The Grand Deception: 'Kerry, War Hero,' Is a Myth

[JohnDubYa]

Then why only Saddam ? Why not the countless butcheries in Africa ?

Can't be in too many places at once. And Saddam's regime was particularly nasty. Couple that with the terrorism issue and I can see why Saddam's regime was targeted.

Come on, you cannot be serious that this was even a minor reason.

Who are you to say that I cannot be serious?

The main reasons were twofold: first of all a (miscalculated) hope of instoring several US friendly "democracies" hence ensuring US dominance over this important oil providing region (that's a neoliberal viewpoint) and second having fat recontruction contracts for Cheney and friends.

Ye olde "Bush and Cheney are evil and want to kill for oil" crap.

Oh, let me respond in your fashion: YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS?!

 

[vanesch]

This is a common mistake you make here. Bush is surrounded by some of the most experienced people on politics. Are you saying that Rumsfeld and Colin Powell are not knowing what they are doing ? MMM; i think not...

Rumsfeld is indeed not knowing what he is doing, because he, together with his adjoint what's-his-name are the originators of the neo-liberal doctrine. Or, he's knowing very well what he's doing, but he's doing this on Israel's account, I don't know.
Colin Powell did know very well what he was doing, and he was against it, remember. Only, Colin Powell is a very faithful servant, and obeyed the boss. If you read the interviews he gave around the decisional period, this is very clear.

As to the allies of Bush, I think (my opinion) that Blair was simply tricked into Bush's lies. Asnar clearly saw the opportunity to be friends with the US and obtain a lot of favors, as where others. I'm not sure about the Polish position.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[JohnDubYa]

So fear of oppression by dictators in South America was no issue, as long as they weren't communist ?

If you are looking for a foreign policy that is consistent over a span of 40 years, good luck. No country I know has been consistent. For years we heard about Switzerland's consistent desire for peace and neutrality. Wasn't the case in WWII, was it?

 

[vanesch]

Ye olde "Bush and Cheney are evil and want to kill for oil" crap.

Oh, let me respond in your fashion: YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS?!

The neoliberal policy was laid down end of the nineties, exactly as it is executed right now, and spelling out the reasons I just said. I'll try to find the public statements made back then. It is exactly this: starting with one country (Syria, or Iraq, or whatever), instoring a US-friendly democracy and hoping that a domino effect will contaminate the region. It is also clearly stated that the reason is to have stability and US dominance over the region, given its strategic position concerning oil.

The reconstruction contracts with Cheney's companies were signed just after the start of the war. As if they weren't prepared in advance!

Come on.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[plover]

Fear of communism oppression of others, actually. Did anyone really think that North Korea was going to invade the US by sailing across the Pacific Ocean?

From the "Truman Doctrine" speech to Congress:

To insure the peaceful development of nations, free from coercion, the United States has taken a leading part in establishing the United Nations. The United Nations is designed to make possible lasting freedom and independence for all its members. We shall not realize our objectives, however, unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes. This is no more than a frank recognition that totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples, by direct or indirect aggression, undermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United States.

Oh for the days when Presidents were so frank about U.S. motivations...

 

[marlon]

Rumsfeld is indeed not knowing what he is doing, because he, together with his adjoint what's-his-name are the originators of the neo-liberal doctrine. Or, he's knowing very well what he's doing, but he's doing this on Israel's account, I don't know.
Colin Powell did know very well what he was doing, and he was against it, remember. Only, Colin Powell is a very faithful servant, and obeyed the boss. If you read the interviews he gave around the decisional period, this is very clear.

As to the allies of Bush, I think (my opinion) that Blair was simply tricked into Bush's lies. Asnar clearly saw the opportunity to be friends with the US and obtain a lot of favors, as where others. I'm not sure about the Polish position.

cheers,
Patrick.

hi vanesch,

it is clear that we share a very different opinion on the US-policy in Iraq. Although you do not agree with me, i have the deepest respect for you because you take the time to discuss this matter with me in a decent and rational way. It is obvious what country you come from, given your talent for diplomacy !

