A secret recording has surfaced of Vice President Dick Cheney speaking to the Republican Jewish Coalition where he held forth on various subjects — assuming that the session was closed to the public and press. Cheney appears to be intent on, again, revising history to get people to embrace a security state. You may recall how Cheney (who is often cited as a potential defendant in a torture prosecution) publicly assuring the nation that the Bush torture program produced valuable intelligence. That assertion has been previously dismissed by experts and insiders. However, as we discussed recently, the forthcoming Senate Report goes into great deal to show that not only is that assertion untrue but that the CIA actively sought to hide the fact that the torture program produced insignificant intelligence (and that detainees were tortured despite their cooperation in conventional interrogations). Cheney is now fighting to defend the massive surveillance of citizens — again dismissing even the concessions of intelligence officials about abuses and violations under the program. Cheney told a rapturous crowd that all such accounts were “hogwash.” He further pumped the crowd with support for an attack on Iran to add yet another war to our current international conflicts.
In his March 29th remarks, Cheney insisted that suggestions “That we have created in the National Security Agency this monster bureaucracy that’s reading everybody’s mail, listening to everybody’s phone calls, infringing upon our civil liberties and civil rights — hogwash.” He then adds the assertion that, if we had only embraced massive surveillance previously, “It probably would’ve allowed us to stop 9/11.”
It is a signature moment for Cheney. Once again, when confronted with the creation of a security state and mass surveillance, he plays the 9-11 card. There has never been any suggestion that the program would have prevented 9-11. More importantly, Cheney seems to be forgetting the findings of virtually every investigation of 9-11 that the CIA and FBI could have prevented the attacks with existing powers. Intelligence officials failed to share information and use existing powers to prevent the attack despite various indications that the attack was coming. Of course those findings do not play as well for expanding the powers and budgets of those very same agencies. Instead, citizens are asked to embrace torture, kill lists, and massive surveillance if they want to avoid an attack.
For many outside of this country, the very fact that Cheney has not been prosecuted for his role in the torture program is a consistent reminder of the failure of the country to fulfilled its obligations under existing treaties, as reflected by the recent U.N. report (only the latest such UN criticism). Cheney is a fascinating study of how some citizens and leaders seem to have an overwhelming inclination toward authoritarian power (not just to wield it but to be subject to it). It could not be more disconnected with the views and values of the Framers who deeply distrusted government powers and foreign entanglements. Even in the face of reports and statements from intelligence officials to the contrary, Cheney continues to deny reality in support of near absolute powers in the president. It is hard to tell if he truly believes these accounts or simply seeks to sustain a rivaling narrative. Either way, it increasingly appears so disconnected from reality as to be doublespeak, or even delusional, for Cheney.
Source: Yahoo
“as you are probably aware, they were handing out medals in Vietnam like candy.”
I am not aware of that. That remark seems to disparage everyone who was awarded a medal for service in Viet Nam. I am confident that most medals were well deserved.
“So, to get back to Cleland. He was blown up while trying to affix the grenade on one of his men. Basically, he blew himself up or was the victim of friendly fire or both.”
There was nothing in the record I read that would suggest Cleland was ‘trying to affix’ the grenade. If he had been close enough to anyone to try to affix the grenade there would have been multiple casualties. Most grenades have LD50 radius of several meters. There is nothing in the record that I read to indicate multiple casualties.
I don’t think the rubric of ‘friendly fire’ applies here. However, if you believe this is a ‘friendly fire’ incident why would you repeatedly call the victim ‘stupid’? That characterization would seem wildly inappropriate and incredibly unfair for a ‘friendly fire’ incident.
Wayne – I told you yesterday that the military did with you what they wanted regardless of what you wanted. Evidently you were not listening.
It was not gossip. It was a detailed, straightforward account, made by Alan Simpson, corroborated by Dole, AND NEVER REFUTED by Fat Albert. What about being AWOL on the 8 dead US soldiers scoffed @ by Waldo? As a PI I know you learn much from what people don’t say. I take you @ your word that you were a noble Viet Nam protestor. Many were not!! Jane Fonda was a traitor. What do you think?
