Pretty impressive
I must say, watching the slow train wreck that is the Bush administration provides a never-ending source of entertainment. If only it didn't come at the expense of so many ruined lives.

The chaos currently gripping the White House is like nothing I've ever seen.
- posted by Jonathan @ 4:46 PM
|

 
The Return of Dittomail
Remember four years ago when all sorts of "joke" email went around slandering Al Gore? Near as I can tell, no one has ever looked into the real origin of most of the dittohead chain-mail that blanketed the 'net. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think most of it came straight from the RNC, though.

And, glory be, it's back with a vengeance. The best example I've found thus far is the one below. I've included my own commentary; as you can see, this piece is little more than Bush campaign lies.

Soldier's Letter to Kerry

Dear Senator Kerry:

Since it has become clear that you will probably be the Democratic nominee for President, I have spent a great deal of time researching your war record and your record as a professional politician. The reason is simple, you aspire to be the Commander in Chief who would lead my sons and their fellow soldiers in time of war. I simply wanted to know if you possess the necessary qualifications to be trusted in that respect.

As we'll show below, the writer's time might have been better spent drooling, mumbling to himself or however most freeper/dittoheads normally pass the time. His "research" doesn't even rank as "shoddy".

You see, I belong to a family of proud U.S. veterans. I was a Captain in the Army Reserve, my father was a decorated Lieutenant in World War II; and I have four sons who have either served, or are currently serving in the military. The oldest is an Army Lieutenant still on active duty in Afghanistan after already being honored for his service in Iraq. The youngest is an E-4 with the military police. His National Guard unit just finished their second tour of active duty, including six months in Guantanamo Bay. My two other sons have served in the national guard and the navy.

The above may be the only accurate material in this letter, and if so, the author deserves thanks for his service, as do the many others who have served their country. But we don't know whether the author is being truthful. There is one listed "Michael Connelly" in Dallas, Texas. There is no record of a "Michael Connelly" from Texas having donated any money to the Bush campaign, though -- which is rather odd, given his supposedly deep convictions about Kerry.

As always, with unsourced chain email, one must treat the claims of the author with a good deal of skepticism.

In looking at your record I found myself comparing it not only to that of my father and my sons, but to the people they served with. My father served with the 87th Chemical Mortar Battalion in Europe. They landed on Utah Beach and fought for 317 straight days including the Cherbourg Peninsula, Aachen, the Hurtgen Forest, and the Battle of the Bulge. You earned a Silver Star in Vietnam for chasing down and finishing off a wounded and retreating enemy soldier. My father won a Bronze Star for single handedly charging and knocking out a German machine gun nest that had his men pinned down. You received three purple hearts for what appears to be three minor scratches. In fact you only missed a combined total of two days of duty for these wounds. The men of my father's unit, the 87th, had to be admonished by their commanding officer because: "It has been brought to our attention that some men are covering up wounds and refusing medical attention for fear of being evacuated and permanently separated from this organization..." It was also a common problem for seriously wounded soldiers to go AWOL from hospitals in order to rejoin their units. You used your three purple hearts to leave Vietnam early.

This drivel appears to be straight out of RNC/freeper/talk radio talking points. The record (and eyewitness reports) clearly shows that Kerry earned his silver star by charging a wounded enemy soldier who was armed and about to blow Kerry's boat apart. The VC soldier was not "retreating". Additionally, Kerry also selflessly saved another man despite mortal danger to himself. We can only hope Mr. Connelly and the rest of our fighting soldiers have the courage Kerry displayed in Vietnam combat.

Furthermore, The medical record of Kerry's wounds also indicates they were considerably worse than "scratches". Needless to say, there have been soldiers wounded far more grievously in battle than Kerry (such as Max Cleland, who was subject to many of the same RNC slanders and who lost limbs in Vietnam). But Kerry's wounds met the stated criteria for purple hearts. In fact, he still carries shrapnel in his leg that pains him from time to time.

Finally, Kerry did not "leave Vietnam early". The policy of Coastal Squadron One (swiftboat command) was that anyone wounded three times was sent home. In other words, Kerry followed the rules, and left right on time.

