…has become one of those indispensable resources I turn to every day to monitor the developing struggle between the mainstream media and the blogosphere on the Swift Boat veterans and related matters. Let’s call it the “honesty in campaigning issue,” if such a thing were remotely possible. Tom is a more assiduous fact-checker than I (too much fiction/screenwriter in me)and I rely on him for a more thorough approach. He deals with Le Mystère de la Cambodge, recently discussed on this blog, here and with the Kranish Perplex here.
In his discussion of Michael Kranish, the Boston Globe journo in various “blogosights” yesterday for distorting the non-retraction retraction of Swift Boat Captain George Elliott, we see Maguire at his best, first attacking Kranish full bore, accusing the reporter of that greatest of journalistic sins, the Dowd-like use of ellipses, and then pulling back slightly as the blogger learns more. This is what blogs do well, refining their thoughts for accuracy as the story clarifies. Newspapers, lumbering vehicles that they are, cannot do that. But that does not exonerate Kranish from an explanation for his distortions. The public deserves it. His honor requires it. This is a serious matter.
UPDATE: Do not miss the personal observations of Texas attorney William “Beldar” Dyer on this matter. Although I assume most have seen the link on Instapundit, I’ll add my praise to this other first-rate blog.
MORE: The Globe bangs its shoe here. Of course, what is missing is a reprint of the affadavit itself, letting us here in the “unwashed” decide for ourselves. Newspapers, especially the NYT, used to do that with some frequency, as I recall. No longer. That is why I prefer CSPAN to all cable networks. [Aren't you the impartial one?--ed. Who asked you?]
Don’t hold your breath.
Kranish will not offer an explanation. The Boston Globe will not offer an apology. Remember, this is the paper that published the proven-false Abu Ghraib “rape” photos long after they had been discredited. Even the most scurrilous British tabloids fired people over that; not the Globe.
Their position is simple. Hey, people only know what we tell them, so we can tell them what we want. Couple that with their reporters financially profiting from the Kerry campaign while they’re covering it and this is as contemptible an example of journalistic fraud as you are likely to never hear about…
My #1 son said that this topic is white hot.
A gentleman at work brought it up.
My son pointed out that Kerry shot a man in the back. End of topic.
My opinion is that 80+ days of relentless anti-Bush media is going to cause a backlash.
Kerry has just burned one of his operatives.
How many more can he burn until he has none.
So yes. The Dems are counter attacking. It is pretty feeble but they are holding their ground. They have to. Kerry has nothing else to run on.
The next big fight is going to be over Winter Soldier. That is all public. No secret service records.
We are about to witness the last major battle of the Viet Nam War.
Your Kranish is Cooked link doesn’t seem to work. Try this one.
M Simon’s dead on about the last battle of the Vietnam War. This was inevitable given the ascendence of Boomers to political power. This Generation Xer says that she’s already sick to death of this topic and hopes this kills it for once and for all.
OK, now we know the Boston Globe is lying. They say they’re standing by their story, and that Elliott’s “statement is literally true.”
I’ve run into this dodge trying to get a correction out of the Los Angeles Times. When they say the statement is literally true, what they mean is, the statement is not a lie in and of itself, but is being used to defend a misleading point. For example, “I shot the sheriffÖ” may be literally true, but if the full phrase is “I shot the sheriff a dirty look” then the actual truth is something wholly other…
All the Boston Globe has to do is reproduce the alleged affidavit in full, complete with notary seals to prove its authenticity. They won’t do that.
“The last major battle of the Viet Nam war”
Great analogy. Ralph Wetterhahn might have something to say about that though.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002DVK86/qid=1091894316/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-3070248-1136934?v=glance&s=books
I just thought of this whole Dem /LLL focus, even insistence, on viewing Iraq thru the lens of Vietnam in another way…
It’s not just that they *think* Iraq is Vietnam, rather, as many have noticed, they WANT it to be another Vietnam. But why?
“Because they hate America” doesn’t quite cut it (though clearly true for some).
Instead, it’s this — for the generation in question, Vietnam IS “the good war”.
“Good” because THEY won — even f America as a whole lost…
My dictionary tells me that the French name for Cambodia is ‘Cambodge’, with a G, and that the country and the French word for ‘mystery’ are both masculine, not feminine. I don’t really know French, but I think that means that the italicized phrase in your first paragraph should be ‘Le MystËre du Cambodge’.
Sorry, I can’t help being pedantic, I’m a Latin teacher.
The Boston Globe has deliberately obfuscated the issue. Kranish should call Elliot up and ask him what he means when he says he was quoted out of context, so they can get his statement correct.
When Elliot says “I’m the one in trouble here,” he seems to be saying either (a) he shouldn’t have signed a Silver Star citation based upon Kerry shooting a fleeing, unarmed man in the back; or (b) he wasn’t certain Kerry did shoot him in the back. Either way, though, Kerry’s action doesn’t seem particularly valorous.
Yet as someone pointed out on Maguire’s blog, this is hearsay from one person. I am confident there will be multiple sources for each story in the book. O’Neill is a trial lawyer after all. Whether Elliot’s memory has become foggy or he is now questioning his own judgment, you can be sure there will be someone else in the book backing him up.
Looking at what Kerry supposedly did: shot a fleeing enemy combatant who had just launched a rocket at his boat. Leaving aside the fact that the skipper of a boat is not the one who should be running around on shore brandishing an M-16 (thereby abandoning his command) I’ve got no problem with shooting the guy. I mean, if someone takes a shot at you and then runs away, you know he’ll be back tomorrow to do it again. If he were to stop and put up his hands, then you take him prisoner, but otherwise it’s totally fair game, and it doesn’t matter if he is 13 or 30. Of course, I’m a right wing bastard; some of the bleeding hearts on the left might see it differently, but they’ll still vote for Kerry because they believe that Bush would do the very smae thing, but that he’d also sell the dead guys organs to Halliburton.
That said, I cannot fathom how such an action is worthy of any kind of decoration, let alone the third highest award for valour availible.
Michael Kranish may also be enticed to misbehave by the money George Soros and other wealthy liberals are throwing around. I doubt very much if he is taking a direct bribe. Nonetheless, there are many subtle ways to skin a cat. Iím sure it is well known that those who significantly help to defeat President Bush will receive some form of monetary compensation. It may be as innocent appearing as being invited to participate in a seminar and receiving a handsome honorarium for doing so. The major media are essentially ignoring Sorosí activities—but we should not.