A STRAIGHT DOPE CLASSIC FROM CECIL’S STOREHOUSE OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE
Was John Wayne a draft dodger?
July 10, 1998
Dear Cecil:
In your book The Straight Dope you were asked whether John Wayne had ever served in the military. You said no–that though Wayne as a youth had wanted to become a naval officer, “during World War II, he was rejected for military service.” However, it may be more interesting than that. According to a recent Wayne bio, for all his vaunted patriotism, Wayne may actually have tried to stay out of the service.
— Virgiejo, via AOL
Cecil replies:
John Wayne, draft dodger? Oh, what delicious (if cheap) irony! But that judgment is a little harsh. As Garry Wills tells the story in his book John Wayne’s America: The Politics of Celebrity (1997), the Duke faced a tough choice at the outset of World War II. If he wimped out, don’t be so sure a lot of us wouldn’t have done the same.
At the time of Pearl Harbor, Wayne was 34 years old. His marriage was on the rocks but he still had four kids to support. His career was taking off, in large part on the strength of his work in the classic western Stagecoach (1939). But he wasn’t rich. Should he chuck it all and enlist? Many of Hollywood’s big names, such as Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart, and Clark Gable, did just that. (Fonda, Wills points out, was 37 at the time and had a wife and three kids.) But these were established stars. Wayne knew that if he took a few years off for military service, there was a good chance that by the time he got back he’d be over the hill.
Besides, he specialized in the kind of movies a nation at war wanted to see, in which a rugged American hero overcame great odds. Recognizing that Hollywood was an important part of the war effort, Washington had told California draft boards to go easy on actors. Perhaps rationalizing that he could do more good at home, Wayne obtained 3-A status, “deferred for [family] dependency reasons.” He told friends he’d enlist after he made just one or two more movies.
The real question is why he never did so. Wayne cranked out thirteen movies during the war, many with war-related themes. Most of the films were enormously successful and within a short time the Duke was one of America’s most popular stars. His bankability now firmly established, he could have joined the military, secure in the knowledge that Hollywood would welcome him back later. He even made a half-hearted effort to sign up, sending in the paperwork to enlist in the naval photography unit commanded by a good friend, director John Ford.
But he didn’t follow through. Nobody really knows why; Wayne didn’t like to talk about it. A guy who prided himself on doing his own stunts, he doesn’t seem to have lacked physical courage. One suspects he just found it was a lot more fun being a Hollywood hero than the real kind. Many movie star-soldiers had enlisted in the first flush of patriotism after Pearl Harbor. As the war ground on, slogging it out in the trenches seemed a lot less exciting. The movies, on the other hand, had put Wayne well on the way to becoming a legend. “Wayne increasingly came to embody the American fighting man,” Wills writes. In late 1943 and early 1944 he entertained the troops in the Pacific theater as part of a USO tour. An intelligence bigshot asked him to give his impression of Douglas MacArthur. He was fawned over by the press when he got back. Meanwhile, he was having a torrid affair with a beautiful Mexican woman. How could military service compare with that?
In 1944, Wayne received a 2-A classification, “deferred in support of [the] national … interest.” A month later the Selective Service decided to revoke many previous deferments and reclassified him 1-A. But Wayne’s studio appealed and got his 2-A status reinstated until after the war ended.
People who knew Wayne say he felt bad about not having served. (During the war he’d gotten into a few fights with servicemen who wondered why he wasn’t in uniform.) Some think his guilty conscience was one reason he became such a superpatriot later. The fact remains that the man who came to symbolize American patriotism and pride had a chance to do more than just act the part, and he let it pass.
— Cecil Adams
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/04/04/More-on-donor-lists-and-the-Mozilla-oppression
The explosion that disabled Cleland is credited to a type M26 grenade. Apparently this munition had a history of causing problems with accidental or unintended ignition. The M26 grenade was eventually replaced by the type M61. Significantly this type had an extra safety feature:
“The M61 is the M26A1 with an extra safety (called the “jungle clip”), a twist of wire attached to the lever. This is to prevent detonations in case the pin is accidentally pulled.
