Brinkley On Kerry In Cambodia

Having sat down with a copy of Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty", it is pretty clear that this book does not support Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" story. To the contrary.

A strong cite is on p. 324-328 - Kerry's War Notes are excerpted, and he describes his reaction to Nixon's Operation Menu, launched March 18, 1969, to bomb Cambodia. Kerry's role - he and other Swift boat ran SEALs to the Cambodian border (His last mission, BTW, contra his web-site, which says his last mission is on March 13 - release the records!). Here we go, p. 324, Kerry's words:

On occasion we had shot towards the border when provoked by sniper or ambush but without fail this led to a formal reprimand by the Cambodian government and accusations of civilian slaughters and random killings by American "aggressors".

One might infer from Kerry's journal that he believed that the border was taken seriously. We also sense a resentment that others would exaggerate claims of American war crimes. Ain't life ironical.

P. 179, Cambodia off-limits: Oct. 14, 1968 (two months before Christmas) - a fellow officer, Bernique, engages in an action "near the Cambodian border at the northern end of the Gulf of Thailand...unfortunately, because the action had taken so cose to Cambodia, and several of the dead had fallen on the other side of the border - which at the time the US Navy took great pains to observe - the incident was not so easily lauded, or forgotten. A furor erupted over Bernique's violation of the ban... and it appeared that he was facing a court-martial for his actions and "

P. 218: Describing the Christmas incident, Brinkley never describes Kerry as crossing the border. Wasser is quoted: "We were getting close to Cambodia," Wasser explained later. "We were out there all alone in the darkness."

UPDATE: Hey, this is why we have Fox News, which recycles the "Christmas in Cambodia" story, presents the Swift cites (the Boston Herald letter, the 1986 Senate speech), and asks the Kerry campaign for a comment:

The Kerry campaign first asserted that the Massachusetts senator never said that he was in Cambodia, only that he was near the country. But when presented with a copy of the Congressional Record and asked about Kerry's letter in the Boston Herald, the campaign said it would come up with an explanation. After repeated phone calls, there was still no clarification.

The campaign should just tell the truth - Kerry and Valerie Plame were looking for Santa Claus.

Comments

[RiverRat]

You're missing the point I think. Please look at page 212 of Tour of Duty regarding the night of 24 Dec 68. This is confirmed by Steve Gardner who is opposed to Kerry.

The Bernique was in a completely separate division in 68. Christmas in Cambodia was miles from there.

Just to be clear. Sa Dec is about 56 miles from the Cambodian Border. That's about 3 1/2 hours by Swift boat. They were not close to the border but 56 miles away.

Brinkley's book and Kerry's journal are a lie. Not as big as the 1986 Senate floor lie...but still a lie.

RiverRat, BM1 USN Riverine Forces, Nov 68 to Nov 69

[Brainster]

Brinkley's book certainly contains lies and mistakes, but it is apparent that even he found Kerry's Christmas Eve story unbelievable, and so he does not back it up in the book. There is an indication somewhere (Drudge, IIRC) that three of Kerry's five crewmates on that date did not back up Kerry on the story. Which means that this is NOT just the SBVfT; some of the guys who were up on the podium with Kerry would not back him on this story.

[Lanny Davis]

You people just don't get it.
The remaining few independent voters don't have the knowledge or the inclination to verify the truth.
The truth is what they hear most, loudest, and last.
The Media is the source of truth for the majority of Americans, and money is the source of truth for the Media.
The best part of the internet is random blogs are inconsequential.
America doesn't know it, but a 'nuanced' version of the truth is enough smoke and mirros for the masses to remain blissfully enraged at the current administration until November.
Happy blogging, peons.

[Ripper]

As promised here's the microfilm of Kerry's Senate report on his 1991 visit, which mentions his previous "visits" in the intro.

http://free.prohosting.com/cyberdog/c.jpg

http://free.prohosting.com/cyberdog/p1.JPG

No further relevant mentions found later in this report or in the next trip report.
---

July 1991

Trip to Thailand Cambodia and Vietnam

here's the relevant part on page 1
"... During the war, military operations had carried me throughout many of the waterways and coast lines of southern Vietnam and even, occasionally, into Cambodia. "

Here's the reference info, so you can make your own copy.