I have a good question: who is keeping Salon.com alive? This money losing enterprise is still up and running. The odds are very high that someone like George Soros is slipping them a few bucks. Who else is Soros funding?
Some time back I discovered that Kranish had written an article stating that Kerry was honorably discharged from the Navy in 1970, which conveniently left Kerry a civilian for his anti-war activities. Kerry’s resume showed service 66-70, 72-78 implying not in the service 70-72. Since I also joined the Navy in ’66, I was suspicious.
When Kerry’s military records were posted, the dates vanished from his autobiography and the records showed that he was in the Naval Reserve from 1970-1972, as would have been expected from his enlistment date. I emailed Kranish with the new information, pointing out the Honorable Discharge was issued in 1978, not 1970. I never got a response, and as far as I know, no correction was published.
Kerry’s web site has gone to a decepting Naval service term of ’66-’70.
I just sent email to the Globe asking why they didn’t simply print the affidavits. After all, why would I trust them what they say, given that Elliot said he had been misrepresented?
lindenen,
Kerry lied and 2 million died.
Many were against him from the start.
A lot more are pissed that he lied to us. (Me.)
This has to be sorted out for the soul of America. Kerry intentionally wounded this country at home and abroad for political gain.
Since he brought it up it is finally going to get settled. Not in his favor. Any way you look at it he is a war criminal.
Winter Soldier is the key.
I thought Vietnam was buried and forgotten a closed chapter. Kerry – the worst of the lot – brought it up. There is a God.
BTW Kerry is “Unfit to Command” is #1 at Amazon. Now. Unreleased.
If Bob Dole is any indication you have 10 more years of Vietnam Vets left in Presidential politics.
Bostonian — Great idea!
If anyone else wants to write to the Boston Globe and demand the affidavits be published, go Here
I also asked them if they really needed another Abu Ghraib photo blunder…
Mr. Simon, thank you for the link and kind remarks. I blush to read them.
I think that the two affidavits in question can be found here. Tom Maguire’s post on Captain Elliott and the Globe is first-rate. My own much more narrow (yet longwinded) take on the affidavits and Captain Elliott’s assertions from a technical, evidentiary standpoint is here.
>”The last major battle of the Viet Nam war”
That is true in more ways that one.
Existentially, this election is a war between the exact same idealogies that were at stake in Vietnam. Kerry sympathized more with the northern ideology then, and he still does.
>This Generation Xer says that she’s already sick to death of this topic and hopes this kills it for once and for all.
Someone wise once said that those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are destined to repeat them.
Pulling out of Vietnam was a horrific mistake that resulted in the deaths of millions.
If you don’t want to learn from that, that’s your problem.
Good luck to you.
>It’s not just that they *think* Iraq is Vietnam, rather, as many have noticed, they WANT it to be another Vietnam. But why?
Because Kerry and his ilk want to cut and run.
I hate to see a lot of this come out but Kerry wanted to make it an issue.
He used these guys one too many times.
Maybe this will be an end to Viet Nam.
I wonder what Moore and the rest of the anti war movement today would say about an American soldier backshooting an Iraqi? Would they ever let him run for president? Such hypocricy.
>Such hypocricy.
We should be grateful they are such hypocrites. It means their house is built on sand. And when the winds blow it’s going to come crashing down.
Total disaster around here, let me tell you. FINANCIAL TIMES picked up the GLOBE’s report and my husband believes not only that Elliott retracted his statement, but that he has now, with his retraction-of-the-retraction, “lawyered up” and is not to be trusted.
End of story.
Oh–and the Republicans always engage in this kind of vicious character assassination.
Etc.
I’ve had it.
Though I am going to point out to him that both affidavits are now available online if he should care to check out GLOBE policy on the use of ellipses.
Never say die!
I have to hand it to the guy: if I had his political beliefs, being married to me would be no picnic.
I just emailed the GLOBE asking them to publish both affidavits.
>Oh–and the Republicans always engage in this kind of vicious character assassination.
LOL. If it’s true it’s not character assassination.
The Vets aren’t like the slimy Michael Moore.
I do think Kerry has lost the animal rights folks, what with his machine gunning of small animals.
Let’s hope.
I’m with holdfast on the fleeing Viet Cong, more or less. Well . . . maybe less than more. Personally I would prefer a concerted effort to take the guy prisoner, which does not seem to have occurred.
Either way, it doesn’t deserve a medal.
People ordinarily like to be associated with famous people even if they were not that impressed. In fact, a mild negative has some air of one-upmanship. My grandfather, who had Robert Frost as a highschool English teacher, enjoyed pointing out that Frost’s heart wasn’t in it and wasn’t very good.
In the ordinary course of events then, the sailors who served with Kerry would likely brag about it; even if they remembered him as a little puffy or inadequate, would more likely brag about the association. “I knew John Kerry when…”
Granted, Kerry’s testimony before congress put many vets off, and many would continue to hold that grudge. But anyone who talks with Vietnam-era vets knows that they give quite a mixed review at this late date. Some are angry that we ever went in, and agree with Kerry. Others remain fiercely proud of their part in the war. Most veterans hold one of a range of opinions in between. Almost all have left the issue far behind. Kerry’s testimony would not be enough to tick off 220 out of 229 at this late date.
Thirty-five years later, many sailors who served with Kerry would be willing to overlook youth, arrogance, and even a certain fecklessness. That these swiftboat veterans are this adamant in their insistence that Kerry is not fit for command on the basis of his actions when they were all young men is certainly very damning. That the few closest to him hold him in high regard is certainly intriguing, but does not begin to outweigh the assessment of the others.
Blathering on . . . .
You really do see the “echo effect” with this.
Because my husband read about Elliot’s retraction in the FINANCIAL TIMES, he absolutely perceived it as true.
This happens especially with rumors, like the rumor about Kerry’s mistress.
Drudge will run the rumor, and at some point the British tabloids will pick it up, then at that point the MSM here can run a story (because the rumor has appeared in a “real” paper, not on Drudge, and so has become fair game), and the whole thing snowballs into truth, because it’s crossed the Atlantic a couple of times. and has been detached from its original source. (Snowballs? On the ocean?)
Each time an item crosses the ocean it gains in credibility; it becomes something “everyone knows.”
This morning I was actually able to reverse this process, more or less, by printing out the original BOSTON GLOBE article, and point out that the FINANCIAL TIMES did no original reporting of its own, but simply quoted the GLOBE (as they clearly stated in the article.)