Yet, i do think that the criticism on Bush is very often wrong. Keep in mind that Bush does not determine the US-policy solo. He is definitely surrounded by some of the most experienced politicians both for domestic as well as for foreign policies. The argument, often heard in Europe, that the entire Bush-administration is incompetent, is a lie and shows lack of knowledge and insight into this subject. The only member I don't really know (i mean qua profession and use in the US-government) is Dick Cheney. What does he do ? What are his responsibilities.

marlon, the US-defender out here in Europe. trust me, i got a lot of work...

 

[vanesch]

marlon, the US-defender out here in Europe. trust me, i got a lot of work...

I understand now...
you want your Green Card :-)

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[marlon]

I understand now...
you want your Green Card :-)

cheers,
Patrick.

damn, did not realize i was THAT transparant...

marlon

 

[vanesch]

It is obvious what country you come from, given your talent for diplomacy !

Yet, i do think that the criticism on Bush is very often wrong.

My talent for diplomacy exists mainly in grossly exaggerating my statements

And of course Bush's administration is not completely incompetent. Also, despite what I said here, I do think that it is a good thing that Saddam is gone. Nevertheless, I'm convinced of 2 things: Bush made a BIG mistake by doing what he did, the way he did it (1) and he did lie about the reasons why he did it (2).

I think that using diplomatic and military pressure, building carefully a strong coalition, especially with Arab countries and carefully working its way, he'd had Saddam's head WITHOUT a fullscale war, and most importantly, without the chaos he created. It might have taken years, true. But the result would have been much more positive. The biggest damage Bush did the way he did things is that he changed all moderate opinions in the Arab world into radical views against the West. He acted as Bin Laden's biggest promotor in the region. Personally I know people who were very reasonable (a Syrian mathematician for instance) and not religious zealots at all, who were ready to go and fight against the Americans in Iraq, so strong was the insult felt by them. If you see that effect, you know how very wrong the American strategy has been. I think they underestimated GROSSLY the Arab nationalist pride.
Second, Bush's main worry was international islamist terrorism. It still is. Now, if there was one thing Saddam wasn't involved in, it was that. So he should have used all means to capture Bin Laden and consorts, instead of opening another Pandora Box.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[JohnDubYa]

. We shall not realize our objectives, however, unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes. This is no more than a frank recognition that totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples, by direct or indirect aggression, undermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United States.

In no way does this imply that the security of the United States is the only reason to challenge Communist invasion. In fact, the doctrine repeatedly points out an emotional appeal to help those that being attacked by totalitarian regimes: "... unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes."

 

[JohnDubYa]

I'll try to find the public statements made back then.

I have an idea: Why don't you find the credible substantiation before you post? It makes your thoughts a little more believable and is more likely to convince readers that you are not terminally full of ****.

By the way, when you state "Cheney's companies," in what regard are you using the possessive? Are these companies owned by Dick Cheney? Is he the CEO? Clarify your statement.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I think that using diplomatic and military pressure, building carefully a strong coalition, especially with Arab countries and carefully working its way, he'd had Saddam's head WITHOUT a fullscale war, and most importantly, without the chaos he created.

Your pollyanna strategy would not work. In the first Persian Gulf war we united practically the entire world, including most of the Arab states, and we gutted his army. Did we end up with Saddam's head? What would it have taken to topple Saddam at that time? You know the answer: A full scale invasion.

The next time, we amassed a huge army on the borders of Iraq. All indications were that the US was going to invade. No one doubted that Saddam's days as a leader were numbered. And in the final hours, we offered a chance for Saddam to leave the country. Did he take it?

What on Earth makes you think that he would have ever stepped down? Saddam would have mobilized every last military option against his own people before he would have stepped down. There was only one way to remove him -- military force.