1750.
Author: Kerry, John, 1943-
Title: Trip to Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam report to the Committee
on Foreign Relations, United States Senate.
Publisher: Washington : U.S. G.P.O. :For sale by the Supt. of Docs.,
Congressional Sales Office, U.S. G.P.O., 1991.
Description: v, 16 p. ; 24 cm.

Doc. Numbers: GPO Item No.: 1039-A, 1039-B (MF)
Govt Doc No.: Y 4.F 76/2:S.prt.102-40.

[TM]

River Rat - based on Brinkley's account, Kerry's patrol did sail towards Cambodia from Sa Dec, then back again. How close they got, I don't know, but they sailed for more than the "few minutes" often cited.

The three crewman who do not support Kerry are mentioned by Drudge, and in Chapter 3 of the Unfit for Command excerpts.

Wasser is one of them (now its my turn for an IIRC), and he does not support Kerry in Brinkley's book, either.

Bonus Idea - maybe "Christmas in Cambodia with Nixon" represents a conflation of "Christmas near Cambodia" and "St. Patricks in Cambodia with Nixon" (since Op Menu started Mar 18.)

Critics will reply, release the records!

And I am fairly sure (sorry I don't have time to re-read it) that even on the Mar 18, 1969 trip Kerry does *not* describe crossing the border.

[Brainster]

Nice job, Ripper! So Kerry's lies even made it into official reports that he submitted to the Senate!

[ed]

Hmmm.

"River Rat - based on Brinkley's account, Kerry's patrol did sail towards Cambodia from Sa Dec, then back again. How close they got, I don't know, but they sailed for more than the "few minutes" often cited."

Except that Kerry constantly states that he was in Cambodia. Not near, not close, not almost. He was in Cambodia.

So how does he explain bypassing all those patrolling PBR's that were there to prevent anyone from entering Cambodia?

Hey if this is all a reprise of Apocolypse Now could I play Dennis Hopper?

[ed]

Hmmm.

Or should it be renamed to "Apocolypse When"?

[Brainster]

Good pointer that the SBVfT book revealed the names of the three; they are Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch, and Steve Gardner. Interesting, because Gardner is the only one of the three who's not supporting Kerry's candidacy. The book also reports that the other two crewmen at the time declined to be interviewed for the book. Which means that as far as we know, NONE of Kerry's crew is backing him up on the Cambodia story.

My post is here.

Thanks for all the links, Tom. Somehow we keep missing the Instalanche, but we get second generation Instalanches via your posts and the No Oil for Pacifist post.

[Peter Carroll]

OK, maybe I'm naive but I have to ask: Surely that isn't really a post from Lanny Davis, THE Lanny Davis, the former White House Counsel and spin-meister, who also appeared on Hannity & Colmes last night, spinning more frantically than ever before, on the subject of the Swift Boat Vets???

[john]

Is that the lanny david who's a lawyer or something for the clinton's. Well, thanks, lanny, for a forthright example of the unvarnished cynicism that characterizes you, yours, and this whole Kerrey campaign, apparantly.

[Dan]

Keep in mind, that as of yesterday the Kerry campaign admitted Kerry was not in Cambodia, claiming that he never said he was "in", only "close".

[Dan H.]

Unfortunately, I don't think this story is going to get much traction. It's just too obscure for the average person, and the 'conventional wisdom' on Vietnam is that all kinds of wacky stuff happened that no one will own up to anymore.

For yucks, I ran this story past some Kerry supporters, and these are the types of reactions I got:

"Of course his chain of command denies it. The orders were illegal!"

"Everyone knew the U.S. was operating in and out of Cambodia! They also knew it was being covered up. Kerry is brave to tell about it, and the officers denying it are the cowards."

"So what if Kerry's crewmen dispute it? They know they weren't supposed to be there, so why would they admit to it? They're probably under orders not to talk anyway."

"CAMBODIA? You want to talk about Cambodia in 1968? Who cares whether Kerry was there or not? This is nitpicking of the worst sort."