Why this might happen requires a bit of an explanation. The most common method of carrying grenades was by straps on the ammo pouches. If they got the grenade snagged, the grenade’s pin might work loose or the lever would break off, detonating it. Another problem was, although official policy forbid the practice as unsafe, soldiers sometimes hung their grenades from their uniform by the levers. (This was probably encouraged by war movies and TV shows in which “cool” characters are seen hanging inert prop grenades from their breast pockets).[4]”
Irwin – I believe Wayne when he says he served, I just want to know where. I lived at the same time and I know that you either were drafted or you enlisted. He evidently enlisted to avoid the draft, which gave you certain options, hopefully. However, a study has shown that those that enlisted were less likely to end up in Vietnam. Since the military was investing more time and money in them they got more training and were generally sent to safer postings. Draftees, who were only in for two years, were quickly trained and shipped to Vietnam where they could finish out their tour (assuming they stayed alive).
Busted! I am Professor Irwin Corey. I’m A HORRIBLE sockpuppet because this is only my second attempt. I quit!
Wayne says he served 1965-68. I take him @ his word, mentioned the year were tough ones, and thanked him for his service. That’s what I always do. I disagree w/ him but will always honor his service. That is documented here w/ other vets MANY times over the past couple years.
Wayne – just where did you serve, now that you supposedly walked the walk? And John Ford was in the service along with several other directors.and had nothing to do with John Wayne’s draft status. Hollywood, as a group, was in the pocket of FDR prior to the war, and was already making propaganda films against the Japanese. The Germans were another problem because most major studios had large holdings in Germany that they had to deal with, much like some studios are structuring movies to fit China today. Money talks, bullshit walks.
Exactly what do you have against Westmoreland? Did you serve under him?
Lots of questions:
John Wayne’s ‘people’ contacted Ford in an attempt to see if Wayne could be assigned to Ford’s unit—one has to have been in the military to appreciate the audacity of this request. “Hey I’ll join the Army but only if I can be assigned to Ford’s unit.” John Wayne should have had is butt drafted and sent overseas but instead this prima dona ‘decided’ to stay home instead. Yes, he is a coward and very unpatriotic. But Rs love their Duke.
I have nothing at all against Westmoreland and never said I did. You must be mistaking someone else’s comment about Westy.
Where did I serve? How about I send you a copy of my DD214? (DOD Summary of one’s military service) I feel as if I’m being cross-examined or interrogated by you and it is not appreciated.
For all these people who jumped in here supporting the military, I called ANYONE to support the 8 soldiers who died trying to rescue the Iranian hostages. This was just a couple days ago on the aforementioned Pollard thread. You were no where AWOL. Wait, one of you showed up, but failed a gut check. It’s all there if you care to read it..AGAIN! A guy named Waldo SCOFFED @ their deaths. So, the cowards who showed up here to pile on are NOT real supporters. I am willing to bet a couple yelled “Baby killers” @ ANY Vet returning from Nam.
I am NOT A GOPer. I have NEVER voted for a GOP president. I HAVE voted for 2 Dem presidents. I vote for both parties and 3rd parties. I did not attack John Kerry and thought those attacks on him were despicable. Gore is another case. There are MANY reasons I despise Fat Albert, but the one that trumps all others involves the military. If you all remember, the first Gulf War had a serious debate and vote in the Senate. It was carried live on network TV. Bob Dole was setting the schedule for speakers and counting votes. It was not a slam dunk like the second Iraq war. Ironic, because the first one was the righteous one. But, I digress. Fat Albert came up to Bob Dole, A TRUE WW2 HERO, and offered to sell his vote for a prime time slot!! The most solemn vote any Senator can ever make, and Fat Albert was selling it to further his political career. THAT is why I despise him. The pontificating, the lying, the betraying his wife, pales in comparison to that.