None of this matters, though; it’s the “global” impression that gets made that’s devastating (pun intended).
I’m no expert at all in the law of war crimes. But I suspect that both the “legality” and practical ethics of shooting someone in the back during combat is highly situational.
For instance, Strategy Page has a very graphic video clip (warning: definitely not for the weak of stomach or young children) from Iraq showing a terrorist getting nailed from behind. The fellow was about to launch an RPG at Coalition soldiers, however, and I feel pretty sure that preventing him from doing so was no war crime.
I also note, in passing, that although some in the MSM and certainly in the blogosphere are accusing Kerry of committing war crimes, the SwiftVets aren’t. I’m certainly not!
In fact, the SwiftVets aren’t claiming that Kerry was a coward, either. It’s entirely possible to accept both the proposition that Kerry, on at least some occasions, displayed bravery, and also the proposition that he may have exaggerated (or even deliberately lied about) his combat service, his wounds, and his later claims that his fellow soldiers and sailors had committed widespread war crimes with the knowledge and encouragement of their superiors. Kerry’s opponents only do him a favor when they overstate the case against him.
Fellow RLS participants: this is a bit off topic but I believe it may shed a bit of light about the distinction the SBVs and the DNC talking points have made. This has to do with the the argument that the SBVs didnt serve “ON THE BOAT.”
Clearly true, they didnt–that doesnt mean they dont know what JFK lite was like.
I want to say this carefully because it might be misinterpreted as impugning the character of those sailors on JFKs boat. Recall that JFK lite put his is own crew in for awards (necessary in part to build the case for his). This action in effect coopts his crew. The validity of their awards depends on the validity of JFKs awards. I think this is an important consideration to make when looking at the support of those sailors for JFK–If I am wrong, I will apologize–but I think that could be a motivator.
Catherine:
Tell your husband for me that after F9/11 the Democrats will hold the record for dirty tricks for quite some time to come.
But they really did not have a thing to do with that did they? It was just one of those things….
I think this whole retraction thing is silly. I listened to Clinton lie long enough to know a man can say anything, but in truth I doubt that O’Neill would go to the trouble of making an issue of this just to retract it.
I don’t think Kerry is a war criminal or even a terrible person. I just think he is an oppurtunistic and insensitive person who has used Viet Nam to suit his political ambitions. When Dean was ahead then Kerry became the war hero. Thirty years ago he was the anti war activist. Problem is these men don’t appreciate being part of his fantasy. This is an old grudge and involves a lot of people. It is not about Republican dirty trucks and after implying that Bush would use terror for political advantage I think the Dems have abandoned any right to judge.
William,
A very good case can be made that Lt. Kerry would have been derelict if he had not shot an armed VC in a firefight. The direction in which the VC was heading and his age are absolutlely irrelevant, as is the fact that he was wounded. He had a weapon in hand, case closed.
The question at hand is whether Kerry’s report of the action was correct. It was his report that formed the basis for the reward citation (as far as I can tell). All the kerfuffle about “teenager”, “shot in the back” and Elliot is masking the fact that Elliot believes that he gave the OK for the award on the basis of false information. The falsity of the information rather than specifics are what were most problematic for Elliot.
Who provided the false, self aggrandizing information? Who signed the iniating request? How many guesses would you like?
For those who would like to read about what a full years tour was like (in roughly the same time frame), I can strongly reccommend Tommy Franks ‘American Soldier’. He picked up three hearts in his year, too. Did the whole tour.
Oh yes and what does it say about Kerry that he went to the lawyers and threatened to sue?
So far as I know Bush has tolerated some outrageous allegations without lawyering up as they say.
William,
The terrorist on the Strategy Page was shot from the front – note the bullets ricocheting off the street behind him.
My compliments on your site and commentary.
Rick, thanks for the compliment and the correction. I may have been fooled by what I thought were tracers, but then again, what I know about combat is strictly from Hollywood, and the FBI hasn’t hired me lately to take another look at the Zapruder film either, for good reasons. From whatever direction, that guy in the video clip needed taking out ASAP.
We have no video of Lt. Kerry, of course, but I entirely agree that how young or how wounded his foe was, or whether he was facing toward or away from Kerry, are all inconsequential to any of today’s discussions. Your point regarding the thoroughness (and perhaps the source) of the information available to Captain Elliott when he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star is very well taken; someone recently made a pair of related comments about that subject, and Captain Elliott’s 1996 statements, on my blog that I thought were very apt as well, and better informed than my own.
William Dyer wrote: I also note, in passing, that although some in the MSM and certainly in the blogosphere are accusing Kerry of committing war crimes, the SwiftVets aren’t. I’m certainly not!
In fact, the SwiftVets aren’t claiming that Kerry was a coward, either.
I’m not sure if what you say is totally accurate. Here is the bill of particulars, directly from Human Events Online’s teaser for the book that was e-mailed to me:
Sounds like borderline cowardice and possible war-crimes territory to me.
Fresh Air, I haven’t read the book yet either (although my copy’s on order). But I’m just very reluctant to use that term — “war crimes” — at all casually. And I think — but again, can’t be sure — that the SwiftVets would acknowledge that Kerry faced enemy fire on at least some occasions, without deserting or fleeing. I think their point is that, relative to what others did, to what was the norm, and especially to what other heroes who won Purple Hearts or Bronze or Silver Stars did, Kerry’s situation compares very unfavorably.
If those charges are to be leveled, it ought to be by someone who has bona fides that I, and most in the blogosphere, lack. But it certainly looks as if the SwiftVets have those bona fides.
The book publisher may be accurately summarizing what the book will say, and certainly the sample chapter they’ve distributed pulls no punches. Sizzle sells books (and maybe influences elections), and the chef still hasn’t delivered the platter for us to see how much steak there is to go with the sizzle, beyond that one bite-sized chunk of a sample chapter.
But from what I know of John O’Neill and have seen of him in person, my strong hunch is that the claims in the book are going to be fact-specific and closely vetted. The sample chapter suggests that having done that, the book may also let fly some pretty powerful conclusions and opinions. But will they use the words “war criminal” or “coward”? I tend to doubt it, but we’ll see.
William Dyer–
I largely agree with your take. We will know in a few days if the explosive “war crimes” charge is warranted.
