Why Is Jack Shafer Peddling Politicized Nonsense?

The normally astute Jack Shafer of Slate is backing the wrong pony here:

Newsweek Throws the Spitter
The magazine repeats the myth of the gobbed-upon Vietnam vet.

By Jack Shafer
Posted Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2007, at 4:09 PM ET

The myth of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran refuses to die. Despite Jerry Lembcke's debunking book from 1998, Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam, and my best efforts to publicize his work, the press continues to repeat the fables as fact.

He notes that he has promoted Jerry Lembcke on three previous occasions (1, 2, 3).  Sometimes Shafer describes Lembcke as "a professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam vet", but such a description hardly does him justice.  Lembcke is also a former member of the Vietnam Veterans Against The War, and yes, he does have a political agenda in attempting to rehabilitate anti-war protesters.  Let's let him tell it:

In February 1991, I was asked to speak at a teach-in on the                     Persian Gulf War in the Hogan Campus Center Ballroom.  My presentation focused on the image then being popularized in the press of Vietnam-era anti-war activists treating Vietnam veterans abusively.  After sending troops to the Gulf region in August, the Bush administration argued that opposition   to the war was tantamount to disregard for the well-being of the troops and that such disregard was reminiscent of the treatment given to Vietnam veterans upon their return home.  By invoking the image of anti-war activists spitting on veterans, the administration was able to discredit such activism and galvanize support for the war.  Drawing on my own experience as a Vietnam veteran who came home from the war and joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), I called the image of spat-upon Vietnam veterans a myth.                   

After seven years of research and writing, my book, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam was published in August 1998, by New York University Press.

Read that carefully: in 1991, Lembcke knew that it was a myth that veterans had been spat upon (having been an anti-war protester himself, and never having spat upon anyone, Mr. Lembcke was able to extrapolate a bit); he then undertook seven years of exhaustive research to validate his politically-motivated insight.

This 2005 Boston Globe article offers another window into Lembcke's thought process:

For a book I wrote in 1998 I looked back to the time when the spit was supposedly flying, the late 1960s and early 1970s. I found nothing. No news reports or even claims that someone was being spat on.

What I did find is that around 1980, scores of Vietnam-generation men were saying they were greeted by spitters when they came home from Vietnam.

...The persistence of spat-upon Vietnam veteran stories suggests that they continue to fill a need in American culture. The image of spat-upon veterans is the icon through which many people remember the loss of the war, the centerpiece of a betrayal narrative that understands the war to have been lost because of treason on the home front.

Fine, the spitting myth was invented around 1980 to rationalize our defeat in Vietnam.  Yet here is the editor-in-chief of "Army magazine, writing in the NY Times in 1971:

The Agony of the U.S. Army

November 30, 1971, Tuesday

By L. JAMES BINDER

Page 45, 443 words

...The fact is, however, that the service and many of the things it stands for are taking a bad beating these days. The uniform of its soldiers is spat upon in the streets and its wearers are denounced in public places as "war criminals".

Wow!  The myth-making actually preceded our defeat!  I wonder how Lembcke overlooked that.  Please - can we agree that even in 1971 there was a strong anti-military sentiment in some parts of the American culture?

Of course, one might well have doubts about Lembcke's methodology - would reporters really pick up on every incident of troop harassment?  From the other end of the political spectrum, let's gauge the accuracy of the press by checking out Ron Kovic, hero of "Born on the 4th of July".  Here is his version of his protest at the 1972 Republican Convention:

President Nixon began to speak and all three of us took a deep breath and shouted at the top of our lungs, "Stop the bombing, stop the war, stop the bombing, stop the war," as loud and as hard as we could, looking directly at Nixon. The security agents immediately threw up their arms, trying to hide us from the cameras and the President. "Stop the bombing, stop the bombing," I screamed. For an instant [Walter] Cronkite [of CBS] looked down, then turned his head away. They're not going to show it, I thought. They're going to try and hide us like they did in the hospitals. Hundreds of people around us began to clap and shout, "Four more years," trying to drown out our protest. They all seemed very angry and shouted at us to stop. We continued shouting, interrupting Nixon again and again until Secret Service agents grabbed our chairs from behind and began pulling us backward as fast as they could out of the convention hall. "Take it easy," Bobby said to me. "Don't fight back."

I wanted to take a swing and fight right there in the middle of the convention hall in front of the President and the whole country. "So this is how they treat their wounded veterans!" I screamed.

A short guy with a big four more years button ran up to me and spat in my face. "Traitor!" he screamed, as he was yanked back by police. Pandemonium was breaking out all around us and the Secret Service men kept pulling us out backward.

"I served two tours of duty in Vietnam!" I screamed to one newsman. "I gave three quarters of my body for America. And what do I get? Spit in the face!" I kept screaming until we hit the side entrance, where the agents pushed us outside and shut the doors, locking them with chains and padlocks so reporters wouldn't be able to follow us out for interviews.

Powerful stuff.  And here is an excerpt from the UPI account as carried in the Times (he is mis-identified as "Ron Kovac":

...When Mr. Nixon was five minutes into his speech they held up a sign saying “Stop the Bombing” and started shouting the slogan.

“I am guilty of murder” one yelled.  “Tell the truth!  We have suffered from this war!”

After about five minutes security agents wheeled them, unprotesting, out a side door.

Gee - maybe Mr. Kovic is engaged in ex-post myth-making intended to de-legitimize the pro-war effort.  Or maybe news reports just aren't that helpful - you make the call!

Mr. Lembcke's book exposes another flaw in his logic.   In his introduction, he explains that he adopted two strategies for his book.  One was to demonstrate that a number of anti-war groups were pro-veteran, in the sense that they viewed Vietnam vets as likely allies (think "John Kerry").  That being so, he asserts that it would be nonsensical to imagine that any anti-war protester could also be anti-veteran.

Please.  First, the notion that the anti-war movement was monolithic and well-disciplined is absurd.  There are violent and non-violent protesters today; there were violent and non-violent protesters then.

Secondly, how was the anti-war movement meant to distinguish between veterans returning from duty in uniform and active-duty soldiers?  Or is it also a myth that anti-war protesters had chants including "baby-killer", harassed ROTC recruiters, and at least sometimes expressed hostility towards active-duty soldiers?  Let me illustrate that with this incident described by Bob Kerrey, Debra Winger's ex.  This is an excerpt from p. 232 of Bob Kerrey's new book, "When I Was A Young Man". The future Senator is describing an incident in 1969; he is in Philadelphia undergoing rehab with his prosthetic leg and the incident occurs at the Martin Luther King track meet at Villanova:

After the race I was taunted by a group of long-haired men who blocked the exit and knocked me to the ground as I pushed past them to leave.