 

[vanesch]

What on Earth makes you think that he would have ever stepped down? Saddam would have mobilized every last military option against his own people before he would have stepped down. There was only one way to remove him -- military force.

The very fact that the secret services of the US and others could convince several Iraqi generals NOT to fight (or just to fight symbolically and surrender) means that such a softer strategy, if applied over a longer period, could have worked. I'm not claiming that Saddam would step down. I'm claiming that with some further work, sooner or later he'd been overthrown. In the end, you could wait for his death ; maybe that'd take 10 years, so what ?

I have an idea: Why don't you find the credible substantiation before you post? It makes your thoughts a little more believable and is more likely to convince readers that you are not terminally full of ****.

The reason is that I read that in some magazines back then, but I don't have them anymore. So I'm not sure these sources are available on the net.

What I find disturbing in this whole history is that the proponents of the Irak war seem to resort to insults to those who disagree. France took a big share of the insults (which do not affect me personally too much: I'm not French, but I find it disturbing as an attitude). After all, if the proof of the pudding is the eating, you cannot say that Iraq was a big success to be proud of, no ? The official reason for the war was to diminish the islamic terrorist menace: tell me, is that goal achieved or not ? Does it look like being achieved in the near future ? All predictions of those against the war came out, except for one: the official war was over more quickly than expected, and the reason was that some generals of the Iraqi army betrayed their country. So the reasoning of the opponents of the war is not that silly, even if you can disagree on it.


cheers,
patrick.

EDIT: some moderated views are expressed here for example:
http://www.weltverschwoerung.de/redaktion/artikel.php?id=6

 

[plover]

In no way does this imply that the security of the United States is the only reason to challenge Communist invasion. In fact, the doctrine repeatedly points out an emotional appeal to help those that being attacked by totalitarian regimes: "... unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes."

I see you couldn't stand to leave in the part of the quote that talks approvingly of the UN and the US' role in founding it...

Also, if you feel it necessary to base an argument on just one part of a quoted sentence, where the complete sentence pretty much makes the opposite point, it's generally best not to also include the complete sentence in your post. The full sentence reads:

"We shall not realize our objectives, however, unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes." [Emphasis added]
​

The above is even more true when the document being quoted has sections that would make your point better, e.g.:

"When forces of liberation entered Greece they found that the retreating Germans had destroyed virtually all the railways, roads, port facilities, communications, and merchant marine. More than a thousand villages had been burned. Eighty-five percent of the children were tubercular. Livestock, poultry, and draft animals had almost disappeared. Inflation had wiped out practically all savings. As a result of these tragic conditions, a militant minority, exploiting human want and misery, was able to create political chaos which, until now, has made economic recovery impossible."
​

This is all beside the point however. The emotional appeals are more or less window dressing. Truman knows perfectly well a sentimental argument isn't going to win the support of congress. The real argument starts with:

"I am fully aware of the broad implications involved if the United States extends assistance to Greece and Turkey, and I shall discuss these implications with you at this time."
​

After this point, emotional statements are consistently punctuated with references to national security and what is now called the domino theory. This is true of the original quote I gave, and equally true of Truman's concluding statement:

"The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grow in the evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a better life has died. We must keep that hope alive.

The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms. If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world -- and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation."
​

None of this is a statement about Truman's motives—I just note that he skillfully renders his argument in a fashion suited to the context and subject. I don't have a good enough sense of US politics at the time to judge whether his success with this particular policy was due more to that skill, or to the overall idea being "in the air" at the time.

Also, nothing I have said is intended to imply that sympathy for an invaded or oppressed people is not a worthy reason for action, just that it's not the type of reasoning that would have driven US foreign policy in the mid 20th century.