From a political perspective, however, I would rather the Swiftees stayed off that turf. The medals controversy and Cambodian Christmas trip offer plenty of red meat, and Kerry has admitted to war crimes already (even if he did so in an odious manner that impugned other vets). Besides, the more kitchen-sinky the charges in the book appear, the less likely the book will be taken seriously by the MSM, i.e. it could appear to be the work of a bunch of cranks.
hi Terrye!
Tell your husband for me that after F9/11 the Democrats will hold the record for dirty tricks for quite some time to come.
Hah!
You try!
His answer is: “Michael Moore is not the Democratic Party.”
The Swift Boaters are the Republican Party.
This particular exchange advanced to the point of my husband saying “Democrats are better people.”
Then we all sat down to a cheerful family dinner at which I announced that, for Xmas, I am knitting him a tie. (He loves the stuff I knit, and he loves ties, too; that wasn’t ironic.)
I was in the anti war movement and I don’t doubt that the FBI still has a file on me in some musty basement somewhere. I just assumed that people were watching me, it was part of the paranoia of the times. So I find it mystifying that Kerry can be surprised by any of this. He sought out the cameras. He went to great lengths to make a spectacle of himself. He made claims in front of the Seante.
I heard that young female soldier England could get up to 38 years if court martialed on all possible charges. Kerry goes in front of America decades ago and says he was a war criminal. And he gets to run for president. Now maybe he was no more a war criminal than I am but somehow this does not seem right to me.
Catherine:
You poor baby. Heaven forbid I should start a domestic dispute or anything but ask your husband what the chances are these authors will be sitting in the VIP box at the RNC convention with the elder Bush, unlike the infamous guest list at the DNC. But then again I guess you never know…
I was a Democrat for years and there was a time when I would have agreed with your husband but I think Clinton and the whole vast right wing conspiracy thing just kinda took the self righteousness right out of me. I live in Indiana and defended that bastard to every Republican I knew and look where that got me.
And then came 9/11 and the Dems don’t seem to know who the enemy is. For the life of me I wonder what they think would have been different if Gore had won. The attack would have happened and Tenet would still have said slam dunk to Gore just like he did Bush. After all he is a Democrat himself and if I remember correctly Gore got him the job.
In fact if I were as paranoid as some of the Dems I know I could make a nice juicy conspiracy out of Gore, Tenet and mystery of the wmd. hummmmmmm
FA,
I believe that some of what you are referring to as ‘war crimes’ did not become such until the revision of the Convention by Protocol Addition in 1977.
Kerry will have plenty of opportunity to expound on war crimes when the Winter Soldier chapter unfolds. That’s when I expect him to sue himself for slander in order to quiet things down. Kerry is also no coward. Perhaps more committed to self preservation than some, but not a coward.
BTW – The Globe’s tactic has worked very well, the press is focused on Elliot and O’Neill rather than on the actual ad or charges. The DNC must be pleased with its propaganda organ.
As respect for and trust in the press continues to crater and pink slips fall like snowflakes in the newsrooms due to circulation losses, I truly hope that each out of work journo takes a moment to reflect on what could have been the true cause of them standing on the sidewalk. Perhaps they could drop a note of thanks to Kranish. Or nominate him for a Clymer.
I saw the ad on the internet, and here’s what was powerful for me: it wasn’t a bunch of disgruntled enlisted men pissed at an officer. It was a bunch of officers. They weren’t young, and they didn’t look or sound disgruntled. They didn’t look like anything but a bunch of regular guys in the community.
I could not in any way, based on my impression of the guys and the way the ad was presented, believe that they were anything but guys like me, who had served with Kerry, and thought he was a narcissistic, dangerous colleague in combat who put everybody around him in danger.
There are such officers, and I’ve seen them, and politics is a playground for narcissists.
I read Kerry’s Senate speech, about “seared–seared into my soul…” and it put me in the mind of a veteran trying to get a pension for shellshock. Just not the way veterans really talk.
Catherine wrote: This particular exchange advanced to the point of my husband saying “Democrats are better people.”
Hmmm, not to inject any realism into the discussion or anything, but does your husband actually know any Republicans?
Rick B.–
I think the Swiftees should just call Kerry a devious, self-interested, reckless, feckless, backstabbing piece of excrescence and leave it at that.
Why use words like “coward” or “war criminal” that are open to interpretation?
One thing that often tends to be forgotten with the passing years is that many people were against, or later became embittered by the Vietnam War, not because of the justness or purpose of the war, but because of the way it was conducted. My father was against that war, and he had retired from the US Army after having fought in combat in WWII and Korea. He hated communism with a passion, but he was against the war because, as he saw it, WE WEREN’T TRYING TO WIN. We did have the power to utterly crush North Vietnam, but we would not use it by invading the North because of the politician’s fear that this would lead to the direct involvement of the USSR and/or China. The war was merely a vehicle to force negotiations for a diplomatic solution; victory over NV was not the goal at all. I doubt that the North Vietnamese failed to notice this.
The NV were free to attack when and how they pleased from a safe zone which was off limits from similar attacks against them. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is and was a game plan for disaster.
Fresh Air
I think your point about focus is right, and I think the phrase “war crimes” isn’t going to win a lot of converts, at least judging by the reaction around here (I couldn’t stop myself—-oops: Personal Responsibility Time: I didn’t feel like stopping myself.).
Still and all, and I guess speaking as a person who just spent two years writing a book about animals, I’d like the image of Kerry setting huts on fire with his Zippo and shooting the little animals to implant itself inside a liberal mind’s eye or two.
This is one of the things that gripes me most: the “moral preening” of liberals (Sullivan’s phrase). My husband tonight was wringing his hands about the vicious smear campaign against McCain in 2000 . . . which quickly led to the patented: “Liberals just aren’t as good at vicious smear campaigns as Republicans. We need to do it better.”
When liberals smear George Bush as AWOL & in drug rehab, always the reason given for this is “the Republicans made me do it.”
I’m serious.
I’ve read countless articles in the NYTIMES & everywhere else under the sun on the subject of: How come liberals have gotten so mean and angry?
The answer is always: Newt Gingrich. I’m not kidding. In the past year a NYTIMES article on the subject of liberal nastiness argued that liberals had been dragged into partisan ugliness by Newt Gingrich, the man who invented ugly partisan politics. (And here I thought that man was Richard Nixon . . . )
Though I have to say, Leon Whieseltier’s review of Nicholson Baker’s book in the TIMES today is wonderful. Every liberal should have it tattooed to his forehead right away.
excerpts:
THIS scummy little book treats the question of whether the problems that now beset our cherished and anxious country may be solved by the shooting of its president. Nicholson Baker’s novel does not advocate the assassination of George W. Bush, to be sure. It is more cunning.