Now, Kerrey does not say he was spat upon.  However, this does not sound precisely like the Veterans outreach described by Lembcke.  I'll bet there is no police report, and I am sure there is no contemporaneous news account.  So, is Bob Kerrey just making it up?

Lembcke's second research technique was to scan news accounts and note an absence of contemporaneous reporting of spitting.  That is harder to grapple with, since on-line searches for the 60's and 70's are not all they might be.  That said, I found a few cites using a search engine available at my public library (NOT the Times Select offering) a while back, and may yet find the hard-copy file; my notes said this:

Anyway, having spent some time in the NY Times ancient archives, I have found several accounts of anti-war demonstrators spitting on Nixons's Secret Service agents, on DC cops, and on cars carrying guests (including Spiro Agnew and Bob Hope) to the Army Ball in California.

Jack Shafer has certainly identified an interesting question, although maybe not the question he had in mind.  I am wondering, how pervasive is this sort of historical revisionism on our nation's campuses?  This Lembcke stuff is unpersuasive yet unchallenged; I'll go out on a limb and guess that it is accepted because people are comfortable with the anti-war politics driving it.

Wanting to believe that all anti-war protesters were good, and that only the pro-war protesters went overboard, may be pleasant, or politically comfortable.  But "comfortable" is not the same as "true".

MORE:  One commenter in this old post on the same topic suggested that we could use the Lembcke technique of contemporary reporting to prove that, for example, there were no anti-gay hate crimes in the 50's or 60's.  In other good news, apparently there was no discrimination against Jews at US country clubs until the 1970's.  Who knew?  I'll just survey a few former country club presidents to verify that...

CHEAP SHOTS PILE UP:  From a commenter at Reason:

Jerry Lembcke, a Marxist historian, was unable to find any story that convinced him veterans had ever been spit on. Lembcke has also been unable to find convincing evidence that Marxism isn't a workable economic theory; I am not surprised at his inability to find proof of something less well-documented. :)

EVIDENCE, PLEASE:  From an earlier Jack Shafer column on Lembcke:

I don't know about Ms. Young, but as one who has actually been spat upon, I can tell you there is a big difference between feeling you've been spat upon and sensing the slithering saliva as it traverses your face.

Following the Lembcke methodology, I have to insist on seeing the police report, contemporaneous news accounts of this incident, or some other contemporaneous evidence (a diary entry or mention in a letter to a friend might suffice).

Otherwise, I will regretfully infer that Mr. Shafer is simply participating in urban myth-making, presumably motivated by a desire to de-legitimize the pro-war media.  Or something.  But shame on you, Jack, for thinking that unsupported personal anecdotes have any evidentiary value or relevance in this context.

Comments

[clarice]

Well, it could be that all the VN vets I know are lying and this guy is telling th e truth, but--un--I don't think so.
I recall a couple of years ago a wounded soldier (Iraq or Afghanistan)in uniform was booed at a Fourth of July parade on oh so classy Bainbridge Island.

[Carol Herman]

No. I think you're wrong. I think vets were spat upon! LBJ escalated the war. Draftees were looking for ways to avoid the draft. And, I even know a case, where a man volunteered; and his father held that against him. Though he volunteered (around 1966), because doing so let him enter the army at the rank of captain. And, he knew he was gonna get called.

STill his father was avidly anti-war. Families were ripped apart over this!

And, the anti-war crowd was YOUNG. And, huge. (I went to Woodstock.) While memories get faulty; I have memories of a real uprising against LBJ. And, later, watching Nixon win election, because he said he was gonna "take us out of the war."

Earlier? Eisenhower played the same GOP card with Korea. (Another lousy ending. And, misuse of our troops.)

The feelings were that we entered Vietnam, because the french had been defeated. It was as if we were having a contest to best the french.

It wasn't an honorable thing to serve! And, I remember stories about how people did all sorts of stuff to "postpone going in. (The Berry Plan. It let someone continue with their education; especially if they were in med school. But then they had to serve in the military. Doctors in the military, remember, are officers. And, if you became OB:GYN? You didn't have to serve overseas. My ex's brother served in Kentucky. 3 YEARS.

Nixon was BRILLIANT! He ended the DRAFT. But that didn't stop the anti-war movement.

In a sense? We've allowed lawyers to control us. Instead of the ballot box. This whole Libby affair? Just look! It's Woodward's take-out of Nixon, all over again. But played differently by Bush.

Plus, Mark Felt grew old and angry that he didn't become as rich as Woodward! And, the #2 guy at the FBI, anti-Nixon, was Woodward's source.

For THE BRETHREN? Nina Tottenberg was Justice Stevens "paramour." And, she gave all the details she heard, while she was flat on her back; or as accommodating as Monica. To Woodward. So you saw into the CLOSED ROOM, where the justices meet and discuss cases.

Well, how do you think reporting gets done?

What we have now, however, is w replay. And, still it's different.

We've been dealing with the Mideast; and the fact that the arabs ALWAYS kill infidels. So that when 1776 rolled around. And, we had our Revolution; Britain STOPPED protecting our ships. Hundreds were stopped by the pirates out of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. And, ya know what? We didn't have a navy. And, the congress critters fought over every supplying money to build one. There was also an "elite" belief that the American people wouldn't tolerate "another war." So, the arabs in Tripoli, who were requiring a million a year in ransom; PLUS GUNBOATS, kept getting this! And, finally? The stories over how our sailors were captured and turned into slaves, made the difference. We finally got 3 frigates built. 124 guns. And, the year 1799, saw Napoleon trying to stop American trade with Britain, attacking our ships in the Caribbean. 3 Frigates: THE United States, Constitution, and Constellation.

That's why you can whistle the Marine's song: From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli. FINALLY. WE KICKED ASS!

For some reason the elites are the left, now. And, they want to take over everything in government. Just as they did in academia.

Is there push back?

Not gonna change the playbook.

[clarice]

Here--it hasn't been erased from the archives yet--not mine or the paper's:
"Take a look at this disgraceful incident on Bainbridge Island, a few miles west of Seattle proper (and the future home of Hollywood liberals Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston). One of the participants in Bainbridge Island's annual Independence Day parade was Jason Gilson, a 23-year-old military veteran who was injured in the line of duty in Iraq. He wore his war medals and carried a sign indicating his support for President Bush--heresy on liberal Bainbridge Island. Upon seeing Gilson and his sign, the crowd booed and called him names including "murderer" and, yes, "baby killer"Murderer!""Boooo!"

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/181422_robert09.html>Seattle Sucks

[Jim E.]