Nick, I see that you are willing to believe any gossip in your hatred for Gore. I guess you must have heard Gore make that offer personally. I rather doubt that. I also did not know Gore was having affairs either, or you must be like one of my F/Os who said the reason he voted for Bush was that he could not vote for a man who had sex in the Oval office. I told him I was unaware Gore got a blow job there too. I guess Monica must have had a VERY busy day. Then you say Gore lied without any specific instance given. Rational folks require things like proof, and examples instead of blanket condemnations.
Since I was a very active participant in the anti-Vietnam war movement, I can state that NO protestor in my hearing or seeing EVER denigrated ANY Vietnam vet, and if they had there were plenty of vets around to straighten them out. It was the pro-war folks who spit on the Vietnam vets in so many ways I cannot count them all.
Paul, I am the one who posted that Westmoreland should have been prosecuted for war crimes. I give you some examples of his policies which were outright illegal. Free fire zones, strategic hamlets, destruction of homes, mass murder by fire on non-military targets are just a few of his criminal actions, then we have the concerted attempts to deny the FACT of mass murders by US forces. He is also less well known for his handling of the Hurtgen forest massacre of our forces in WWII. He simply followed stupid orders that destroyed his regiment with nary a word of protest. It was a worse slaughter than Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg, but at least Pickett had the decency to protest after most of his troops were killed. So I have no respect for him at all since he was an absolute careerist who would do and say anything to advance his career no matter the cost. He was also the classmate at West Point with Benjamin O Davis and took part in the silencing of Davis because Davis was black and did his best to force him out of the Academy. Westmoreland denied the FACT of their actions and thus betrays the honor code he was supposedly trained to uphold. Are those enough specifics for you?
You must have better sources than I do because none of the stuff you are accusing Westmoreland of is popping up in my Internet searches. Are you talking about Malmedy? And are you aware of strategic bombing? The bombing of Dresden by the Allies, etc? War is messy as hell. Actually, war is hell.
BTW, Pickett broke the Union lines, he just could not hang on.
Davis was talked to by his classmates about school related subjects, other than that they iced him out. They did not try to silence him, they were silent to him. I would like to see where Westmoreland denied it and how it was stated. It is all context. BTW, Westmoreland graduated from West Point as the top cadet. He won the Pershing Sword.
Chuck – you do know that Max Cleland blew himself up? Stupid is as stupid does.
From Wiki re Cleland:
“Lloyd says that the unnamed soldier was crying. ‘It was mine,’ he said, ‘it was my grenade.’ According to Lloyd, the private had failed to take the extra precaution that experienced soldiers did when they grabbed M-26 grenades from the ammo box: bend the pins, or tape them in place, so they couldn’t accidentally dislodge. This soldier had a flak jacket full of grenades with treacherously straight pins, Lloyd says. “He was a walking death trap.”[5]”
It appears that the only thing Cleland did that was stupid was to try to secure a dangerous piece of ordinance before anyone was hurt.
BTW: “Cleland then served in the United States Army during the Vietnam War, attaining the rank of Captain. He was awarded the Silver Star and the Bronze Star for valorous action in combat, including during the Battle of Khe Sanh on April 4, 1968.”
Some people will stop at nothing to disparage the name of a true American hero.
bigfatmike – as you are probably aware, they were handing out medals in Vietnam like candy. Just ask John Kerry. It is one of the reasons they are so stingy with medals now.
So, to get back to Cleland. He was blown up while trying to affix the grenade on one of his men. Basically, he blew himself up or was the victim of friendly fire or both.
======
Wayne – my bad about Westmoreland – that was randyjet. Still would like to know where you served. Very curious that you would not tell us.
Paul,
You are disgusting and I’m through with your insults….you know nothing about those who have served, your disrespect is callous and not appreciated, but so typical of your ilk.
Good Day…..