Most of the novel is taken up with Jay’s denunciations of the war in Iraq. He recalls attending a rally against the war: ”This war, Ben? Is an abortion. It’s an abortion performed on a whole country. I mean in some ways I’m actually surprisingly conservative, if you get down to it. But there I was with my fist in the air, I’m sobbing, I’m screaming with these people because we all sensed and we knew, regardless of what we did or didn’t have in common in other ways, we all knew that the war that the United States was waging on that patchwork country was, was — it was ushering a new kind of terribleness into the world. And we knew that we had to do something.”
Jay is unimpressed by the prospect that Bush will lose the election. ”No, this time, this war, that he imposed on the world, when the whole world said no to him so CLEARLY, in the streets, in every country, this war that he forced on humanity — this war will be avenged!”
…
In this season of ferocity, therefore, it is worth insisting that Bush-hatred is generally not a plot to kill the president. Yet the discussion of Bush-hatred, and of Baker’s book, cannot be concluded with a polite absolution. For the virulence that calls itself critical thinking, the merry diabolization of other opinions and the other people who hold them, the confusion of rightness with righteousness, the preference for aspersion to argument, the view that the strongest statement is the truest statement — these deformations of political discourse now thrive in the houses of liberalism too. The radicalism of the right has hectored into being a radicalism of the left. The Bush-loving mob is being met with a Bush-hating mob. Liberals are forgetting why liberals are not radicals.
Actually, reading this last passage, I realize Whieseltier has done exactly what I’ve just complained about: he’s blamed Bush-hating on conservatives.
Is this new?
Did liberals always blame their own bad behavior on conservatives?
Have they always been innocent?
I don’t remember.
(Whieseltier also gets off a crack about blog-reading that I’ve decided not to take personally, for once. The character who wants to murder President Bush spends his days reading blogs, moving Whieseltier to observe that, About the deranging influence of blogs Baker makes a sterling point. Frankly, if you’re reading Atrios & the Dailiy Koz, I’d say he’s right.)
‘Checkpoint’: Nicholson Baker’s Wild Talk
Hmmm.
Here’s a link to Kerry’s Silver Star citation:
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/ker_silv_star.htm
Read it. Really read it a couple times.
Now find the line that mentions him chasing down and shooting a lone wounded VC.
Ain’t there.
WichitaBoy
Hmmm, not to inject any realism into the discussion or anything
That would be wrong.
but does your husband actually know any Republicans?
Short answer: no.
Actually, that calls to mind another sterling exchange that took place about a year ago, when things were really intense around here.
The political arguments came to a such a pass that, finally, I laid down an ultimatum, that being that my husband was going to have to find some way to respect and even like conservatives as fellow human beings if he was going to have any peace with me at all.
He decided that he would find some way to respect and like conservatives as fellow human beings.
That was on Saturday.
So all goes well for the next 24 hours until Sunday, early evening, when he says to me, “You have to realize, it’s a lot harder for me to like and respect conservatives than it is for you, because you grew up with conservatives. I’ve never known any.”
HE SAID THAT!
Naturally I wasn’t fast enough on my feet to point out the sheer and utter bigotry of such a statement: talk about The Other, for god’s sake.
On the other hand, leaving aside the fact that the patriarch of his mother’s family is a Republican, a Jewish physician who is a strong supporter of Israel, and the patriarch of his father’s family was a Republican (a psychiatrist, I think) then, no, my husband has never known any Republicans, and does not know any Republicans today.
And he wonders why I take his attacks on conservatives personally.
Terrye
I heard that young female soldier England could get up to 38 years if court martialed on all possible charges. Kerry goes in front of America decades ago and says he was a war criminal. And he gets to run for president. Now maybe he was no more a war criminal than I am but somehow this does not seem right to me.
Well, that’s what gets to me, too.
I guess there are a lot of things that get to me, but that’s one of the biggest.
Why does Kerry get to practically brag about being a “war criminal” and somehow that morphs into “war hero” and he’s running for president?
Catherine–
This Republican “mob” only forms up and hands out the lynching rope, it would seem, when they defeat Democrats. (I mean what kind of mob doesn’t hang anyone, or at least turn over a few cars?) The condescension of people like Leon Wieseltier is palpable when they trot out their charges.
When, for example, Max Cleland was defeated for obstructing the Homeland Security bill, it was portrayed as a nasty Republican smear-job on a decorated veteran.
Note the implication: The Little People (the hick, uneducated voters of Georgia, who probably don’t have more than five or six teeth) didn’t know what they were doing. They were tricked by by Karl “Darth” Rove’s evil mindbeams! How could it be otherwise? They voted for a Republican. Q.E.D.
Terrye
You poor baby.
Well, as much as I appreciate the sympathy (I do, too!) I would be lying if I didn’t tell you that I give as good as I get.
I was trying to think how to characterize my husband and me in a political argument. I decided the word for him is “insufferable” and the word for me is “relentless.”
(I realize I’ve given myself the nicer word. That’s only right.)
Then I thought: jeez, that’s pretty much how I’d characterize Kerry & Bush.
Heaven forbid I should start a domestic dispute or anything but ask your husband what the chances are these authors will be sitting in the VIP box at the RNC convention with the elder Bush, unlike the infamous guest list at the DNC.
Hmm.
Maybe you should take a crack at my husband.
I’m going to try that one out. I’ll let you know how it goes.
Terrye
I had a very similar experience to yours.
The “vast right wing conspiracy” business really got to me.
Fresh Air
No kidding.
It’s so universal in liberal thinking and writing I didn’t even manage to see it in Whieseltier.
But I like Whieseltier. I do.
I’m not so sure he does attribute liberal demagoguery to conservatives, in the end.
Here’s a very nice passage:
But demagoguery now enjoys a new prestige. Thus, a prominent liberal thinker writes a book against George W. Bush that refreshingly prefers ideas to innuendoes, and a sympathetic reviewer in this newspaper laments that ”instead of ‘Reason,’ which the left already has too much of, the Democrats need a book titled ‘Brass Knuckles.’ ” The argument for liberal demagoguery is twofold, tactical and philosophical. There are those who believe the Democrats cannot succeed without the politics of the sewer. These are the same people who believe it is the politics of the sewer to which the Republicans owe their success. This view significantly underestimates the depth and the nature of George W. Bush’s support in American society, and significantly overestimates the influence of the media and its pundit vaudeville on American politics. Rush Limbaugh did not elect a president and neither will Michael Moore. All the professional manipulation of opinion notwithstanding, reality is still more powerful than its representations. If it is not, then all politics is futile.