The same, of course, cannot be said for Bush, who this author evidently doesn't see fit to treat with remotely the same level of scrutiny. This, alone, should warn the reader that the author of this piece has a partisan axe to grind.

My oldest boy came home from Iraq with numerous commendations and then proceeded to volunteer to go to Afghanistan and from there back to Iraq again. My sons and father have never had anything but the highest regard and respect for their fellow soldiers. Yet, you came home to publicly charge your fellow fighting men with being war criminals and to urge their defeat by the enemy. You even wrote a book that had a cover which mocked the heroism of the U.S. Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Our current crop of soldiers has a philosophy that no one gets left behind; and they have practiced that from Somalia to the battlefields of the Middle East . Yet as chairman of a Senate committee looking into allegations that many of your fellow servicemen had been left behind as prisoners in Vietnam, you chose to defend the brutal Vietnamese regime. You even went so far as to refer to the families of the POWs and MIAs as Professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos.

This paragraph is, like the one before, riddled with distortions and outright falsehoods.

Kerry did not "publicly charge his fellow fighting men with being war criminals and urge their defeat by the enemy". Kerry related stories other soldiers had told him regarding atrocities. There is no record, anywhere, of him urging the defeat of American soldiers by the enemy.

(And really, the facts of atrocities in Vietnam are well known; it is rather silly, and a sign of desperation, that dittoheads and RNC flacks are trying to make this into an issue by denying the atrocities took place.)

Moreover, Kerry never referred to anyone as "professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists and dime-store Rambos". This phrase, in fact, was uttered by Sen. John McCain during Senate discussion of normalization of relations with Vietnam on Tuesday, January 25, 1994. Moreover, McCain was not referring to the families of POWs and MIAs when he spoke. Rather, he was referring to mercenaries and other snake-oil salesmen who had been conning the families of MIAs out of money, claiming they would go to Vietnam and track down missing soldiers. McCain's actual statement was:

Joint Task Force personnel have, often at great risk to their own welfare, crawled through some of the worst and most remote terrain in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, searching for any clue as to the fate of our missing. Their efforts have been dismissed as a charade by many POW/MIA activists who_unlike my friend, Senator Smith, whose opposition is honorable_cloak their opposition in character assassination. In truth, JTF personnel are responsible for locating more information, for resolving more of the mystery surrounding this question than all the professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime store rambos who attend this issue have ever or will ever contribute collectively. They are truly unsung heroes.

Everyone involved in our efforts in Vietnam will testify to the greatly increased cooperation from Vietnam. It is their word, not mine, nor Senator Kerry's that Senators should listen to as they consider our amendment. Everyone of these fine individuals believes that the time has come to lift the trade embargo against Vietnam. They recognize that the accounting process has not and should not end, and that there is more cooperation we will require from Vietnam before our efforts can conclude. But they feel, as do I, that lifting the embargo will facilitate and accelerate that cooperation.
(excerpted from Lexis Nexis Congressional record, 103rd Congress, 2nd session, 140 Cong Rec S 130)

As a Senator you voted against the 1991 Gulf War, and have repeatedly voted against funds to supply our troops with the best equipment, and against money to improve our intelligence capability I find this particularly ironic since as a Presidential candidate you are highly critical of our pre-war intelligence in Iraq. However, you did vote to authorize the President to go to war, but have since proceeded to do everything you can to undermine the efforts of our government and our troops to win . Is this what our fighting men and women can expect of you if you are their Commander in Chief? Will you gladly send them to war, only to then aid the enemy by undermining the morale of our troops and cutting off the weapons they need to win?

The above statements have been debunked as the Bush campaign falsehoods they are. John Kerry has never voted "against funds to supply our troops with the best equipment", nor against funds necessary to improve our intelligence capability. In fact, Kerry proposed and voted for a bill providing the infamous $87 billion in funds requested by the Bush administration for our Iraq War efforts, a bill that would have paid for the funding without running up the already skyrocketing federal deficit. The Bush administration threatened to veto his bill. Moreover, the Bush administration sent our troops into combat without sufficient body armor, and despite having received all the funds they have requested, our soldiers still don't have enough. (For a thorough debunking of these and other Bush campaign lies about Kerry, please see the following articles by the non-partisan Factcheck.org: More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record, Did Kerry Oppose Tanks & Planes? Not Lately, Did Kerry Vote "No" on Body Armor for Troops?, and Bush Strains Facts Re: Kerry's Plan To Cut Intelligence Funding in '90's.)