Paul, Once again, you show your ignorance about the medals. It is quite true that many medals were given out with little merit, but those went mainly to the career officers and troops who needed Vietnam service and medals to advance their careers. As for Purple Heart awards, Kerry did not put himself in for those, they had to be validated by the commanders above him along with medical reports. I do not know if Max Cleland got a purple heart for his grenade wounds, but I do know Bob Dole got one of his because he caused his own injuries. He was fighting in Italy, and threw a grenade that bounced off a tree and came back at him. it exploded and wounded him slightly. He later got terribly wounded by a machine gun taking apart much of his body.
Nick, I would like to see a reference to the allegation about Gore. I do not read all of your posts, so I cannot comment about those. I do agree that there was a minority among some anti-war protestors who viewed GIs as the enemy. They were such a minority that we disregarded them and I only got to actually fight with them when they disrupted anti-war conferences. Turns out they were agent provocatuers for the most part.
I like Jane Fonda for her anti-war works, but she certainly made dumb mistakes and she has acknowledged that and made apologies. She made a tour of US military bases off post of course, and brightened up our days. I don’t know about you, but I would MUCH rather see Jane than say Kate Smith.
Bush crew’s deplorable return: How their reemergence sends a deadly message
Enough with puff pieces about painting, and platforms for their self-defense. It only damns us to repeat the past
Elias Isquith
4/5/14
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/05/bush_crews_deplorable_return_how_their_reemergence_sends_a_deadly_message/
Excerpt:
It’s been more than five years since Dick Cheney left the White House and nearly eight years since Donald Rumsfeld was booted from the Pentagon. With the obvious exception of George W. Bush himself, no two men were more responsible for the United States’ disastrous and criminal invasion of Iraq, as well as its embrace of a counter-terrorism model built on the twin barbarities of indefinite detention and systematic torture. In the years that have passed since their departure from public office, both men have released best-selling memoirs, made countless media appearances and no doubt added substantially to their already considerable wealth.
In fact, to get a real sense of just how little these men have had to pay for their sins, consider three recent examples.
One is a recent comment from Dick Cheney, delivered in public — not in private, not on background, not via unknown insiders with intimate knowledge of the former vice president’s thinking, but in public — about whether he still supports waterboarding (or torture, as most people besides Cheney tend to call it): “If I had to do it all over again,” Cheney said, “I would.”
The second is the new documentary, “The Unknown Known,” by Errol Morris and about Donald Rumsfeld. Estimations of the film’s quality vary, but all reviewers are unanimous in at least one regard: Rumsfeld, as he comes off in the film, truly has no regrets. Asked by Morris if invading Iraq for the second time, causing hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths and turning millions more into refugees, was worth it, Rumsfeld shrugs off the question and settles for a fittingly cold and glib answer: “Time will tell.”
The third story is, to my mind, the most disturbing. It’s a piece in the New York Times, published Friday, about a third man, a man who ignored warnings of a terrorist attack, plunged his country into two disastrous wars, invaded a sovereign nation without sanction from the United Nations and on false pretexts, signed off on the implementation of a worldwide torture regime, secretly initiated domestic surveillance on an unprecedented scale, oversaw the destruction of one of the world’s greatest cities, and cut taxes for, and thwarted regulations against, the Wall Street power-players who destroyed the global economy and consigned millions of people to lives of poverty, unemployment and deferred dreams. That man is George W. Bush, and the article is a puff piece about his kitschy paintings.
Obviously, the fact that these men continue to live charmed lives offends our sense of fairness. But it has a more tangible consequence, too. Consider the state of foreign policy thinking within the Republican Party today. Granted, with the recent ascendance of the relatively isolationist Sen. Rand Paul, the GOP’s view of foreign policy is somewhat in flux. But Paul is still an outlier, and a quick glance of the Mitt Romney campaign’s foreign policy experts is enough to show that neoconservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and the rest of that ghoulish clique still call the foreign policy shots for national Republicans. Despite their abject failures — both technocratically and morally — Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld remain in good standing with the people who run one of America’s only two serious political parties. If Mitt Romney were president right now, with Dan Senor by his side, the United States could be ramping up for war with Iran or Russia, preparing to once again spread freedom from the barrel of a gun as if Fallujah and Abu Ghraib never happened.