Interesting post.

However, I'm still not sold on your use of evidence. I believe Lembke's thesis -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is to debunk the idea that antiwar protesters in the 1960s and 1970s spit-upon returning Vietnam war vets.

So in that vein, I fail to see the point of the Ron Kovic account. True or not, it's just not relevant. Kovic was the antiwar protester, and he was the one being spit-upon. I realize Kovic was a Vietnam vet, but in context, his example runs exactly counter to the myth Lembke is attempting to debunk.

Your "notes" are also not on point in that they found no examples regarding antiwar protester/Vietnam vet relationship.

Kerrey's account also doesn't include anyone hocking a loogie, so that's not relevant either.

The Binder quote seems like a toss-up because it seems to me that he's being metaphorical. But that's arguable, I suppose, but I don't think he's necessariyly being literal.

Yes, Lembke's book seeks to explain a larger phenomenon of myth and memory, but look at the title: he's really interested in accounts of spitting, and why that specific image has become so resonant in our culture. He actually blames Hollywood (specifically the movie Coming Home) for the myth, doesn't he? Would think conservatives would like that part of the book. You have to admit that it is interesting that myth is so strong despite contemporaneous evidence for it being utterly lacking. There are not news accounts, diaries, or journals from the time that back this up, only oral interviews that start in earnest in the early 1980s.

Then again, I suppose you think women actually burned their bras in the 1960s, or that Al Gore actually claimed to have invented the internet. Hmmmm, I'm seeing a theme with these urban legends. Er, sorry for the snark. I actually think this is an interesting post.

[pete]

And then there's today's Righties who took a dump on US troop's heads and told them to call it a hat.

[ghostcat]

Jim E. -

Find any polyps up there?

[pete]

Ghostcat

There's a big malignant one that is the spitting image of George (the boy president) Bush.

[J. Peden]

Soldiers not being spit upon? Then why was I hearing about it prior to 1971, virtually as a recommendation? Incidents were also reported somewhere in the media, otherwise I would have never heard about it. After Kerry testified, I actually thought about doing it myself.

The idea that the antiwar movement supported the troops then is a lie, as it is now.

Regardless, why is anyone trying to debunk something nearly impossible to disprove? Methinks they do protest too much.

[ghostcat]

I've got 3 years on the oldest of the Boomers. Personaly witnessed all manner of dissing the vets. Spitting and worse did happen. Best way to get laid, ya know.

As for the bra burning. It didn't happen in Atlantic City, sho nuff, but only because the sisters didn't dare challenge the Fire Marshall. Happened elsewhere, though.

[notalawer]

hope this isn't too for off topic but it seems that MSM now wants us to believe that the army is having to recruit druggies to make the quota for the surge. I do not know how to link but it was on channel 2 Houston at 10pm . it was their investigate reporter spot

[Thomas Jackson]

Course spitting on the troops never happened; nor did Jane Fonda sit on an AAA gun; or the dhimmiecrats appalaud the fall of Saigon; or the North Vietnamese put Kerry's photo in their War Museum as an honored friend.

Last week in Washington DC the moonbats spat on a young vet who lost a leg during their 10,000 troll march.

But what I also remember was the hard hats in NYC crushing the hippies. Way to go hard hats!

[Barry]

I was a witness to a VV who lost a leg, on crutches, getting shoved into the street by some "anti war" yahoo's in 1972. Happened in Knoxville, TN. Remember it well as I spent a few hours in the Knoxville jail for my response.

[pete]

You idiots sent the troops into harms way for nothing, absolutely nothing. How much disrespectful could you possibly get?

[topsecretk9]

--How much disrespectful could you possibly get?--

Read Arkin?

[topsecretk9]

Barry

Thank you for your sacrifice, too.

Liberals pretend they care about the troops and then Arkin goes ahead and says what they really believe. Which is to say, they really doesn't give a flip what the "troops" believe and by the way can we squelch their free speech more ?

[clarice]

Troops are necessarily always subject to being placed in harm's way..like cops and firemen..that's their job.
No one likes to do that, but that's their job. They are not a meals on wheels operation.

Oddly, those who express their own sense of moral superiority by blaming others for "putting the troops in harm'e way" simply refuse to acknowledge they don't want the troops used to advance our national security interests. Send them to Darfur, they shout, for example.

For over a decade leaders of both parties acknowledged the threat the Taliban and Iraq posed to our national security interests and by a wide majority decided to sent them to Afghanistan and then Iraq and not to Darfur.That suggests to me that (a)they do not want them put"in harm's way" unless there is an important national interest to be served, and (b) this was one of those cases.

[pete]

"Troops are necessarily always subject to being placed in harm's way..like cops and firemen..that's their job. No one likes to do that, but that's their job."

You pinheads started the fire!

"Oddly, those who express their own sense of moral superiority by blaming others for "putting the troops in harm'e way" simply refuse to acknowledge they don't want the troops used to advance our national security interests."

A pre-emptive war that preempted nothing. Good use of our troops there brainiac.

[clarice]

No, the "pinheads" who started the war with the corrupt internationalists who instead of cooperating to put the economic squeeze on Sadaam to comply with the 1991 cease fire and international norms of conduct, lined their pockets in the Oil for Food Scandal and entered into lucrative concession deals for Iraqi oil for ending even that weak sanction program. He was months away from reconstituting his WMD programs and could not be counted upon to keep from attacking us or his neighbors.
And everyone in Congress knew that which is why they voted to go to war..they knew that based on the composite intel of all our intel services.

[clarice]

***who started the war WERE the corrupt internationalists who instead of cooperating to put the economic ..."

[pete]

"He was months away from reconstituting his WMD programs and could not be counted upon to keep from attacking us or his neighbors."

You are fucking deluded girl.

[clarice]

I think not. I think you might want to read more..like the report filed on the search for WMDs and what they found and concluded.

[pete]

I hope you get back on your meds before leaving the house.

[Amelia]

Everything Clarice is saying is true even if some don't want to hear it. Even snopes.com has a composite of the statements made by the liberals of this country before, during and after the invasion of Iraq in total and complete support of doing just that.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are high on the list of those chatting away about how this was the morally correct thing to do as is John Kerry, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright and other assorted dignitaries of the leftist movement in this country.

Pete needs to do his homework. And add to that, I also know of VietNam Veterans who were spat upon coming through airports on their way home or upon arrival at military bases. It as a fairly common practice in those good old days when the cowards thought they had a vet outnumbered about five to one so he couldn't do anything back to them.

