by the cancerous al Qaeda cells he spawned. Too late for all of us now.

"...war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

This is the most damming sentence of Kerry's Senate testimony. It occurred right up front so everyone would know what he was saying. He essentially said that war crimes in Vietnam happened every day, occurred everywhere, and everybody knew about it. And thus all were responsible. This was of course not so. I was there. Hundreds of my friends were there. None have ever said anything of this nature.

I know there were war crimes committed in Vietnam. However, 99% of them were committed by the Viet Cong and NVA. I also know that a real effort was made to prosecute those perpetrated by U.S. forces. This I know from officers who were in the JAG Corps of the military services. Nothing remotely approaching the level of war crimes committed by U.S. forces that is alledged by Kerry ever occurred. This is hype on an enormous scale and John Kerry is responsible for this hype.

So believe what you will about John Kerry. Those who were actually in Vietnam will do likewise for they have first-hand knowledge of Vietnam AND also of John Kerry's private words, actions and motivations from that time. These are things that cast John Kerry in a different light from the one in which you desperately wish to view him.

Vietnam veterans know well the big lie that John Kerry foisted on Congress and the American public. They have not and will not forget Kerry's damming lie perpetrated not for any moral purpose but rather for personal ambition. We know John Kerry. He was one of us. When he chose to be something else, we still know him.

""...war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

This is the most damming sentence of Kerry's Senate testimony. It occurred right up front so everyone would know what he was saying. He essentially said that war crimes in Vietnam happened every day, occurred everywhere, and everybody knew about it. And thus all were responsible."

Why do you feel the need to willfully misrepresent the facts? More to the point, why do you think you can get away with it, when the words you are quoting and your interpretation of them so clearly disagree? What he says is, quite clearly, "crimes [were] committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." That does not mean they occurred "every day, occurred everywhere and everybody knew about it". Just as a simple counterexample, if a single unit were committing atrocities on a regular basis, and this was known all the way up the chain of command, then Kerry's description would be entirely accurate. It would not mean that every soldier in Vietnam was responsible. Far from it. Nobody but the members of that unit and the people in the direct chain of command would be responsible. Since you have much better knowledge of the chain of command than I do you obviously know this full well, but your hatred of Kerry makes you distort what he said. Now obviously Kerry wasn't saying that only a single unit was doing this, but the same principle applies to multiple units committing war crimes on a less regular basis. The chain of command is vertical. Obviously.

War crimes happen in war. They always have and always will. That doesn't mean all soldiers are evil, or even necessarily the people who commit those war crimes. War does terrible things to people's minds and morals and puts people under enormous pressure. Kerry understood that. But he wasn't going to sit back and let those crimes be tolerated, excused and in some cases endorsed by the chain of command.

"The facts remain that Kerry volunteered to serve when his country asked. A noble and brave act. Kerry then told the truth about the madness he witnessed when he came back. A courageous act. Bush never volunteered and used family connections to escape danger. Opportunistic, not heroic."

Again, these are not the facts. You people are living in fantasy land.

'Those who were actually in Vietnam will do likewise for they have first-hand knowledge of Vietnam AND also of John Kerry's private words, actions and motivations from that time.'

How someone else has knowledge of Kerry's private words, actions and motivations is unclear.

'Vietnam veterans know well the big lie that John Kerry foisted on Congress and the American public. '

Vietnam Vets are not a monolithic group. You're free to speak for yourself, and for others that are like minded, but you clearly cannot speak for all, or even most Vets.

"Vietnam Vets are not a monolithic group. You're free to speak for yourself, and for others that are like minded, but you clearly cannot speak for all, or even most Vets."

Then we'll simply let Vietnam veterans speak for themselves and those who are not can go pound sand. Seems reasonable to me.

"Vietnam Vets are not a monolithic group. You're free to speak for yourself, and for others that are like minded, but you clearly cannot speak for all, or even most Vets."

Then we'll just have to let Vietnam veterans speak for themselves at the polls and see how they decide to do so. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

But you should expect some Vietnam veterans to speak out before the vote and you likely won't like what they have to say about your boy Kerry.

"Vietnam Vets are not a monolithic group. You're free to speak for yourself, and for others that are like minded, but you clearly cannot speak for all, or even most Vets."

Then we'll just have to let Vietnam veterans speak for themselves at the polls and see how they decide to do so. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

"Vietnam Vets are not a monolithic group. You're free to speak for yourself, and for others that are like minded, but you clearly cannot speak for all, or even most Vets."

Then we'll just have to let Vietnam veterans speak for themselves at the polls and see how they decide to do so. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

'But you should expect some Vietnam veterans to speak out before the vote and you likely won't like what they have to say about your boy Kerry.'

Maybe not, but I'm sure I'll survive. In any case, they are entitled to their opinions, but as always, there will be people willing to point out when inaccurate statements or political biases seem to impact opinions.

{ Was there any need to post essentially the same statement 4 times, incidentally ?]