So far your statements here have mostly conveyed a strange taste for sentimental policy arguments, and a fairly foggy perception of the Cold War mindset. Neither of these impressions seem especially likely to be accurate—you are welcome to correct them.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I see you couldn't stand to leave in the part of the quote that talks approvingly of the UN and the US' role in founding it...

And I see that you butchered the entire context of Truman's speech by omitting the first umpteenth paragraphs. Truman was asking for economic aid for Greece, and made appeal after appeal based on our emotional willingness to help other countries in distress. To turn his Doctrine into a utilitarian, self-centered manifesto is disingeneous.

 

[JohnDubYa]

This is all beside the point however. The emotional appeals are more or less window dressing.

I love the way you try to quelch any passages that refute your point. That was a good one. Can we use the same tactics on Bush' or Kerry's speeches?

 

[plover]

JohnDubYa:

Your responses indicate you've made no attempt to understand my argument. You've misrepresented the content of my post, and ignored my statement that I was not writing about motive. You give no sense even of understanding which aspects of your earlier statements I'm arguing against, and which I've left alone. And you still give the impression that you believe that congress accepted the foreign policy direction implied by Truman's speech because they were thinking about Greek orphans, not about the Soviets, that the humanitarian concerns without the Communist threat would have been enough to change the orientation of US policy (that the opposite is true is more or less implied by the case of Turkey). You haven't even really given a sense of recognizing that the outcome of this speech was a change in US policy.

I find it unlikely that you are so naïve as to believe that US foreign policy is or ought to be driven by sentimental reasoning (and this in spite of your statements on other occasions that could be taken to imply that humanitarian reasons alone were enough to convince Bush to invade Iraq, and so all of the administration's stated reasons are moot even if they are lies).

My previous post was also crediting you with the ability to follow a non-simplistic argument. Was that a mistake? I invite you to convince me that it was not. My statements may be unclear and may perhaps be wrong, but you're hardly going to convince me of that if you can't even convince me that you've been reading what I've written.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Here is my earlier statement, to which you objected.

As someone else has said, that selfish, cowardly attitude is not American. In this country, we feel obligated to help when we can. Sure it may bite us on occassion, but our concern for the lives of others should never be ridiculed. There are a lot of free South Koreans that can thank us for not being so self-centered.

You tried to brush the passages that support my argument aside by calling them "window dressing," as if the world has entrusted you with the authority to appoint certain passages as relevant or irrelevant. But I think anyone that reads the Truman Doctrine in its entirety will realize that selfish concerns do not dominate the context. Instead the Doctrine repeatedly focuses on the concerns of the downtrodden.

 

[plover]

As I said: "You give no sense even of understanding which aspects of your earlier statements I'm arguing against, and which I've left alone."

Here is my earlier statement, to which you objected.

As someone else has said, that selfish, cowardly attitude is not American. In this country, we feel obligated to help when we can. Sure it may bite us on occassion, but our concern for the lives of others should never be ridiculed. There are a lot of free South Koreans that can thank us for not being so self-centered.
​

Right, I said that considered "[a]s a statement about American foreign policy", this is a-historical. Nothing you've said so far convinces me you have a clue as to the various frameworks used by Western leaders in recent eras (i.e. the last few centuries) for conceptualizing international relations.

I've said nothing about the motives of individual Americans or even individual American leaders. If you're really interpreting my statements to mean something like: "all Americans are selfish, so the country never has humanitarian motives", then you're just reading my posts through the lens of whatever caricature of "liberals" you're carrying around rather than looking at what I'm saying.

Pretty much right up to Truman, the cornerstone of US foreign policy was isolationism. This doesn't mean there were no exceptions (e.g. the Monroe Doctrine), but overall our stance was pretty much to stay out of other people's affairs (the resistance among Americans to entering WWII up until Pearl Harbor being a good example). After Truman policy centered on containing Communism. This ended, depending on one's perspective, either when Reagan entered office, when the Berlin Wall fell, or when the Soviet Union dissolved (however this discussion is certainly tortured enough without trying to add in Reagan's foreign policy legacy). In my opinion, the US hasn't succeeded at establishing a truly solid framework since the end of the Cold War. Bush Sr. and Clinton were both mediocre overall on this count, though both got some of their improvisations right.