Our country is at war Senator, and as has been the case in every war since the American Revolution, a member of my family is serving their country during the war. Now you want me to trust you to lead my sons in this fight.

Sorry Senator, but when I compare your record to those who have fought and died for this nation, and are currently fighting and dying, the answer is not just no, but Hell No !

Sincerely,

Michael Connelly February 14, 2004 Dallas, Texas

Mr. Connelly, assuming he actually exists, is of course free to vote for anyone he wants. But it would seem that he's being mighty selective with the application of the standards he alleges are important to him in a presidential candidate.

The RNC would love Americans to forget George Bush has a one-year gap in his attendance record for the National Guard during the Vietnam War -- non-dangerous duty he lucked into (or, perhaps, luck had less to do with it than family connections). They would love Americans to forget that George Bush himself has led the United States into the worst foreign-policy disaster since Vietnam, and probably before. They would prefer that Americans not ask questions regarding the Bush administration's criminally negligent behavior about Geneva Convention violations, the exposure of a CIA agent working in anti-WMD proliferation, and lies and exaggerations used to get us into Iraq in the first place. They would love to gloss over the numerous shortcomings in Bush's military, fiscal and homeland security record; shortcomings that, by right wingers' own standards, should be damning.

Distortions such as the ones in this email should be seen for what they are: a sign that an increasingly panicked GOP is once again willing to throw over all principles of honesty, decency, shame and supposed respect for military service to country for partisan gain.
- posted by Jonathan @ 10:15 PM
|

 
Does Kerry need to win over Bush supporters?
I missed this the other day. Matthew Yglesias at the American Prospect's Tapped weblog says:

That sums up Kerry's dilemma pretty well -- how to gain the support of the legions of disillusioned former Bush supporters. Still, getting the other guy's natural constituents to stay home is half as good as getting them to vote for you, so this kind of sullen attitude may be all Kerry needs.

I think Matthew's more right than he knows, here. Historically, Republicans don't win the presidency unless they get over 90% turnout of their base voting for them.

In other words, John Kerry really doesn't have to do anything much to "gain the support of the legions of disillusioned former Bush supporters". They can vote for Kerry or stay home. Either way, Bush won't have the votes he needs to win -- especially if, as appears likely, the Democratic core is energized enough this year for a very strong showing at the polls.
- posted by Jonathan @ 10:45 AM
|

 
Still here
Sorry, folks -- a combination of lack of time and the whirlwind of the recent events have contributed to a lack of will to blog.

We're not gone.
- posted by Jonathan @ 9:47 AM
|

 
Weapons of MisDirection
My only surprise is that it didn't happen sooner. I'm speaking, of course, of the discovery of two old chemical munitions in Iraq.

Strictly speaking, it's hard to refer to these items -- two old artillery shells likely found in a dump somewhere -- as Weapons of Mass Destruction. By all accounts, they're a pair of old, rusting relics of the Iran-Iraq War: barely functional, surely more dangerous to the user than the victim, and beyond the high explosive used in the warhead, hardly capable of inflicting mass casualties. Still, it's hardly surprising to find President Bush's supporters, who have received literally no good news for months, latching on to this find like a life preserver, despite the fact that doing so will once again re-open just how badly Bush misled America on the threat Iraq posed.

So, do these two items "count" as vindicating Bush's warnings? Well, I suppose that depends upon where you think the bar should be. Bush, after all, warned of hundreds of tons of chemical and biological stockpiled and ready to use. I'm unable to find in those warnings the dire prediction that a few largely useless stray artifacts from two decades ago were pointed in our direction.

Still, some will refer to this find as "the weapons of mass destruction". So I guess the question we have to ask is, "were two artillery shells filled with hazardous material worth over 750 American lives and $200 billion?"