There’s next to no chance any of these men will ever be officially held accountable for their crimes. All three clearly harbor no regrets. These are the fruits of belonging to the American elite in an era of widespread inequality, when not only the economy, but many pieces of the state itself, act to reinforce and perpetuate the divide separating those who have from those who do not.
Of course, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush are hardly the first American war criminals to escape justice. Richard Nixon, in whose administration the former two men served, immediately comes to mind. Henry Kissinger, too. As was the case for Nixon and Kissinger, Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld have benefitted from a decision of the political ruling class — and, to a lesser degree, of the general public— that it’s best not to dwell too much on the nastier bits of America’s recent history. Back when some touchingly naïve souls thought it a possibility, President Obama used to dismiss the notion of holding his predecessors accountable for torture by urging America to “look forward.” This was an order that the vast majority of Americans showed themselves willing to follow.
This same dynamic, this resistance on the part of the powerful to hold their fellow elites to account — as well as the general public’s silent acceptance of these different, looser ethical standards — was also a key driver of the government’s response to the financial meltdown of 2008. After the crisis had passed and the Obama administration had begun reconstituting the financial sector (mostly in its prior form, sadly), there were public demands that some of the Wall Streeters responsible be prosecuted for the damage they wrought. But these flashes of public discontent were mostly ignored by the White House, and here we are, five years later, with essentially no Wall Street villain having had to worry about seeing the inside of a jail cell. Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein are richer and more powerful than ever
Elaine, I agree that those persons you mention richly deserve prison time. The fact is that Obama has to make a cost benefit analysis as to the worth of prosecuting them. Just as Lincoln had to make the same review after the Civil War as to whether or not the leaders of the Confederacy should be prosecuted for their treasonous acts. To have prosecuted those leaders would have only further embittered the people of the Confederate states, and would have made reconciliation harder. With a few exceptions such as Jefferson Davis and the commander of the Andersonville POW camp who was executed, I think that the policy that was in effect was the correct one. While both sides treated their POWs poorly, the situation at Andersonville was so extreme that Wirtz got justice by being hung.
The more important question is the role of the lawyers in condoning these breaches of international, domestic, and Constitutional law. The reason the government has lawyers is to provide legal advice to the policy makers. When they refuse or distort law to get the results their superiors want, they fail to do their job and they first and foremost need to be held to account. The policy makers do have a legitimate defense claim when they can cite the legal opinions of the lawyers to justify their actions. My suggestion has always been, that the ABA go after those lawyers such as Yoo, Gonzales, and others at the CIA first. The call for Obama to prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc..would acquire force if some sanctions were taken against those lawyers who signed off on clearly illegal policies.
Since I am not a lawyer, it would seem to me that rather than constantly complaining about Obama not going after these crooks, the lawyers here could and SHOULD take whatever actions are available to get some sort of sanction for these crooked lawyers failings. The lawyers need to do this to deter future acts like those which brought such crimes to fruition. It would also send a message to others that you might escape criminal sanctions, but you will pay for it in some form or fashion.
randyjet – if you go after the lawyers it sets a really bad precedent. Lawyers give advice. Sometimes the courts uphold it, sometime they don’t. Lawyers have given advice to the Obama administration regarding a variety of topics. Should they be at risk by the next administration? Or the one after that?
Why is this mass murderer not behind bars?
Serenity now…..
Civility Rules are on the upper section in the middle of the tabs…. if anyone feel the need to review them….
Randy,
Spot on about Kerry, Gore and others. One of the tactics Lee Atwater came up with was to take the opponent’s strongest asset and use it against them. This is how they went after Max Cleland, a triple amputee, painting him as somehow disloyal to the US. Then convinced the voters to replace him with a chickenhawk.
Got your six on this one.
*Related to*
on 1, April 5, 2014 at 1:34 amWayne said…
“I’ve been treated in Veteran Hospitals and my experience with them has always been positive. However, I have seen Veterans in desperate need of help and now I see them being abandoned so Rs can give hore money to greedy individuals who wouldn’t begin to defend this country in a time of need. Rs wear an American Flag on their lapel, utter the well rehearsed phrase “we support the troops” but they are as unPatriotic as they come.”