"{ Was there any need to post essentially the same statement 4 times, incidentally ?]"

There was something wrong with the web site. I kept getting an error msg and couldn't tell if any of the posts actually made it.

Maybe the Kerry campaign was conducting electronic warfare to prevent me from posting any more of the truth about Hanoi John! LOL

"{ Was there any need to post essentially the same statement 4 times, incidentally ?]"

Website error messages. Possibly caused by the Kerry campaign conducting electronic warfare to prevent any more of the truth being posted ablot Hanoi John. LOL

Lawrence, by excising the beginning of the sentence from kerry's testimony, you made it something that it wasn't. He was reporting on what the people at the winter soldiers hearings had said. He made that very clear. Since, at peak, there were 550K soldiers in Vietnam, and since there were a total of 2.7M soldiers who served in Vietnam, there were probably plenty of soldiers who were aware of awful behaviors, and many more who weren't. Under no circumstances can you twist Kerry's remarks into a blanket indictment of all soldiers.

Well, let me rephrase that. Under no honest circumstances; obviously the right wing loves to twist.

Take Patrick, for instance: he twists George Bush hiding out in the national guard as some brave act of flight training by a true soldier, whereas he twists John Kerry actually serving in Vietnam into some kind of weekend camping exercise.

So the ability to "twist" is, of course, unrelated to the truthfulness of the outcome....

"Lawrence, by excising the beginning of the sentence from kerry's testimony, you made it something that it wasn't."

Well, Howard, how do YOU know what Kerry meant by it. And if Kerry didn't mean that war crimes were wide spread among U.S. forces, why didn't he say so instead of leaving the impression that war crimes were rampart?

Other posters on this thread have said that we who would call Kerry on his big lie don't know anything about his private words, actions, and motivations. So how do YOU know so much of what was going through Kerry's mind at that Senate testimony. Do you channel Kerry or something?

Lawrence, i don't have to read his mind; i just have to read his words, which i will quote for you again:

"several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

That's what he was talking about: it's very clear. This isn't some ambiguous sentence construction.

And i'll add in again that no one on the committee even thought to question him about this topic, not even Senator Symington, who had been the first Secretary of the Air Force and presumably was sensitive to slights of veterans, being one himself (as were several other members of the panel).

And i'll add in again that Kerry said " I don’t want to get into the game of saying I represent everybody over there."

So i don't have to be privvy to anything but Kerry's testimony; the obligation is on those who claim that Kerry argued that all american soldiers in vietnam were war criminals to show us, textually, how he did that. And it would help if they further showed us why, if Kerry felt that way, he never discussed it any other time....

By saying, "I don’t want to get into the game of saying I represent everybody over there." doesn't say that he wasn't accusing the U.S. military of committing war crimes on a massive scale. "Representing" means that others may have different views on the subject. That's all it means. However, that is different than saying what you think is actually happening on the ground.

By Kerry not delimiting his remarks by saying something to the effect that "war crimes among U.S. militray forces were rare considering the size and length of the conflict", he was clear saying to the public in the most public place that war crimes were being committed by U.S. forces all the time, everywhere and most very one knew about them to include "all levels of command".

Kerry's words could not be more clear. Thousands of Vietnam veterans understand them. There is not the least doubt in their minds. Maybe there is something in service to one's country that enables one to better understand such inflamatory statements. The import of these words certainly seem lost on you and others of your persuasion.

But, Howard, you do deserve a Gold Star for standing up for your boy Kerry. Nice try indeed.

'Kerry's words could not be more clear. Thousands of Vietnam veterans understand them'

Perhaps, but not all of them understand them the same way you do.

Incidentally, I remember kerry (along with Hagel, Clelland, McCain etc.) defending ex-Senator Bob Kerrey from war crimes accusations in Vietnam recently. Would someone who believed all soldiers committed war crimes defend someone who was accused (by one of his men, no less) of war crimes ?

"Perhaps, but not all of them understand them the same way you do."

That's why we have elections and horse races.

interior monologues and (as Carson's readers have map quest come to expect) digressions on matters of classical us map scholarship. This kind of thing is imitated badly map and often by others, but Carson's phraseology within maps poems remains her own: "Rotate the husband and expose mapquest a hidden side," she urges early on

"A very libertarian acquaintance (who, incidentally, plans to vote for Kerry)..."

Your acquaintance is not "very libertarian." He or she is not even libertarian. No libertarians are voting for John Kerry (or G.W. Bush, or Ralph Nader).

***ALL*** real libertarians are voting for Michael Badnarik (the Libertarian Party candidate).

Mark Bahner (REAL libertarian)

"None of what has transpired is puzzling if you understand the "conservative" notion of law enforcement, whose central tenet is that the deterrent effect of punishment does NOT depend on getting the right guy."

Sort of like liberals bombing a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan struck a blow against terrorists around the world, Frank?

Sorry, that "liberals" in my last comment should have been in quotation marks.