[clarice]

Did you see the Wm Arkin piece that created the firestorm today? In sum, that our military are mercenaries and shouldn't have a voice in the debate on the war.
Stop me if you've heard this, but hasn't the left been saying all the pro-war civilians are chicken hawks..implying only those doing the heavy lifting should be allowed to speak out for the war?

Doesn't his view and the left's chicken hawk nonsense, mean that only those who oppose the war should be allowed to speak at all whether they are serving or not?

[Ranger]

I guess I'll make three points here.

First (actually on topic): I was in the Army starting in the early 80s. I served with a lot of Vietnam Vets. Most had more than one tour. Most also clearly remember being spit on when they got home. Up though the Korean War retuning soldier would wear their uniforms. They got discouts at resturants, movie theaters, museums, etc as a show of appriciation (and a recongnition that they didn't get paid much for risking their lives) and people would stop them on the street and shake their hands and tank them. Why do you think that stopped?

Second: It is interesting to see all the politicians who wanted to run to the right of Bush after 9/11 (like Kerry, who's first post 9/11 spot on Larry King layed out the 'now that we've beat the Taliban it's time to take on Saddam' narative). Everyone thought it would be to risky for Bush to actually go to war, so they wanted to run in 04 on the platform of "Bush isn't doing enough to keep us safe. Saddam is still in power."

Third: The total lack of moral compas on the left is still amaizing. For three years they pounded Rummy for 'not listening to the generals.' Now that they have beaten him, but it looks like the Army actually still wants to win the war, they are telling everyone to ignore the generals and the troops.

[Terrye]

Well if pete does not realize that Saddam was a madman with a long history of killing people and playing the UN like a fiddle then I think he is the one who needs to get back on his fucking meds.

I love the eff word. It makes me feel cool and edgy and tough when I use it and pete likes it too. I bet he is sitting there and smirking and thinking how cool it would be if his hero Saddam was filing a mass grave right now. But that bad man George Bush spoiled all his fun. poor petey.

Moron. Speaking of meds, the only excuse for people like pete to be so completely uninformed about Saddam and his loooooong history of jacking with and lying to people can be that he was either stoned or locked away somewhere for Clinton's entire second term.

BTW, I was around for those demonstrations and I saw veterans abused and spit on and called names and all kinds of stuff. If this guy wants to rewrite history he will have to try to stick to people like petey the potty mouth boy wonder here to preach to, because rational people know better.

[Terrye]

Clarice:

yes Iread Arkin's remarks. What an ass. I saw that little video he was complaining about. The soldiers were respectful which is more than can be said for this idiot. Guys like this have no problem at all with soldiers voicing their attitudes if those attitudes are what these idiots want to hear, but let them say they believe in what they are doing and wish people would support their mission and the morons start raving like the loons they are.

[ajacksonian]

What is it with a man that must use news accounts when he can just go to a VFW post or three and ask to hear the stories of the Vietnam Vets?

I worked with one who had two tours in Vietnam in the Marines, doing photo analysis for bombing. And the fun thing was that if you called for the target *you* got to go on the patrol to make sure the job was properly finished. He then went on to Diplomatic and Courier duty and then served on the staff of the Commandant. He told *me* of his friends that were spat at, assaulted, and so forth from his memories of 69-70. Even that soldiers were told *not* to wear their uniform home after transferring to civilian airliners so that they would not be the targets of same.

Why go to the press when you can get first hand accounts easily?

Of course that would require actually *talking* to Vets who were NOT in the VVAW and despised them.

Today's soldiers continue in the long tradition of Volunteer Soldier Citizens and any attack on *them* is an attack upon the entire Nation as it was *founded* by volunteers, *protected* by volunteers and volunteers have gone overseas to fight in awful places that needed a presence of the United States to work towards ends to help the Nation. We forget that the Draft is an anomaly of large wars and the Union prefers voluntary service as that is what made this Nation.

If you don't like the authorization of a War, talk to Congress. They set this Nation on a Path to War. The President sets Foreign Policy and Executes Wars, only Congress may Authorize a War. And I *still* find all the reasons set by Congress to be highly laudable for this Nation in going to War in Iraq. Because it was the natural conclusion to their entire set of views through the 1990's. The President can only set forth *why* he thinks the Nation should fight. Only Congress can tell the Nation *why* and then open up the tool chest so that the goals and aims set forth can be accomplished. Unfortunately Congress no longer bothers to actually *read* the Constitution and do their jobs and properly assess and scale the National commitment to a War.

I do have problems with the actual execution of the War, but I also attempt to analyze it and think about it given the force structure set by... why, yes... Congress. And then there is the achingly slow procurement cycle for necessary spares, replacements and new equipment that is also set by... yes, indeed... Congress.

And do note that is an across-the-board both parties to blame indictment of the Legislative Bodies.

For those who carp on 'lessons learned' about previous conflicts, I point out to them that they must look farther afield than to wars ending with a 194_ or from the one with a 196_ to 1974 time frame. But then, to do so, one must be ready to drop ideas of 'Realism' and actually *deal* with the world as it is, examine problems of highly divided societies, cultures and regions then try to learn from past mistakes.

I find that entire set of historical context completely missing from those who naysay the war. Yes, I criticize them for not bothering to understand those funny brown people half-a-world away, just as they threw that at those supporting Vietnam. Not just the *war* there, but the Nation of South Viet Nam. Those that even *try* to do this today can't be bothered to get into some of the 'complexities' that they always criticize others for not doing on other issues.

All through the 1980's and 1990's we kept on hearing it is a 'small world now'. Its got some really nasty folks in it that do *not* listen to reason and want us in submission or just plain dead. It *is* a small world and best they remember that large oceans and huge economy are no protections against Tyranny and Despotism and those seeking to build Empire. There is no place left to run, no place left to hide, it is, indeed, a small world now. And in this day and age we can no longer afford extra generations for warfare unless the Nation is prepared to actually support that and recognize that the Federal Government is not the be-all, end-all of protection.

The United States of the 19th century would have understood this fight and engage it, because that is what it did whenever faced with similar threats through out that long century.

Sadly we look to the 20th century for solutions, and it is a boat anchor heading into the abyss.

And we will be the final victims of that bloodiest of centuries if we do not let go and soon.

[Fits]

Live long enough and everything you've experienced in life becomes myth. Sometimes we would have gladly settled for mere spitting. There were special formations we practiced when marching in parades. Formations from which we could move into a protected wedge, not to harm anyone charging us with bags of dog feces...like they often did...but to get out of Dodge as fast as possible. Were you to push a charging flower-child out of the way just to keep from being trampled or inundated with the unimaginable, there always seemed to be a reporter around. Not wanting your reaction to being assaulted, heavens no. Not asking how you felt standing there covered in detritus while you fought to keep the flag you were carrying from hitting the ground. They wanted to know if you hated them, or if you'd like to hurt them. We were ordered never to respond to the rat-a-tat questions from the press because the news never seemed to make mention of the fact that you were slimed, and focused only upon your anger.