See, some of us remember how critical the charges were of U.S. incursions into Cambodia, but for most people it's just a trivial detail of a long-ago war. They can't figure out who's lying or telling the truth because they don't trust the military's accounts of what happened anyway (largely because of false testimony of people like Kerry, but I digress.).

Lying about medals might have traction. The Cambodia thing to me seems like the more serious charge, because he used the story to influence U.S. policy and discredit the armed forces during a time of conflict. He has also repeated the story over the years, which tells me something about his character. But I just don't think the average person knows much about it or cares.

[Diggs]

Kerry lied to the Senate for the greater good, you have to accept that.
He may not have actually been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, but damn it, it makes a very poignant story that needed to be heard.
And he's to be admired for having the guts to "tell it like it is, or at least should be."

[Santa Claus]

Yes, Peter, that comment was from the REAL Lanny Davis.

[RandMan]

Are you the REAL Santa Claus? LOL

[SysAdmin]

Real men died, Kerry lied

[Khris Kringle]

That comment was NOT from the real SANTA CLAUS, RandMan. I am considering legal action.

[Peter Carroll]

OK, so let's assume it WAS the real Lanny Davis. The reply e-mail was 'media@dnc.org', so it could have been. Let's look at what he said:

"The remaining few independent voters don't have the knowledge or the inclination to verify the truth. [Hmmm: Democrat contempt for the average US voter?] The truth is what they hear most, loudest, and last. [This belief on his part would explain his performance on Hannity & Colmes last night as well as all the previous times I've seen him spinning from set-piece talking points.] The Media is [are?] the source of truth for the majority of Americans, and money is the source of truth for the Media. [Not sure what to make of that, apart from the grammatical slip. Is it another dig at Rupert Murdoch? No, too subtle.] The best part of the internet is random blogs are inconsequential. [Huh?] America doesn't know it, but a 'nuanced' version of the truth is enough smoke and mirro[r]s for the masses to remain blissfully enraged at the current administration until November. [An admission that his spin is 'nuanced' enough to keep the ignorant masses in the dark with respect to the truth?] Happy blogging, peons."

No, I can't believe it was the real Lanny Davis. As nasty as he can be, he always seems to know what points he wants to make - - and then to make them (often over and over again). And the frankness of these admissions is something a lawyerly spin-meister would never countenance.

No, Lanny Davis, call your office. Someone much less intelligent than you has accessed your laptop at the DNC and is sending out e-mails over your name.

Peter

[Jay Duffy]

What a desperate bunch of loonies!!!!

You are honestly expecting the American public to care about what a 25 year old kid said THIRTY YEARS AGO while trying to end this country's most ignominious war...Instead of the fact that the Bushies HYPED a BOGUS terror alert for political publicity just TEN DAYS AGO, then leaked the name of a precious Al Queda mole to try and cover their butts, in the process destroying all the invaluable intelligence this fellow might have produced.

There are lies and there are damn lies, boys. And even though in your minds this is some grand evil plot by the demonic Kerry, to the American public it's gobbledygook that bears absolutely no relevance to their daily lives.

We have real live liars and crooks in office right now. Telling us about the lies of a grandiose youngster thirty years ago isn't making them look any cleaner.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Well isn't this dandy!

"WASHINGTON Aug. 10, 2004 — Three campaign finance watchdog groups filed a complaint Tuesday accusing a group of Vietnam veterans of violating the campaign finance law by airing an ad that challenges Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's military record."

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040810_843.html

So they're complaining about, at most, $500k by an anti-Kerry 527 group but they're completely ok with $100,000,000 spent by pro-Kerry groups?

If the FEC rules against the SwiftVets I'm going to be really f-ing pissed off. I'm going to head down to Washington to scream at somebody that's for damn sure.

[TM]

Dan H - I partly agree with you that the specific of the Cambodia story will not grip the average American.

However, it is worth pinning down for a couple of reasons"

(1) maybe we can pin this down - some of the other stuff is really just "he said, they said".

(2) IF Kerry lied about this, it opens the door to wondering what else he lied about (the credibility roll-up);

(3) Once the press buys into a story (like with Al Gore the perpetual exaggerator), they look for examples of it everywhere, and pounce remorselessly (each reporter wants to be the one to "advance the story", whatever it is - in this case (we hope), that Kerry makes stuff up. So we need something to start the ball rolling.