Not just R’s Wayne, some libertarians too. I’m glad to hear your experiences in Veterans hospitals have been good ones. My sister, a nurse retired from the Tomah, WI Veteran’s Hospital after many years. Her husband died of a rare sinus cancer relayed to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam.
I tend to generalize when I’m speaking about or defending my fellow Veterans. I’ve had medical care at the San Francisco Veterans Hospital and volunteered for a Post Traumatic Stress study at that facility. I was always treated with respect, dignity and have nothing but admiration for the doctors and nurses that I saw at what is a very beautiful campus overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Tell your sister that while we’ve never met, I’m willing to bet I met someone exactly like her. Thank her for the work she did at Tomah Veterans.
I have to make a correction since I DO denigrate and have nothing but contempt for some Vietnam vets. IT is a short list and is Willian Calley, Capt Ernest Medina, Gen Westmoreland. The first two should have been shot for the murders they ordered and carried out of women, children, babies, and old men, all of them non-combatants. Westmoreland should have been put on trial for his policy of free fire zones which as John Kerry noted is a war crime and he regretted carrying out that order. He chalked that up to ignorance and only found out later that what he did was in fact illegal.
One of the better things about the US military is its institutional reluctance to execute malefactors compared to all other militaries which I have some knowledge about. They also for the most part have a great aversion to killing non-combatants too compared once again to other militaries. This was very true during WWII, when they would prosecute GIs who were guilty of war crimes such as executing prisoners or torturing them. In Vietnam they lost a lot of that reluctance, but I see that it is still in force with the conduct that is the common practice now.
“Nick’s contempt for Viet Nam vets.” My contempt is for Fat Al Gore, and now you. I have spoken passionately about Viet Nam vets. I lost a dear friend there. Look up what I said just yesterday about Chuck Manarel on the Pollard thread. Read what I said about my cousin. You’re a hater. Take your hate elsewhere, those days are over here.
.” My contempt is for Fat Al Gore, and now you. I have spoken passionately about Viet Nam vets.
NO Nick, you have only spoken passionately about SOME Vietnam vets who you like and approve of. You have spoken with CONTEMPT about Gore’s Vietnam service. You are like the GOPers who spoke with contempt about Kerry and his service and wounds. YOU are the hater. I do not denigrate any GI who served in Vietnam doing their job whatever it was.
It is the pro-war folks and the GOPers who SPIT on Vietnam vets, not the anti-war movement since I was part of that movement and was a draft counselor when I got out. So I can say that the anti-war movement most certainly did not spit on Vietnam vets and in FACT welcomed them and they led all of our marches. The list of things Nixon and the US government did to Vietnam vets to screw them is too long to list here. I would take some spit rather than some of the things that they did from cutting GI Bill benefits, to kicking the severely wounded out of the military ASAP to save money.
Randy,
Thank you for the support you give us Veterans. We have all served our country and deserve the care and treatment we were promised.
It breaks my heart when I see Rs close down Veterans Hospitals which, as you mentioned, happened during the Nixon administration as well as Bush Jr’s disastrous stay at the White House.
I’ve been treated in Veteran Hospitals and my experience with them has always been positive. However, I have seen Veterans in desperate need of help and now I see them being abandoned so Rs can give hore money to greedy individuals who wouldn’t begin to defend this country in a time of need. Rs wear an American Flag on their lapel, utter the well rehearsed phrase “we support the troops” but they are as unPatriotic as they come.
Rs. win elections by gerrymandering and voter suppression—without these the grand old party would cease to exist. Now that is a happy thought !
I’d be ashamed to admit that I was a Republican, and I come from a very conservative Republican family…but that was in a different time when Republicans actually cared about our country. Today, Rs would gladly destroy our economy or our Country in their unabashed effort to get a black man out of the White House.
yep, “in Viet Nam”