And now it's a myth.

[lurker]

I predict that within 15 to 20 years we will see a nuclear bomb going off in a US major metropolitan city by our radical Islamofascists. Most of us will be gone but some parents will worry about the future of their children and grandchildren having to face that threat.

Unless we win today's war against Global Jihadism.

So we are sending our troops for something other than "nothing". We are sending our troops to fight against Global Jihadism.

Don't ever tell us that we are sending our troops to Iraq for nothing. Not once more.

[Gerry]

Nixon was BRILLIANT! He ended the DRAFT. But that didn't stop the anti-war movement.
Yep Nixon was a great guy did he not bomb the hell out of Cambodia

In a sense? We've allowed lawyers to control us. Instead of the ballot box. This whole Libby affair? Just look! It's Woodward's take-out of Nixon, all over again. But played differently by Bush.
Woodward has come out very badly in the Libby affair. Of course where are the WMDs in Iraq?

[Gerry]

I predict that within 15 to 20 years we will see a nuclear bomb going off in a US major metropolitan city by our radical Islamofascists. Most of us will be gone but some parents will worry about the future of their children and grandchildren having to face that threat.

"Unless we win today's war against Global Jihadism.

So we are sending our troops for something other than "nothing". We are sending our troops to fight against Global Jihadism.

Don't ever tell us that we are sending our troops to Iraq for nothing. Not once more."

You idiot Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11 - fact.
You idiot Iraq had nothing to do with Global Jihadism before the invasion - fact
Jesus you probably read the New York Post or watch Fox news

[Pofarmer]

Ajacksonian is 100% correct. If you got back ot the 19th century, you find the U.S. fighting for the exact same things, and the exact same reasons we are fighting in Iraq today, and sometimes in very similar fights. Our military knows this, the leftists do not. Rush Limbaugh has a good statement. He says for most people, history begins when they were born. For the left today, that is definately true, and may even be shorter than that, maybe about 2000. You would think nothing bad in the world happened before 2000.

[Pofarmer]

Of course where are the WMDs in Iraq?

Where were there huge fish kills in the Tigris and Euphrates, and in the Gulf, at the time of the U.S. invasion? Why wasn't this ever fully investigated? It was initially reported, then dropped. Imagine that.

[Pofarmer]

You idiot Iraq had nothing to do with Global Jihadism before the invasion - fact

Now c'mon. The opposite is too well documented, and too well known, to even respond to that kind of drivel.

[Gerry]

"Where were there huge fish kills in the Tigris and Euphrates, and in the Gulf, at the time of the U.S. invasion? Why wasn't this ever fully investigated? It was initially reported, then dropped. Imagine that."

Wow never heard that What is your source? Has the US army confirmed they were killed by WMDs

So where did the WMDs go? Pretty crafty of Saddam to lose them. Does Bin Laden have them?

[Pagar]

"It wasn't an honorable thing to serve."

Served for years, never once felt that it wasn't the honorable thing to do. Heard the "baby killer" thing too many times to count. Always from people who support abortion, now does that make any sense?

The posts of the American leftists terrorist supporters on this thread are sickening. Brave American soldiers having to die, so that American leftists can have the freedom to destroy American, Unbelievable.

[Gerry]

"Now c'mon. The opposite is too well documented, and too well known, to even respond to that kind of drivel"

Fact- Bin Laden and Saddem did not like each other . Bin Laden was a fundelmentalist Saddem was not. Bin Laden supported the first Gulf War bit not American troops in Saudi Arabia (He even offered support to the Saudis)

As a old Tv show goes "just gives the facts mam"

[Bill in AZ]

Pofarmer, I think Ann Coulter shortened it up even more. For libs, history began this morning. My corollary is that for libs history ends tonight. Don't need to worry about tomorrow.

Poor pete - his worldview has come crashing down around him this week with the Libby trial. To discover that not only did Bush, Rove, Cheney, Libby NOT lie, but the sainted media HAS lied and fabricated the entire thing (and how many more things?? Cooper - "there was a question mark at the end"). Most folks get cranky when everything they have ever known or believed is discovered to be wrong.

[Jim E.]

I see above that Ranger claims that "most" returning Vets were spit-upon. Most? No matter what one thinks about the spitting thing (myth or reality), Ranger is clearly full of it. No one other than Ranger thinks that 1,000,000+ Vietnam vets were spit on. Perhaps he's taking a bit of artistic license (which isn't helpful when trying to discuss whether something did or did not happen).

I also see Amelia specifically referring to vets "who were spat upon coming through airports on their way home or upon arrival at military bases." Amelia's comment is so on point because it's the most common form of the story. And its probably the most suspect part of the story since it makes zero sense that dirty fucking hippies were somehow on military bases abusing soldiers. That's just not possible -- at least not possible for the frequency that the story requires.

Also, the airport thing -- while actually conceivable, unlike the military base thing -- seems suspect in that it would be so hit-or-miss for angry protesters to often be running across returning vets to abuse. And how would they know that they were even vets? According to Ranger (and I have no idea if Ranger is correct about this), returning vets would NOT wear their uniforms due to the maltreatment they supposedly received. So that's another strike against the airport being a prime location for this sort of thing to occur.

But the myth most commonly DOES mention it taking place at an airport. Why would that be? Well, according to Lembke, you can blame the fictional (and vet sympathetic movie) "Coming Home" -- which co-starred Jane Fonda -- for slurring the antiwar movement with a nonsensical scene that takes place at an airport. According to Lembke -- who does a pretty solid job deconstructing how ridiculous the airport scene in the move is -- the oral interviews which talk about spitting spike only after Coming Home was released.

[Pofarmer]

That may be Jim E.

But it's also the case that returning soldiers changed into civies. And flew commercial airliners into commercial airports ontheir way home. The schedules would have been posted. And, you don't think a plane full of mostly young men with crewcuts carrying green duffels would kind of be a giveaway?

[Gerry]

"To discover that not only did Bush, Rove, Cheney, Libby NOT lie, but the sainted media HAS lied and fabricated the entire thing "

Lol how things have changed since Clinton's impeachment. If I remember John Ashcroft could have dumped the CIA leaking case out of the window but choose not to. May I ask why?

[Jim E.]

Pofarmer,

I don't know. Maybe.

But the whole power of the spitting accounts -- like with the Iraqi vet story from this weekend cited above -- is that the vet was in uniform, like at a parade, or out in public at an airport or something, when being spit upon.