I actually find that passage quite beautiful.
(Though I realize that to equate Rush Limbaugh to Michael Moore is wrong, and may be emblematic of the problem.)
It has long seemed to me that extremes meet and so liberals have more in common with the far right than they would ever admit.
Liberals do think that conservatives push them to do bad because they believe that they are incapable of bad. Their hearts are pure.
Once I ask a young woman who was givng me hell about the war what she thought regime change meant and if she burned any flags when Clinton said we should have regime change in Iraq. I then ask her that if people such as myself were responsible for the death that came from the war were people such as herself responsible for the death and suffering that would come about if we failed to act.
She did not know what I was talking about. If Saddam put half his population in the ground it was not her problem. If the UN lost what little authority it had, not her problem. If we had to fly the no fly zones to the end of time, etc. She was not responsible for anything bad anywhere at anytime. Conservatives are the grownups and they do all the really bad things. Liberals are like children, innocent.
Fresh Air
I think the Swiftees should just call Kerry a devious, self-interested, reckless, feckless, backstabbing piece of excrescence and leave it at that.
I love it!
Catherine,
The decision by the NYT to assign this book for review is truly outrageous. I could care less how their pet reviews it. Their simply isn’t condemnation strong enough to outweigh the imprimatur and publicity of a NYT book review.
If the NYT wishes blood in the streets, this is how to generate it. If it comes to that, I sincerely hope that W. 43rd street is covered with its fair share. Times editors strung by their heels for a couple of blocks would provide a salutary effect on the national discourse.
The sentences above were, of course, simple hyperbole that no one should take seriously. Just phrases of art that no one could possibly take as admonition to action. Totally harmless.
Terrye
Conservatives are the grownups and they do all the really bad things. Liberals are like children, innocent.
Well, that’s sure the way it looks to me.
I wouldn’t be surprised if liberals who supported the war, like Whieseltier and, ultimately, like my husband, did so because they are grownups in the way you’re talking about.
My husband really, truly perceived that to oppose the war meant to support Saddam.
When push came to shove he had to come down on the side of taking him out.
He didn’t want to, but he did.
Rick B
If the NYT wishes blood in the streets, this is how to generate it. If it comes to that, I sincerely hope that W. 43rd street is covered with its fair share. Times editors strung by their heels for a couple of blocks would provide a salutary effect on the national discourse.
What are you saying?
Who is going to be drawing blood?
The NYTIMES isn’t the enemy, there isn’t going to be blood in the streets–not the blood of Americans fighting Americans, at any rate–and I don’t want to see anyone strung up by their heels in this country, any time, any place.
Catherine:
I did not want to either. It pains me more than I can say when I think of the death and destruction. I don’t enjoy it. I wish it were different. And then I stop and ask myself, How else could this have ended?
Saddam was what he was. The region is volatile and dangerous and brimming with unearned wealth and fanaticism. The stakes were too high and line had already been drawn in the sand.
I know people resent the money and blood that has been expended, but I can see no scenario in which this cup would have passed.
Catherine,
What purpose was served by reviewing this book three weeks before the convention in New York? Do you honestly think that it won’t be discussed on the DU’er type boards and generate a flood of positive comments? Have you paid any attention to the little schemes for confrontation and disruption being planned? I’ll be surprised if there isn’t blood in the streets during this convention. Of course, the stories that the Times prints will all be about police overreaction.
The NYT isn’t the enemy? They are calling attention to a book that proposes the assasination of the sitting president. At the absolute minimum they are showing an appalling lack of common sense.
Why were you concerned about what I wrote? I said it was harmless hyperbole. Just like the book.
Tom Maguire has Kerry’s ’86 Cambodian speech – read it to the last paragraph.
Hugh Hewitt has some good comments on it.
For those of you taking part in the discussions about liberal/conservative mudslinging, etc….
Right after you buy all our host’s wonderful books to the right, rush out and buy Hugh Hewitt’s If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat It’s dated on John Kerry, but that’s Kerry’s fault, not Hugh’s, and everything else in it is spot on to this discussion.
Hmmm. Where’s the part where Bush got a Silver Star? Where’s the part where he got one (not three) purple hearts? Gosh, doesn’t exist, does it? What about Cheney? Rumsfeld? Wolfowitz? Cambone? Rice? (Gee, can’t you get medals by legacy?) Guess these folks just aren’t in the same boat.
Hollywood,
I guess Bush didn’t blow up a grenade too close to him and machine-gun a bunch of farm animals. Perhaps if he had done so he could have gotten some medals.
Well, it looks like Kerry did claim to be in Cambodian water. I googled up a map and it seems that one could get into Cambodia by going upriver 150 km or so. What is the evidence that Kerry was *not* in Cambodia? Just asking, as I presume the case has been made, but I am unaware of the details.
Chuck ó Other folks have worked out the chronology based on places Kerry was known by others to have been in that time period. He was never within 50 miles of Cambodia.
Rick ó Yes, but now the Boston Globe has your quote. Beware the ellipsis, my son, and shun the frumious Kranish hack!
William Dyer, Fresh Air ó Kerry’s actions with the Filipina election workers were cowardice.
Kerry’s actions with the Filipina election workers were cowardice.
Oh, I don’t know. My impression of P.J. O’Rourke’s description was that Kerry simply didn’t care. That fits his evident self obsession and utter disinterest in others rather well.
HeHeHe! I’ve been waiting for the Lefties to try to rebut the things said in this thread.
But this is all we get? Very weak soup, I think.
Hollywood, your post doesn’t even make sense. It also doesn’t address the subject of the post in the first place.
Bush wins 40 – 45 states.
I saw Senator Kerrys reaction time to 9/11 on another blog the other day. Took him 40 minutes between the second plane hitting the WTC and the plane hitting the Pentagon just to get a word out, much less get himself out of the chair and to a safer location then the Capitol building.
Strike one: Kerry doesn’t think well in emergency situations.
Now we have this swift boat vets thing. Forget that the media is going to attempt to bury it. Kerry has had 30 + years in which to come up with a plan to counter such an event. From what I have seen he is acting like it was a bolt from the blue. He is blindsided by it. O’Niell even said he was going to do this earlier this year and still Kerry is blindsided by it.