That view of the press is straight Bob Somerby, as his admirers will point out to me anyway.

[Mark in Mexico]

"Kerry lied to the Senate for the greater good, you have to accept that."

Hmmm. "...lied to the Senate for the greater good...". Hey, Diggs, how many more years before you graduate from the third grade?

Lying to the United States Senate "for the greater good" of whom, exactly? I don't expect my Senators nor Representatives to lie to me or their fellows for any reason at any time about anything. If they do, and get caught, then they should pay a heavy price. Not the least of which would be a frank and honest confession and apology. And you talk about lying to the Senate. He lied to reporters, he lied in his books, he lied to his ex comrades-in-arms, he lied to his superior officers, he lied to the United States Senate as a witness under oath and he lied to the United States Senate and the American people as a Senator on the floor of the Senate. I consider myself to be multiple levels above blood-sucking parasites, and, as such, able to handle the truth.

[Jay Duffy]

Good summary, TM, of the style of media propaganda the fright wing has gotten so good at in recent years. It has served them well, but there are plenty of signs that the public is on to the con now, and are starting to angrily realize how foolishly we've been played.

[Slartibartfast]

Self-parody? Self-caricature? I'm torn.

[Forbes]

Jay D-

Either it's a bogus terror alert, or it's a precious mole, can't be both. I think you've confused your logic. But then that's the whole point of a troll--to change the subject.

And you don't follow the story well, either. It's about what Kerry said while in the Senate, and not as a 25 year old, that is being discussed.

Why don't you play in your own sandbox, since you don't play well with others.

[Steve Cormier]

John Munchausen Kerry, is all I can say. Soon we'll be hearing about how he won the cold war.

Is Munchausen's Syndrome a fundamental democratic trait (e.g. Al "Love Story" Gore?) At least Clinton's lies were reasonably pragmatic and defensive, not loopily self-aggrandizing.

[Steve Cormier]

Uh, Jay, he's still repeating the lies.

In fact the lies are the core of his campaign.

It's really embarrassing in a way, to make the goofy dishonest stuff you did when you were a kid the basis of your life at 59.

[Buster]

Actually, Kerry did venture into Cambodia at that time. He was hauling Al Gore, who was laying wire after inventing the Internet.

[Mitch H.]

Wasn't Kerry one of the people yelling about the Reagan officials who lied to Congress over Iran-Contra?

I'm nearly as bad as Alanis Morissette when it comes to recognizing irony. Does lying in a Senate floor speech about the Contras and Nixon-era lies followed by denouncements of White House staffers for Iran-Contra era lying to Congress topped off with an entire presidential campaign predicated on misleading the public about contemporary instances of alleged Republican misrepresentation count, or have I just gotten myself turned around?

[junkie]

"The best part of the internet is random blogs are inconsequential."

--If they are inconsequential why are you taking the time to respond with a post of your own?

[Jay Duffy]

Forbes haven't confused the logic at all. The specific terror alert was bogus, based on 4 year old intel. Clearly it was bogus, since Bushy sent his precious womenfolk into the heart of the Stock Exchange.

However, they also did out a precious mole. I mean, don't you neo cons even read the papers? This Pakistani guy, Khan, had been turned by the Pakistani, and was communicating with Al Queda operatives, setting up stings. The White House leaked the name, to give themselves credibility, and destroyed the usefulness of the mole.

Once again, you're so hung up on your damaged pride from 35 years ago, that you refuse to recognize the shocking incompetence and mendacity of the administration that is destroying our security RIGHT NOW.

[Steve Cormier]

junkie--

He's getting himself off, that's all.

[Steve Cormier]

Jay

Yeah it was 4-year old info the way Kerry was near Cambodia.

It was info just discovered on a laptop. It was originally created 4 years ago (do you ever update old files with new info?). It was then updated in January. The administration coupled this with the possibility of attacks during the republican convention and some other classified sources and decided to let people in the targeted buildings know they should be alert.

How phony and political and terrible!

If they didn't and there was an attack, I can imagine the recriminations.