[Pofarmer]

John Ashcroft could have dumped the CIA leaking case out of the window but choose not to. May I ask why?

If I remember correctly, he was suffering from Pancreatitis at the time all this came out. I'd chock it up to illness, fatique, poor judgement, and duplicity by staff(Comey).

[RogerA]

"I suppose you think women actually burned their bras in the 1960s" Wow. As one who actually saw this, I would be curious why JimE thinks this is an urban legend!

[Pofarmer]

Fact.
Zarqawi was in Iraq, so were several other notable terrorrists.

Fact. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers(and who knows who else)

Fact, Iraqi secret service has been linked to 93 WTC bombing, though not conclusively.

Fact, saddam was buidling huge mosques and had Koran's written in his own blood.

Fact, none of us fully understands the goings on in the mideast.

[Jim E.]

RogerA,

To my understanding, despite the stories told, there's never been a documented case of bra burnings in the 1960s.

Where did you see it? When? (I'm not being accusatory, just interested.)

[Jim E.]

Pofarmer,

I'm surprised you didn't link Saddam with Oklahoma City or anthrax while you're at it.

[jean]

I think the press is warming up for an attack on our military,and these articles are just the tip.I think most of the angier at the military is just a man envy thing.If a bunch of lefties were in a bar trying to pick up girls and a group of Marines walked in,the lefties wouldn't have a chance.The lefties know this and hate the fact.

[Curly Smith]

I conducted a survey of protestors who admit to having never spat upon anyone and they all told me that they had never spat upon anyone. Some have argued that my survey is invalid since my non-spitters were a self-selecting sample but that is completely erroneous. I randomly selected the interview subjects from my entire sample set of non-spitters. The survey is completely valid and any who disagree will wind up in Iraq. I've got your t-test right here mister!

[Pofarmer]

The whole antrhax thing is just too weird. Not even gonna touch that.

Oklahoma City?

Let's just say it don't fit the mindset of a right wing Christian fundamentalist, to do that kind of shit.

But still

Can you dispute the linkages above? And there are plenty more? Have you looked at any of the transcribed Iraqi documents? Makes for pretty entertaining reading.

[Ranger]

see above that Ranger claims that "most" returning Vets were spit-upon. Most? No matter what one thinks about the spitting thing (myth or reality), Ranger is clearly full of it. No one other than Ranger thinks that 1,000,000+ Vietnam vets were spit on. Perhaps he's taking a bit of artistic license (which isn't helpful when trying to discuss whether something did or did not happen).

Posted by: Jim E. | February 02, 2007 at 06:30 AM

Hmmm... I think you misread my post. What I said was that most of the Vets I served with in the 80s remembered being spit on when they got home. That is a very different universe than all vets. These were carreer Army, who were proud of their uniforms and wore them anyway when they got home. Or maybe they were just all lieing, the victim of a mass hystarical reaction that emplanted memories in there minds.

Like someone above posted, all the guy had to do was go to a few VFW and American Legion halls and conduct some interviews. That kind of research is actually very fashionable in history now. So why didn't he do that? I wonder.

[SunnyDay]

I've emailed a friend who has access to all of CBS' archives. I'll see what I can get from him. Not that it would make any difference to the moonbats. Reality is whatever suits their purpose.

This is the most disgusting campaign I've seen yet from them. Plenty of vets can give first hand accounts - I have an actual newspaper report from 1971 filed away somewhere - I saved it because it was my brother who was assaulted.

I decided then, that if anything like that ever happened again, I would not stand by and say nothing like I did in the 70's.

[Pofarmer]

Speaking of an attack on the military.

Anybody been following the flogging of Gen. Casey?

[SteveMG]

I'm not clear as to what Shafer/Lembcke are arguing. Is it that not one single soldier was spit upon after returning from Vietnam or when he was in uniform?

Or that it was a small handful of incidents that were exagerrated, consciously or not, to slander the anti-war movement?

Does anyone seriously believe that no soldiers were spit upon during that period? None?

SMG

[RogerA]

JimE: University of Pittsburgh where I was a grad student in 1971.

I think the confusion is with respect to bra burning AT THE 1968 MISS AMERICA pagent. Apparently there the protesters just chucked their bras into a trash can.

Perhaps some other of us senior citizens can relate similar events. I can't say there were ever any major protests; most were small, very regional college things.

[Sua Sponte]

Ranger, are you a Ranger?

Just curious.

[Sue]

Pofarmer,

I'm surprised you didn't link Saddam with Oklahoma City or anthrax while you're at it.

You know what surprised me? To read the book jacket of Jayna Davis and find Larry, the Scary, Johnson's endorsement for her theory Iraqis were involved in OKC bombing. That was what got me banned from his site the first time. Asking him if he still thought Iraq was involved in OKC bombing. Apparently not. ::grin::

[Jim E.]

Pofarmer,

So you don't think McVeigh was a Christian fundamentalist, or you don't think McVeigh was behind Okla City?

[RogerA]

JimE: I do agree, BTW, that there is a lot of mythology and urban legend surrounding events of the 1960s; I was also a Viet Nam vet, and don't know any contemporaries that were spat upon. Much of this argument is ultimately epistemiological: if it doesnt appear in a media account did it not occur?

The more important question is was either spitting or bra burning widespread? I think the answer is no.

[Gerry]

Fact.
Zarqawi was in Iraq, so were several other notable terrorrists.

Answer; After the US unvasion

Fact. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers(and who knows who else)
Answer: That is true but does that mean America should 'invade' Palestine

Fact, Iraqi secret service has been linked to 93 WTC bombing, though not conclusively.
Answer: That is def not true. Your dear friend Patrick Fitzgerald was the prosector on that case and there was no mentiion of Iraqi involement

Fact, saddam was buidling huge mosques and had Koran's written in his own blood.
Answer; He was an ego manic but he was a secularist i.e Bin Ladin and himself had very very different views

Fact, none of us fully understands the goings on in the mideast
Answer: true Is that the same for the US government;Cheney and Bush etc

[Pofarmer]

So you don't think McVeigh was a Christian fundamentalist, or you don't think McVeigh was behind Okla City?

Honestly? I will stand by my remark, that what McVeigh did, is not the mindset of a typical Christian Fundamentalist.

[Jim E.]

Regarding oral histories: yes, they are definitely a source that historians should use. Maybe Lemnbke, a Vietnam vet himself, did do oral interviews -- I can't recall.

In the context of the Libby trial, I do find it interesting that the implication is that oral interviews are considered rock solid evidence.