Strike two: Kerry can’t think creatively even when given large amounts of time to reflect on the problem.
Sounds Unfit for Command to me.
Hollywood:
Why do you persist of acting like you know something about the military when virtually every person with military experience keeps showing you don’t know a whole lot about the subject?
Kerry’s medals, like many the Navy gave out in Vietnam, were little more then ticket punching exercises that devalued the meaning of valor. John Kerry did nothing that merits more then a mention in dispatches as the Brits would say. This is not to say that he didn’t show the requried courage in combat, rather it says he merely did his duty. You don’t get medals for doing what you are supposted to do. The fault that I find with the Kerry Hero business, is that he uses it for self promotion, something a real hero would never do. As far as his purple hearts go. I doubt any WWII combat soldier would have accepted any of the Purple Hearts as a manner of honor. WWII soldiers and sailors took those minor injuries in stride and continued fighting with worse injuries, often as a matter of choice. These veterans wanted to get back to their buddies as quickly as possible not run away on technicalities.
I have much more respect for Wes Clark as a JO then I could ever have for Kerry, despite the fact that my professional encounters with him revealed him as a medicority it senior leadership positions. Clark earned is his decorations and surprisingly really did not trumpet them in manner that Kerry did.
Hmmm.
“Well, it looks like Kerry did claim to be in Cambodian water. I googled up a map and it seems that one could get into Cambodia by going upriver 150 km or so. What is the evidence that Kerry was *not* in Cambodia? Just asking, as I presume the case has been made, but I am unaware of the details.”
Because Kerry stated in several sources that he spent that Christmas in Sa Dec, which is about 50 miles from the border.
i.e. In every biography and article *Kerry* has stated he spent the Christmas in Sa Dec. In his Senate floor speech this gets magically transformed into *spent Christmas in Cambodia getting shot at*.
Hope that helps.
Hmmm.
“Where’s the part where Bush got a Silver Star? Where’s the part where he got one (not three) purple hearts? Gosh, doesn’t exist, does it? What about Cheney? Rumsfeld? Wolfowitz? Cambone? Rice?”
Frankly I think I’d prefer someone with no medals over someone with fraudulent medals.
BTW. So what’s your opinion on Bill Clinton? He doesn’t have any medals and you democrats weren’t complaining about that when he was running for office. And what about Hillary? You DO know that we’re going to stuff your words right down your throat when she tries for the White House right?
lol.
This! This is the evil plot of Karl Rove! He’s got the entire DNC yelling about how necessary it is for a candidate to have war-time military experience and medals in order to be a viable candidate. Two things that Hillary doesn’t have.
Excuse my while I feed the frickin sharks and laugh.
Hollywood, my family has been Navy since the ships’ motors were made of cotton; my father [the black sheep, he was Army Air Force because Air Cadets would get him into combat faster than the Annapolis appointment would have] had four PH’s and was about 50 percent disabled; my grandfather only got one in WWI, but then it disabled him completely so it counted more.
(Oh, and before you ask, I was ROTC, attempted to enlist during Viet Nam, and — being precocious — didn’t pass the physical. But I then have done 20+ years total in intelligence work as a civilian.)
With all (considerable!) due respect, you get medals for doing something stupid in combat where someone sees you, or occasionally by being close to action and politically well connected. (You might, for example, read Robert Caro’s books on LBJ and how he got his Silver Star.) The Bronze is for something merely dumb, the Silver is for something really stupid, and the Medal is for something that no one in their right mind would ever consider.
Most everyone knows that these acts deserve awe and respect; most everyone knows of “medal hounds” and avoids them if at all possible, because they’re dangerous.
All George W did was become a fighter pilot, in a unit that was being rotated through to Viet Nam; did two years of active duty and more years of reserve duty; and fulfill his obligation completely, no matter what ignorant idiots like to claim.
What those ignorant of the service don’t know is that the death rate for fighter pilots is such that you’ve got about a 1 in 4 chance of dying in a 20-year career; that an ANG pilot in the late 60′s was not just practicing but was flying active missions against an active enemy who was testing our defenses more or less daily; or that qualifying to be a pilot is one of the things that a “legacy” won’t get you.
So now, on the one hand, we’ve got a guy who spent four months in any possibilty of being under fire, accumulated three admittedly minor wounds, ran like a rabbit because he wanted to get started on a political career, and who now has 250 of his military peers who are willing to expose themselves to massive personal attack to say that they don’t believe he’s fit.
On the other hand, we’ve got a guy who spent years in mortal danger when — by the argument of his critics — he had the political pull to have been a National Guard clerk-typist instead (like, eg, Gebhardt.)
In terms of business, on one hand we’ve got a guy who made a fortune in a successful business, even after some failures, and possibly with some family connections. On the other hand, we’ve got a guy whose financial position is entirely based on a tiny inheritance and twice marrying big money.
In terms of decisive action, on one hand we’ve got a guy who spent seven minutes finishing a reading a story to a bunch of schoolkids and not letting on that there was a crisis, while the Secret Service and DoD made preparations; on the other hand, we have a guy who spent 40 minutes deciding whether to leave the Capitol.
Frankly, this could go on. If I were you, I don’t think I’d keep trying the comparisons game; it’s not going come out as clearly as you might think, and if your argument is on the level you’ve been trying, it’s not going to come out very complimentary to you.
I think that what Hollywood fails to grasp is that a lot of people in Bush’s administration were in the service. They just don’t brag it up for political gain like some folks I can think of.
Wasn’t Rummy a fighter pilot or something in his younger days?
I don’t remember any of these democrats being all that impressed with Dole and unlike Kerry he really suffered for his purple heart. Kerry got three for a whole lot less. In Viet Nam they did that because they wanted to make the men feel like they were doing something worthwhile, but those old boys from WW2 and Korea had to get really hurt to get a medal.
Terrye –
Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.
From Rumsfeld’s official biography.
(By the way, there’s an interesting point here: he was still active reserve while a Congressman, but went inactive when he became SECDEF. Why? because he was entering the chain of command as SECDEF and couldn’t continue as a “mere” CMDR or CAPT at the same time.)
Les,
“Bush wins 40 – 45 states.” Les, be prepared for disappointment. No one knows what’s going to happen between now and November, but surely this has all the earmarks of a very, very close contest.