The dems these days remind me of an old Groucho Marx routine where someone says "either" pronouncing it "eether"--Groucho corrects them saying "eyether", at which point they dutifully correct themselves and say "eyether" to which he replies "no, eether".

Today's democratic party slogan--"Whatever it is, I'm Against It!"

[Jay Duffy]

Steve, I live and work in New York. If the Feds didn't know these particular buildings were potential terrorist targets, then they know nothing. They HYPED the alert, putting roadblocks up all over the place, cop cars everywhere - all of which are basically gone now , by the way, guess we're safe now. They had Tom Ridge announce this like it was an imminent threat, withholding the fact that it wasl old intel, and had him add a little kiss to his Bushy on top of that. Then we had the specatacle of Laura and the twins on the floor of the stock exchange. It was pure and total bs. Believe me, here in NYC, that kind of crap doesn't fly. We know a ringer a mile off, which is why Bush is public enemy no. 1 around here.

Yes, this guy had important info on his computer, about how they case these joints, etc. and it was important that the Pakistanis found him. Tell me then, does it not bother you then that your boy had to destroy his value completely in order to cover his own butt.

Does ANYTHING this President does bother you? You're outraged over 35 year old events, and don't care a bit about what's going on right here and now. Maybe that''s the luxury of being an armchair warrior, who doesn't live in a terrorist bullseye and who can watch all this stuff like it's just a spy novel.

[Jay Duffy]

Steve, I live and work in New York. If the Feds didn't know these particular buildings were potential terrorist targets, then they know nothing. They HYPED the alert, putting roadblocks up all over the place, cop cars everywhere - all of which are basically gone now , by the way, guess we're safe now. They had Tom Ridge announce this like it was an imminent threat, withholding the fact that it wasl old intel, and had him add a little kiss to his Bushy on top of that. Then we had the specatacle of Laura and the twins on the floor of the stock exchange. It was pure and total bs. Believe me, here in NYC, that kind of crap doesn't fly. We know a ringer a mile off, which is why Bush is public enemy no. 1 around here.

Yes, this guy had important info on his computer, about how they case these joints, etc. and it was important that the Pakistanis found him. Tell me then, does it not bother you then that your boy had to destroy his value completely in order to cover his own butt.

Does ANYTHING this President does bother you? You're outraged over 35 year old events, and don't care a bit about what's going on right here and now. Maybe that''s the luxury of being an armchair warrior, who doesn't live in a terrorist bullseye and who can watch all this stuff like it's just a spy novel.

[Steve Cormier]

Jay
Wow your post was so good you had to post it twice--just kidding.

First, yes there are numerous things Bush has done that I don't like--I vote republican mostly, but I'm actually an anarcho-capitalist (voluntarist?)

I don't like that Bush has not made a big deal about the size of government and the percentage of GDP it takes (taxes/tax cuts mean nothing--only percent of GDP taken by government means anything). I don't like Bush pandering to Mexico and I don't see the AIDS epidemic in Africa as a problem we have to pay for (black American pandering there).

I should also point out that I think the administration hyped the WMD issue to a degree, trying to get the oil-for-food wing of the UN to kill their own cash cow. I don't really fault them for this, I fault them for pandering to the UN too much (did Bill need the UN's permission for Bosnia?) Bush and co created the expectation that we would get the UN with us, thus giving them a power they should never have had. Consequently, he had to try to give more urgent reasons than were necessary for the war.

There was only one real reason for the war, and if you don't understand this, I feel sorry for you. The middle east has to be reformed, converting it from a medieval heroic age tribal cesspool boosted to prominence by oil wealth to an enlightened modern capitalist region on par with the rest of the world. There is a trajectory or primitivism relative to technological advancement that will determine the fate of the world. If the primitives are not brought to civilization, they will eventually get their hands on the matches of technology and burn the world down. Bush knew this--the administration learned this 9/11--that's why we liberated Afghanistan and Iraq--WMD be damned.

As to New York, Bush and co are now scared to death not to warn people on the slightest provocation--I think if you went through what they did and had the responsibility they do, you might do the same, and everyone would then accuse you of political manipulation.