You tried to brush the passages that support my argument aside by calling them "window dressing," as if the world has entrusted you with the authority to appoint certain passages as relevant or irrelevant.

No, I gave an argument as to why I think these are not the sections that convinced congress to adopt Truman's policy. (The public may be a different story.) Read what I actually said. Why would you assume that I intended such a simplistic argument anyway? What good can such assumptions possibly do?

You still sound like you believe that US foreign policy was organized around sentimentality. And even if you do think about the role of the US in this fashion, you haven't given any indication why I should believe that US policymakers do, especially ones from the 40's. (So, you might ask, isn't this a simplistic characterization? Of course it is. That's why it's phrased in interpretive terms—I think what I'm hearing is relatively implausible, so if you don't confirm or correct it, my suspicion is that the signal/noise ratio will remain lower than necessary.)

It also occurs to me to ask: do you often go around denouncing people you think of as "liberal" for sentimental thinking as many other "conservatives" do? Does it upset you that the US has the lowest per capita foreign aid budget of any industrialized country? If your concern is really relieving suffering in the world, there were certainly a lot of better things the US could have done with 200 billion dollars than change the lives of the Iraqis from one sort of misery to another—one of which might actually have been a well-planned removal of Saddam.

But I think anyone that reads the Truman Doctrine in its entirety will realize that selfish concerns do not dominate the context. Instead the Doctrine repeatedly focuses on the concerns of the downtrodden.

I'm not completely sure what you mean by "context" here, but it appears that you are referring to the full text of the speech. In which case, it would appear you interpret me as calling Truman "selfish"—in spite of my statement that this is not about Truman's motives (and also in spite of the fact that "selfish" is not a word I've used).

Historically the Truman Doctrine is remembered for laying out the idea of "containment" that structured much Cold War policy. And the speech holds a complex enough place in US history that its hardly likely that there would be a black-and-white interpretation of it.

Since you haven't given a coherent response to any of my actual statements, I'm not even really sure at this point what your argument is. You need to be more specific.

 

[megashawn]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Vote2004/527_groups_040825-1.html

Today, with the resignation of Bush-Cheney national counsel Ben Ginsberg — who left the campaign after the disclosure he had also been working for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — that charge has taken on new momentum, in the media if not with the FEC.

Hmm, so the Bush campaign was behind the Swift Vote liars.

And Kat, I noticed a comment of yours in the thread about the debate, talking about how the crew of people that served with kerry does not like him.

Well, you continue to spread the manure, neglecting the fact that only ONE person affiliated with the Swift Vote for truth group actually served with Kerry. One person.

And it was orchestrated by the bush campaign. Excellent.

 

[russ_watters]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Vote2004/527_groups_040825-1.html

Hmm, so the Bush campaign was behind the Swift Vote liars.

And it was orchestrated by the bush campaign. Excellent.

megashawn, where were you when we covered this a month ago? The guy is a lawyer who represents a lot of republicans. If you consider that something to be concerned with, does it also concern you that MoveOn.org is represented by a lawer for Kerry's campaign? Maybe he should resign too...

 

[megashawn]

sorry, I don't live on the forums as much as I used to. When I stumbled on the story, it appeared to be fresh news, but I later noticed it was from back in august.

But if this is no big deal, why did the guy resign?

 

[kat]

And Kat, I noticed a comment of...therwise you're the manure spreader ****head.

 

[russ_watters]

But if this is no big deal, why did the guy resign?

Its a nice catch-22 isn't it?: is resigning the honorable thing to do or does it just make you appear more guilty (of what, no one seems to know)? I guess it depends on which you prefer to believe.