But, yes, the oral interviews of Vets are probably the best evidence for the spitting thing, and seem problematic for Lembke. Still, I think his book raises outstanding questions over WHY the spitting thing has such a powerful hold over popular memory, and why airports are most commonly referenced. And why it only started showing up in oral interviews (for the most part) in the 1980s. Even assuming the spitting thing did occur, it has a reputation/story that far exceeds its reality.

And, RogerA, I think Lemnke also argues that the spitting thing does NOT show up in contemporary diaries or letters either, which is odd. His book was published several years ago; I believe he's since stated that no one has produced diaries or letters. The point is, is that this does not only rely upon media coverage.

Ranger: yes, I misread your earlier post. I stand corrected.

[Jim E.]

Pofarmer,

So do you think Saddam was in cahoots with McVeigh, or not?

[Pofarmer]

Answer; After the US unvasion

Nope, being treated before. Came in from Afghanistan.

Answer: That is def not true. Your dear friend Patrick Fitzgerald was the prosector on that case and there was no mentiion of Iraqi involement

Because Fitz does such a thorough investigation??? LOL. He got the result he wanted.

Bin Ladin and himself had very very different views

Does not mean they didn't have overlapping interests. Still doesn't address the mosques and Korans. Strange stuff for a secularist.

Is that the same for the US government;Cheney and Bush etc

Absolutely, but you can bet they have a hell of a lot more info than you and I.

[RogerA]

JimE: you are correct re Lemke. I was referring more to the articles I read debunking bra burning; my note about epistemology should have said "documented" accounts rather than media accounts.

[Sue]

So you don't think McVeigh was a Christian fundamentalist

I don't.

[Sue]

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The reports of spitting or the movie Coming Home? Tom linked to an Army article about the spitting written in 1971. The Coming Home movie was in the 1980s.

[Jim E.]

I don't think that the 1971 article is clear on whether it was being literal. The writer, for example, says that the uniform, not people, were spat upon. I think it is vague.

[Jim E.]

Coming Home was 1978.

[RogerA]

McVeigh was, IIRC, very affected by the Branch Davidian thing in WACO; however, I am not clear that he was a christian fundamentalist; rather, he saw that (and Ruby Ridge and other events) as evidence that the Government was out of control. The accounts of his execution indicate he was given Roman Catholic rites and he quoted the poem "invictus" in his final letter which is more a statement of deism than fundamentalism; eg, "I am the captain of my fate and master of my soul." Hardly a fundamentalist thought.

[Paul]

Jayna Davis has found overwhelming evidence of a ME connection with the Oklahoma City bombing.

http://www.jaynadavis.com/highlights.html

Also, in contemporaneous accounts, McVeigh was never described as killing out of religious motives. Nor was there any evidence that, at the time of the bombing, he even considered himself a Christian.

On the two great state occasions McVeigh had, at his sentencing and his execution, Jesus made no appearance in his rhetoric. At the sentencing, McVeigh quoted from Louis Brandeis' 1928 decision: "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example." McVeigh's last public act before he was executed was to distribute copies of the 1875 poem "Invictus." It begins: "I thank whatever gods may be/ for my unconquerable soul," and ends "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul" -- sentiments that to a Christian are at least vaguely blasphemous.

[boris]

My discharge was in 68. No spitting.

My brother USMC 'Nam combat vet says he was spit on and called "baby killer" when he returned '71. Jim E. believes its a myth.

Hmmmm who to believe?

[Jim E.]

RogerA,

In terms of bra burning, I think there might have been media accounts of Atlantic City in 1968 which DID report bra burnings. There were pictures of protesters with burning trash cans. It's just that, contrary to accounts, they weren't burning bras. So the media accounts were wrong.

[RogerA]

JimE: exactly--and as you might surmise, many on this board have little confidence in media accounts of anything, precisely for the reasons you cite! :)

[Sue]

I don't think that the 1971 article is clear on whether it was being literal. The writer, for example, says that the uniform, not people, were spat upon. I think it is vague.

Okay. I am not arguing whether vets were literally spat upon. Just pointing out that the story was out there before the movie...1971 is still earlier than 1978. BTW, I didn't see the movie, I was going strictly from your post upthread where you described the movie and the early 80s.

[donald]

Timothy McVeigh was not a christian fundalmentalist. Also, his actions were one of what he saw as a fundamental duty to oppose the actions of a tyrannical federal government as specified in the federalist papers. His mindset was correct, his actions were not. I ain't saying he was right. I am saying we all as citizens have a duty to hammer on the federal government to do it's job. At some point revolution can be necessary. McVeigh's tipping point was Waco and through that lense, much can happen.

[boris]

Fundamental point: If you want to find out if there's open hostility to Christians do you ask someone like Jim E. if he's openly hostile to them or do you ask them if they feel he's being openly hostile?

Does the answer to that question depend on the identity of the victims? IOW is it answered one way for blacks and gays and another way for Chritsians and vets?

[roc ingersol]

I personally saw two guys spit at and curse at soldiers who were across the street from them when I was in Leesville, La. on the way to the Fort Polk PX with my father. Unfortunatley for one of the guys, they were on the same side of the street as my father.

I remember that day specifically because my father bought me a Bong The Cong sweatshirt after he realized his actions scared the crap out of this 7 year old.

[windansea]

I opened a lot of bras in the 70s and 80s but did not spit on any soldiers.

[Jim E.]

boris,

Just so I'm clear: are you saying I'm anti-Christian??

[boris]

No idea Jim.

Just pointing out asking you if you are anti Christian might get a different response then asking a fundamentalist.

[DHS]

I got the anitwar movement was behind the 'bombs' in that city with the blinking lights. It really was Jane, Ted's wife(CNN cartoons), who set the whole thing up so that the Chinese could get all our DIA Jack Bauers on satellite running from HQ to field locations.

Portland is getting the Nobel Peace Prize, but would it really have been possible without all that USAID money(Mercy Corps, Chayes/Shayes)? Oh ya, also got the US intelligence report on civil war. US Intelligence community, US Intelligence or Intelligence community?

I think they're already in Vietnam, but going to Cambodia today. It really is a civil war in Iraq and it's good Americans have finally acknowledged this. Plame might have some good advice here, but there is already the report. Fiji? Survivor is going ahead in spite of the coup, but theyr'e just pulling the British line having had an FBI agent and PC Volunteer on the show there. Shays probably wouldn't care, but he didn't care about the coup so why would he?

War bad. Peace good. Good luck humans.

Defense Human Services.

By the way, there was that movie where they did all this and found out they lost.

[Jim E.]

boris,

I'd prefer if you'd overtly make clear you're not calling me anti-Christian. Unless, that is, you are calling me anti-Christian. Enough with the implications.