[Jay Duffy]

Thanks, Steve, for the civil response.

I'm most interested in your next to last paragraph, i.e. the reasons for war. I think that basically IS the neo con position as I understand it, that the US has an obligation to control the direction of other civilizations as a means of protecting ourselves. Do you see anything problematical in that at all? It sounds imperialistic to me, as well as paranoid, and not a very coherent fit for a nation founded on the principles of self determination. It assumes that there is no other way of defending ourselves other than armed domination of "primitive" cultures, and assumes uncategorically that we have the right to do so. The recent allliance of conservatism with Christianity seems to have even graced this philosophy with a messianic cloak.

I think an interesting way to evaluate it would be this: We live in a nation of laws, of and by the people. Do you think if you put that philosophy up for an informed vote (in an actual clean political campaign) to the American people, asking them to donate generations of their youth and their wealth to the systematic domination of Arab cultures, would the majority agree to do that? And if they didn't, which I believe they most certainly wouldn't, would you advocate imposing this philosophy upon them also by force? In other words, the Americans who know what's best for the rest of us, will take care of us and tell us what to do. Does that still resemble any form of democracy, or would we perhaps need to embrace an authoritarian style of government? For our own good, of course, as determined by the neo cons and only by the neo cons.

When you say WMDs be damned, you're saying telling the truth be damned, you're saying enlightened democracy be damned. You're saying the end justifies the means, even if the means involve complete subjugation of our democratic principles.

I think one of the things separating Democrats and Republicans now is that Democrats really do venerate the founding principles of our forefathers and our Constitution to a much greater degree. Whereas to Republicans they have become inconveniences in the need to endlessly protect ourselves from perceived threats, as they define them.

[Jay Duffy]

Thanks, Steve, for the civil response.

I'm most interested in your next to last paragraph, i.e. the reasons for war. I think that basically IS the neo con position as I understand it, that the US has an obligation to control the direction of other civilizations as a means of protecting ourselves. Do you see anything problematical in that at all? It sounds imperialistic to me, as well as paranoid, and not a very coherent fit for a nation founded on the principles of self determination. It assumes that there is no other way of defending ourselves other than armed domination of "primitive" cultures, and assumes uncategorically that we have the right to do so. The recent allliance of conservatism with Christianity seems to have even graced this philosophy with a messianic cloak.

I think an interesting way to evaluate it would be this: We live in a nation of laws, of and by the people. Do you think if you put that philosophy up for an informed vote (in an actual clean political campaign) to the American people, asking them to donate generations of their youth and their wealth to the systematic domination of Arab cultures, would the majority agree to do that? And if they didn't, which I believe they most certainly wouldn't, would you advocate imposing this philosophy upon them also by force? In other words, the Americans who know what's best for the rest of us, will take care of us and tell us what to do. Does that still resemble any form of democracy, or would we perhaps need to embrace an authoritarian style of government? For our own good, of course, as determined by the neo cons and only by the neo cons.

When you say WMDs be damned, you're saying telling the truth be damned, you're saying enlightened democracy be damned. You're saying the end justifies the means, even if the means involve complete subjugation of our democratic principles.

I think one of the things separating Democrats and Republicans now is that Democrats really do venerate the founding principles of our forefathers and our Constitution to a much greater degree. Whereas to Republicans they have become inconveniences in the need to endlessly protect ourselves from perceived threats, as they define them.

[ter0]

Ripper --

Nice work; raw images like this are very powerful. It's this kind of research that will reveal the truth.

Adding light to the sum of light.

[capt joe]

funny, but surprising relevant as to the leftward reaction

http://www.allahpundit.com/archives/000786.html

[Greg F]

"… that the US has an obligation to control the direction of other civilizations as a means of protecting ourselves."

The logical opposite would be we can only protect ourselves as long as we don’t try to “control the direction of other civilizations”. What if those “other civilizations” wish us harm?

“Do you see anything problematical in that at all?”

Do you see a problem in that the U.S. controlled
“the direction of other civilizations” such as Nazi Germany and Imperialistic Japan?