As for medals, ribbons, awards, etc., I’ve got no illusions about those. I know that most awards I’ve seen people get in life have been more or less solicited by the recipient while other good people’s work is overlooked. It just seems to me that on the military front, you guys are making the wrong argument. You should concede this one to Kerry and hit him on other fronts–of which there clearly are several. By continuing to harp on the military angle, you only cause people to think about Bush’s lackluster military career. You don’t have to win every point to win the election.
Frankly, Hollywood, with the DNC absurdly threatening legal action and Democrat members of the House even more absurdly threatening legislative action, I can’t help but think that we must be drawing blood.
This just in: Drudge is now pushing the story about Kerry’s Cambodia lie.
Say what you will about Drudge, he often gets actual MSM attention.
Quoth Terrye: I think that what Hollywood fails to grasp is that a lot of people in Bush’s administration were in the service.
Excellent point. Probably two of the most distinguished members of the Bush admin in terms of their military careers are Colin Powell and Richard Armitage at the State Dept. Guess what? Neither of them signed on for Iraq. Guess what? Neither of them will be around next time if Bush is re-elected. What’s that say about their feelings on the wisdom of our CIC?
Probably two of the most distinguished members of the Bush admin in terms of their military careers are Colin Powell and Richard Armitage at the State Dept. Guess what? Neither of them signed on for Iraq.
Come on, Hollywood, you don’t think you can get away with that as an argument, do you? That Powell didn’t “sign on” for Iraq, but instead put himself out in front in the UN and on the news, before and after, out of … what? Loyalty? Because he’s a “good soldier” — continuing the ignorant notion that “soldier” means “mindless robot”?
In the face of Powell’s repeated clear statements to the contrary?
The only people who argue that Powell isn’t doing what he thinks is right are the same people who claim Powell isn’t really one of the “Bushies”. Which, frankly, always makes me wonder if there’s not more than a hint of racial prejudice underlying it.
No, what Hollywood fails to get, because Hollywood prefers to remain in a delusional state, is this: That while the Democrats falsely harp on alleged “lies” by George Bush ( all of which have collapsed into truth or misinformation from intel ), it is in fact John Kerry who is the long-standing congenital liar of a form that may be even more virulent than Bill Clinton.
Charlie (Colorado),
Meet Bob Woodward. Mr. Woodward, Charlie(Colorado). Look, Powell is playing a double game. If not, why won’t he be back on re-election?
roberts,
Uh, what were you saying? Persuade me some more. But, no name calling this time, OK?
Meet Bob Woodward. Mr. Woodward, Charlie(Colorado). Look, Powell is playing a double game. If not, why won’t he be back on re-election?
Hollywood, you’ve exhibited an interesting style of argument several times today: you sweem to be willing to impute an absolute, all-or-nothing quality to any statement, so long as it serves yourt purposes.
In this case, yes, Bob Woodward did say Powell had disagreements with others in the Bush Administration. On the other hand, Powell did come out and explicitly say that he agreed with the war.
How to reconcile these? Especially since the Bush Administration pretty much explicitly endorsed Woodward’s book?
Seems to me that there are two ways. On the one hand, we might conclude that the Bush Administration doesn’t demand slavish lockstep, but rather looks for discussion, dispute, what Hegel calls “dialectic”, leading to a common plan and agreement to pursue it. Powell then is saying that he’s on board because, after discussion and dispute, he’s on board. He’s telling the truth.
On the other hand, we might, contrariwise, conclude that Colin Powell has no strength of his own convicions, and will say anything Bush tells him, no matter what he thinks and no matter what it risks in Powell’s own self-respect or the respect of others.
You can pick the interpretation you like, but I see that second interpretation as redolent of “house niggers” and “doing what Massa says” and all the other thoroughly illiberal things “liberals” have said about Colin Powell and Condi Rice in the last three years.
“Personally I would prefer a concerted effort to take the guy prisoner, which does not seem to have occurred.”
Soldiers (and sailors with pretensions of soldiering) aren’t cops; they have absolutely no obligation to convince the enemy to surrender. They must accept a surrender if one if offered, and they may, at their discretion, demand a surrender to avoid further bloodshed, but there is no duty to do so. A cop is supposed to preserve the peace, using deadly force only as a last resort. A soldier is supposed to force the enemy to bend to his will by means of shock, fire and movement.
Prisoners may have intelligence value, and should be collected if possible. I think that John F’n Kerry is 20 pounds of lying sh*t in a 10 pound bag, but I totally defend his decision and actions in this case (similar to the way O’Neill defended him in 1996), though the idea that this deserves a medal is a ludicrous as the idea that he ought to have forced the guy to surrender.
Nice try, Hollywood, but your act failed awhile ago. John Kerry has established himself as a congenital liar. The Wintersoldier lies before Congress, his Cambodia nonsense, his lying about his dates of service … it all adds up before you even add in the Swift vets. Pure liar.
The SECDEF was not a fighter pilot. He was in the Maritime Patrol Community and flew the P-5M. (Martin Mariner seaplane) If he stayed in flying status when in the drilling reserves he would flown the P-2V Neptune and later the P-3A/B Orion out of NAS Glenview [now a Golf Course and housing development) north of Chicago.
Hollywood: John Kerry has made his Vietnam heroism a big deal, not the Republicans. Once he has done that everything, including the swifties, is fair game.
Kerry's Hero schtick is as phony as a 3-dollar bill. Here is an example of how a real hero talks about his decorations. Col. Charles MacDonald, USA ret, took a group of vets back to the Ardennes in 1994. When he got to a location near St Vith, Belgium he asked one of the old soldiers what he did there. The private, who won the Medal of Honor, answered that he held off some Germans there. Col MacDonald then read citation, which I cannot exactly, roughly read that the soldier in question took a 30 cal mg with his loader and held off two companies of Germans while his unit pulled back to a more secure location. During the engage, his loader was killed and he was repeatedly blown off his gun by mortar and grenades. After engaging the enemy for close to 30 minutes he withdrew to his company's new position with multiple wounds. He killed or wounded over 150 German soldiers during the engagement.
So here you have Kerry [and his fervent defenders] bragging about his three purple hearts and his chest full of medals versus a Medal of Honor winner simply saying he held off some Germans. Does that tell you something about the difference between real heroism and Kerry’s faux heroism?
Charlie (Colorado),
I suppose there are a variety of interpretations regarding Powell’s actions. I happen to think he’s a team player, but has his own views which he has aired to Woodward and Time.