[htom]

I was spat at -- not ON! -- in 1969. Changing planes in St Louis, in civies, a guy in a brown business suit came up to me, and asked if I was in the Army. "No sir", I replied, "the Marines!"

"Babykiller!" he hissed, and spat at my shoes. I looked down, saw that he had missed, and looked up, intending to invite him to try again. But he was already thirty feet away, waddling as fast as he could.

Didn't call the cops, the media, the paper. Wasn't actionable, wasn't news, had been warned it might happen. Just a jerk, being a jerk. I sometimes wonder what I would have done if he'd connected; there wasn't anyone around. Perhaps that emboldened his behavior, it would be my word against his.

The myth is that it did not happen. It did happen, and I'm sure that some were actually spat on, not just at. It may not have happened often, and I am sure that there are both war protesters who did not spit and service members who were not targets. But some folk did spit, then, and I suspect that now they're ashamed that they did, and are in denial about having done so.

[clarice]

I must say I think people are guilty about their animus to the VN troops. I frequently fly in and out of Tampa and on some of those occasions have seen troops returning to standing ovations..not that the crowd includes people like Arkin, but I'd bet that outside of places like Bainbridge Island most people would consider such behavior outrageous .

[PeterUK]

Since VVAW">http://www.freerepublic.com/~stockpirate/">VVAW liaised with the enemy were funded by the communist party and plotting assassinations,is gratuitous expectoration beyond the bounds of possibility?
As with Libby the state of mind of the anti-war movement should be taken into account,read "Hotel California" by Barney Hoskyns,is it beyond reasonable doubt that the drug soaked californicators would not spit an those they hated?

[Sweetie]

Al Queda was in Northern Iraq along the Iran border when the US invaded. Saddam allowed them to operate as long as they only hit Kurdish targets, which they rarely did as it was primarily a training camp. Our friends on the left apparently have no problem with that arrangement. Just as they apparently have no problem with the other activities Saddam was engaged in, such as shooting at American aircraft patrolling the no fly zone and paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Nothing to see here.......but let me tell you about Darfur..........

[Barney Frank]

Hey Pete,

We're not californicators anymore.
We're kaalleeefornicators. :)

[boris]

I'd prefer if you'd overtly make clear you're not calling me anti-Christian. Unless, that is, you are calling me anti-Christian. Enough with the implications.

The point is Jim E. that who should I give more credibility to, your denial or the hurt feelings of a fundamentalist?

When the victims are Christian or vets you might demand the benefit of the doubt. Were the victims black or gay one suspects you would favor the benefit for them instead. In fact I could easily provide links of you doing that with me.

[pete]

It is absoulutely pathetic watching you pinheads try to justify all the damage you have done in Iraq and to our country. It was all for nothing and at an extremely high cost.

You were warned by all of us that knew the region better than you that failure and chaos was imminent. What was it, faith, that guided your decision making process?

You're driving yourselves off a cliff with your defense of the indefensible and I for one say "step on the gas".

[Barney Frank]

I think we should stop all this bickering and just bow to the moral authority of those who split hairs about whether veterans were merely spat at, or their uniform were the target not their face, as though the one is acceptable and the other is not.

I especially find the "oh sure, shouts of 'baby killer' were common and amputees were shoved around and knocked to the ground, and lots of vets say they were spat upon, but lets stick to the lack of contemporaneus news accounts of spitting" argument compelling.

Hard to see how anyone could say these folks don't support the troops. Moral titans one and all.

[Sweetie]

"You were warned by all of us that knew the region better than you"

Yes, yes. The same folks that said Japan could never be democratized. The same folks that said the Soviet Union would eventually overwhelm the free world. The same folks that pushed for cutting off funds to South Vietnam that set off a chain of events that killed millions of Cambodians and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese.

I reject this vision of the world as a place where we can stick our heads in the sand and let the less fortunate, those that didn't win the 'birth lottery' by being born in the west, fend for themselves. Freedom for me, but not for you. No wonder the word 'liberal' is now a perjuritive.

[pete]

Sweetie

You started the fire and now you are getting burned. Don't blame the rest of us for your intellectual and moral short comings. There are no significant parallels between WWII and The Iraq occupation. If you think there are then you are even more deluded than I had previously thought.

Nobody gives a rat's butt what you reject. Your track record for knowing when it reject is abysmal.

[clarice]

pete-do I see GW behind that mask--and I thought I was talking to a 16 year old?

[pete]

Your track record for knowing what to reject is abysmal.

[pete]

Clarice

Your last comment was incoherent. Please get help. If not for yourself ....

[boris]

Your last comment was incoherent

Self parody alert!

[Barney Frank]

Pete,

You're constantly working yourself into a tizzy and calling those who disagree with you crazy and pinheads and morons and telling them to get back on their meds.

Were you not listening when your therapist was talking to you about projection?

[Tom Maguire]

Let me tackle some of Jim E's comments:

But the myth most commonly DOES mention it taking place at an airport. Why would that be? Well, according to Lembke, you can blame the fictional (and vet sympathetic movie) "Coming Home" -- which co-starred Jane Fonda -- for slurring the antiwar movement with a nonsensical scene that takes place at an airport.

Other than Lembcke saying so, what is your source for that? I have not, for example, counted what Shafer says are 63 examples in this book, "Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned From Vietnam".

So in that vein, I fail to see the point of the Ron Kovic account. True or not, it's just not relevant. Kovic was the antiwar protester, and he was the one being spit-upon.

Says he, but not so per press reports - maybe Lembcke's reliance on press reports is flawed.

Kerrey's account also doesn't include anyone hocking a loogie, so that's not relevant either.

Please - One of Lembcke's two arguments is that all anti-war types were pro-vet, and hence could not logically engage in violence, including spitting, against them. Clearly an example of anti-vet violence is relevant.

The Binder quote seems like a toss-up because it seems to me that he's being metaphorical. But that's arguable, I suppose, but I don't think he's necessariyly being literal.

Yet Lembcke claimns the "myth" came into being in 1980; why was Binder inventing it, even metaphorically, in 1971?

There are not news accounts, diaries, or journals from the time that back this up, only oral interviews that start in earnest in the early 1980s.

Says who, Lembcke? Do you rally think he made a serious attempt to check people's diaries or journals? How many local papers are available on-line today, or were available to Lembcke in 1992-1999? Or do you think the NY Times will cover an incident of assault at O'Hare or in San Fran?

Any thoughts at all on the fact that Lembcke is himself an anti-war activist with an axe to grind, or does that have no impact on his "research"?