“It sounds imperialistic to me …”

Then you don’t know what imperialism is. I highly recommend reading this:

http://vodkapundit.com/archives/006406.php

[Harry in Atlanta]

And themthing is; Nixon wasn't even President during Christmas 1968.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"I think one of the things separating Democrats and Republicans now is that Democrats really do venerate the founding principles of our forefathers and our Constitution to a much greater degree."

Really? The founding principles and all that? You mean the founding principle that judicial activists should manipulate the court system to enact laws that otherwise would never make it through the legislative process? That founding principle?

Or is it the founding principle that forcing, forcing I say!, the Kerry campaign to release out-of-context chatroom quotes as an attack against SwiftVet members?

Perhaps it's the founding principle that "Bush=Hitler"? Or "Bush=liar"? Or that the ends justifies the means?

Perhaps an arguement could be made that Democrats have indeed grasped a fundament. But principles? Hardly.

[ed]

Hmmm.

1. "'When you say WMDs be damned, you're saying telling the truth be damned, you're saying enlightened democracy be damned."

I won't answer for another person but I would suggest, upon reading Steve's post, that you've mistaken his point pretty much completely.

"WMDs be damned" Means that the whole issue of WMDs is utterly irrelevant and not worth discussing. This doesn't have anything to do with law, democracy, mom, apple pie, 4th of July or vanilla ice cream. It means, literally, that current existence of WMDs, or their presupposition of existence, are irrelevant.

The terrorists are simply too dangerous under any circumstances whether with, or without, WMDs.

I'm sure Steve will be able to clarify it better, but I'd suggest you reread his post as he actually wrote it, and not what you think he wrote.

2. It's not about Bush, it's all about Kerry.

[Jay David]

Greg, I'd hardly say the US controlled the direction of either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. We allowed the rise of Nazism and Fascism, some of our more prominent leaders even enabled it, including Mr. Bush's grandfather. And Imperial Japan was of little importance to us when it was pillaging East Asia. Once they attacked us, we responded, and then went to the aid of our allies being attacked. We fought against specific nations, to defeat specific leaders, for specific reasons. It is impossible to compare that to today's global scenario. In this case, we attacked a nation, Iraq, to defeat a movement, terrorism, that was in no way specific to that nation. Bush wasn't able to sell the world on his WWII dreams of grandeur during the DDay celebrations...and neither will the neocons be able to pull that scam.

And yes, ed, it is important when you tell the people you are going to war because WMDs pose an imminent threat to our nation, that that be the truth. In an enlightened democracy , it's important. In a dictatorship, not so much. I would very much like to hear one of you explain the extent you would undermine our democratic process in order to accomplish these goals of world domination. I'd also like to hear where all the money and all the young bodies are going to come from...not from the neocons we know. Rich people in Bush's America don't pay taxes or fight in wars.

Steve's argument sounds suspiciously like the one put forth by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al years before 9/11 where they argued the US must use military domination to control the Mideast, starting with Iraq, but noted that the American people would require a "Pearl Harbor type" incident in order to agree to it. I'm not suggesting they engineered 9/11, but this makes very clear, a fact backed up by facts in Bob Woodward's book and the testimony of administration officials, that they saw this great national tragedy as personal political opportunity. This is a political scandal that history (if we are still allowed to write honest history in the neocon future) will judge very harshly.

I believe absolutely that Democrats venerate our founding principles to a greater degree than Republicans at this point in time. For argument, you bring up activist judges? Are you one of those patriots that think gay marriage is more critical to our future than Congressional power to declare war (on honest information), separation of church and state, the writ of habeas corpus, etc.? This argument is part of what terrifies progressive Americans, that those who preach about national security seem at the same time obsessed with the minutiae of other people's

[Jay David]

Greg, I'd hardly say the US controlled the direction of either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. We allowed the rise of Nazism and Fascism, some of our more prominent leaders even enabled it, including Mr. Bush's grandfather. And Imperial Japan was of little importance to us when it was pillaging East Asia. Once they attacked us, we responded, and then went to the aid of our allies being attacked. We fought against specific nations, to defeat specific leaders, for specific reasons. It is impossible to compare that to today's global scenario. In this case, we attacked a nation, Iraq, to defeat a movement, terrorism, that was in no way specific to that nation. Bush wasn't able to sell the world on his WWII dreams of grandeur during the DDay celebrations...and neither will the neocons be able to pull that scam.