I'd prefer that there be more separation (frankly, I'd prefer the soft-money groups be outlawed altogether - they benefit Democrats more anyway). So I do think the soft money groups and campaigns are working too closely together - but its the same on both sides (the CBS thing notwithstanding).

 

[selfAdjoint]

Obviously the campaign reform law had a loophole John Wayne could drive a stagecoach through. I think the "thou shalt not" approach to campaign finance control is misguided anyway. I would prefer some system where anybody could contiribute to anything, but there would be automatic, instant, impartial, fact checkable publication of each donation, who from, what to, and amount.

 

[russ_watters]

I would prefer some system where anybody could contiribute to anything...

I wouldn't - that gives rich people and corporations a larger influence than they should be able to have (wait, did a Republican just say that...? ).

 

[megashawn]

my apologies Kat, I misread. You made post #34, and I musta read #35 and somehow thought it was your response.

Again, my apoligies.

 

[Loren Booda]

'Bush, Warmonger,' is a Reality

 

[kat]

'Bush, Warmonger,' is a Reality

Ah yes, I see that bombastic hyperbole is still alive and well here at PF.

 

[kat]

my apologies Kat, I misread. You made post #34, and I musta read #35 and somehow thought it was your response.

Again, my apoligies.

Although I appreciate the apology, I would still like to see some sort of recognition from you that ...many of the men who "served with" Kerry, and who were members of his "unit" did not and were not...his "crew". In fact...they were a tight unit, because of the close proximity of the boats during patrols, because they patroled together...single boats did not patrol ALONE, and because...not only did they patrol together but they all bunked together on the same large boat or base and ate together day in and day out... You keep making comments and responses mashing separate terms together as though they all hold the same meaning, this is erroneous and it's about time you researched that and recognized it.

 

[megashawn]

well, I can only research what I read, and I do not get paid to scour the internet and library for this info. I read the snopes article that said "Only one of the members of the SBVT actually served with kerry" I have family in the military myself. My Uncle served on the USS Iowa. I'm sure some of the people on that boat did not like him, would probably have negative things to say about him were he in the limelight. However, he served as a gunner, and actually only worked with a handfull of people.

My apoligies for not dedicating my life to the study of Kerrys war history, but it really is not that important to me. THe thing that bugs me is that people lie about it, and while you said you were, I still haven't seen anyone debunk the article.

I've seen plenty debunk the SBVT group however.

And I've always known snopes to be quite reputable on their info in other cases.

 

[kat]

well, I can only research what I read, and I do not get paid to scour the internet and library for this info. I read the snopes article that said "Only one of the members of the SBVT actually served with kerry" I have family in the military myself. My Uncle served on the USS Iowa. I'm sure some of the people on that boat did not like him, would probably have negative things to say about him were he in the limelight. However, he served as a gunner, and actually only worked with a handfull of people.

My apoligies for not dedicating my life to the study of Kerrys war history, but it really is not that important to me. THe thing that bugs me is that people lie about it, and while you said you were, I still haven't seen anyone debunk the article.

I've seen plenty debunk the SBVT group however.

And I've always known snopes to be quite reputable on their info in other cases.

Erm...the USS Iowa is a ship, not a boat and I'm betting if every member of that ship but a handful said bad things about your uncle...I wouldn't want him as president of the United States without researching beyond "snopes" but whatever.

 

[megashawn]

Erm, I know it was a ship, and it was during the 80's, like, not war time. Not my point.

Most people I know don't like me. Sure, they are all buddy buddy to my face, but most people are jealous of something, etc. And this is generally the case with everyone.

But this particular issue is that the SBVT have bogged down the elections having people being more worried about whether Kerry was truthful about his service or not. When regardless of what he did then is entirely irrelevant to what he has been doing since, and what he could potentially do.

And I also agree it was stupid on Kerry's behalf to drag it up. From this point forth, I'll just sit on the sidelines, I never liked politics anyhow, to much like religion.