And yes, ed, it is important when you tell the people you are going to war because WMDs pose an imminent threat to our nation, that that be the truth. In an enlightened democracy , it's important. In a dictatorship, not so much. I would very much like to hear one of you explain the extent you would undermine our democratic process in order to accomplish these goals of world domination. I'd also like to hear where all the money and all the young bodies are going to come from...not from the neocons we know. Rich people in Bush's America don't pay taxes or fight in wars.

Steve's argument sounds suspiciously like the one put forth by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al years before 9/11 where they argued the US must use military domination to control the Mideast, starting with Iraq, but noted that the American people would require a "Pearl Harbor type" incident in order to agree to it. I'm not suggesting they engineered 9/11, but this makes very clear, a fact backed up by facts in Bob Woodward's book and the testimony of administration officials, that they saw this great national tragedy as personal political opportunity. This is a political scandal that history (if we are still allowed to write honest history in the neocon future) will judge very harshly.

I believe absolutely that Democrats venerate our founding principles to a greater degree than Republicans at this point in time. For argument, you bring up activist judges? Are you one of those patriots that think gay marriage is more critical to our future than Congressional power to declare war (on honest information), separation of church and state, the writ of habeas corpus, etc.? This argument is part of what terrifies progressive Americans, that those who preach about national security seem at the same time obsessed with the minutiae of other people's sex lives.

And yes, ed, it is very much about Bush. If you haven't noticed, he is absolutely loathed by half of this country. In my mind, Kerry has to be one of the bravest men on earth to take on not only his infamous smear machine to win election, but then to have to clean up the gigantic global messes this idiot has created.

[Pouncer]

Jay: "I'd hardly say the US controlled the direction of either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan."

But we sure as hell controlled the direction of the post-war Federal Republic of (West)Germany and the constitutional (symbolic) monarchy of Japan.

In 1941 (or 1942, if you'd like to quibble) we went to war without any thought, much less plan, for peace. We destroyed the government, infrastructure, and means of self-defense of two (more!) sovereign nations -- and a few years later, we owned up to the debt WE owed THEM, and began "Marshall Plan" type planning to "win the peace".

And we really didn't do it for humanitarian reasons -- we did it to prevent the commies from doing it first and taking over.

So?

Maybe that's true. Or maybe George Marshall planned for a post-war peacetime reconstruction all along, and maybe we would have done so even if the Iron Curtain had not dropped across Europe.

Either way, the US most certainly DID plan for, direct, fund, and maintain military forces in occupation supporting OUR goals for Japan, (Taiwan, Korea, the Phillipines...) and Germany (Italy, Greece, Turkey, Spain...)

Where ever we directed the post-WWII outcome, there are prosperous societies that feed their peoples and trade, profitably, with the US. Where we did not -- other things happened.

Arguably we didn't plan broadly enough. How much better might the world be today had the US decided to occupy and direct the development of North Africa, Palestine, Persia ... ? Or Indo-China, Burma, East-and-West Pakistan ...?

I mean, it isn't at all obvious to me that the Brits and the French had humanitarian democratic goals in mind, nor executed their various plans for whatever goals they MIGHT have had well enough to achieve whateverthehell it was they wanted. Instead we got festering sore spots like the Gaza Strip and East Timor and Bangaladesh ... and Viet Nam.

If the US did not control the Germans and Japanese redevelopment -- who did?

[Pouncer]

Jay, and others : What fraction of the U.S. voting public do you estimate loathes John Kerry?

[BigBird]

ALCON,

Why do you keep saying there were no WMDs?? I am in Iraq, I have seen them with my own eyes. The AIF even tryed to use one as a IED in June. Guess that wasn't in the news too much, might take a little wind out of the Liberal sail. And I don't want to hear it was only one. If that is all, how about letting terrorist's set it off at your house??

Clinton lied like a rug for 8 years, we don't need another liar.

Also, please keep in mind. JFK is the one who brought his Heroic History with WAR to the platform.

Bird

PS: Life is Good