That's a question each of us will have to answer. I would imagine the wingnuts will come to one conclusion, and the families of the dead will come to another.
- posted by Jonathan @ 6:48 AM
|

 
A predictable result
Many lefty bloggers seem to be seizing on today's release of a brutal videotape depicting the beheading of an independent American contractor in Iraq. This act was evidently carried out by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who the Bush administration declined to go after in 2002 and 2003 three times, for fear that doing so would have undermined its case for invading Iraq (the Pentagon knew al-Zarqawi was making ricin and knew where he was). Much of the talk seems to be centering around the idea that the beheading is revenge for the torture of Iraqi prisoners (as claimed on the videotape by al-Zarqawi), pointing out that "violence begets violence".

As much as I sympathize with the "cycle of violence" sentiment, al-Zarqawi (assuming he's responsible) doesn't need a reason to kill Americans -- or anyone else who gets in his way. He's a vicious bastard, period, and has proved it many times with unprovoked killings of troops and civilians alike. However, just as al-Zarqawi didn't need a reason, we've now given him an excuse. We've handed al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda another powerful recruiting tool, as people across the arab world who before might have been willing to give us the benefit of the doubt are now cheering al-Zarqawi on.

Don't get me wrong: violence does indeed beget violence. We've doubtless created new al-Zarqawi's by the torture of Iraqi civilians. But this act wasn't revenge. It was worse: it was the cold, calculated and predictable result of the Bush administration's breathtakingly stupid and shortsighted bending of the rules. We needed, more than ever, to do things by the book in order to root out al-Qaeda's support. Instead, the Bushies tore up the book and threw it out. As a result, al-Zarqawi gleefully pounced on the opportunity we've given him. He used it to his advantage. In fact, he would have been stupid not to, just as he and other militants would be stupid not to continue to use it.

You know, I saw the Friedman-esque rationales for the Iraq war, and agreed with many of them. The thing that made me come down against it in the end was the fear that the Bush administration would handle the aftermath incompetently. I worried that the war would end up making us less safe, and make things even worse for the Iraqis.

But I really had no idea just how completely they'd screw this thing up. Their capacity for incompetence has truly defied all reasonable prediction. This isn't a partisan judgement, much as I'd like to see Bush defeated in November for other reasons. There is just no way to put lipstick on this pig and turn it into a swan.

I'm hoping against hope that Bush will, somehow, figure out how to clean up this mess soon. We can't afford to let this go on any longer. Fixing this problem can't wait for a new president. Mr. Bush, do what you have to do, but fix this, for the country you say you love, and the Iraqis you claim to care about.
- posted by Jonathan @ 9:54 PM
|

 
Kerry and the Geneva Conventions
Looks like the wingnuts have come up with yet another way to slime Kerry. In their desperation, it would seem they've recently discovered concern over the rules of war and treatment of prisoners.

So, just to follow the logic, here's a hypothetical conversation with a wingnut on the subject.

WINGNUT: Did you know that John Kerry admitted to having violated the Geneva Conventions and committed war crimes? What a hypocrite he is now, condemning war crimes in Iraq.

NORMAL GUY: You mean to tell me that John Kerry was caught red-handed and confessed to having tortured prisoners?

WINGNUT: Well, no, but it's the same thing. He admitted to having shot civilians in free-fire zones! On national TV! That's against the Geneva Conventions.

NORMAL GUY: So, wait a minute. He wasn't torturing prisoners?

WINGNUT: No, but like I said, it's the same thing.

NORMAL GUY: But he was caught and charged, right?

WINGNUT: Nope. He got away with it.

NORMAL GUY: He wasn't caught or charged? Then why did he admit to it on TV?

WINGNUT: Well, because he was stupid. And he hated America.

NORMAL GUY: But I heard that he protested against the war. Wasn't he protesting atrocities?

WINGNUT: Well, yes. But that doesn't matter. And he hated America.

NORMAL GUY: And wasn't his admission part of an attempt to draw attention to the fact that both he and thousands of others were ordered to fire on civilians under combat conditions? Isn't that quite a bit different than torturing a bunch of helpless prisoners and not blowing the whistle on the crime?

WINGNUT: John Kerry hated America. And he committed war crimes.

NORMAL GUY: Well, if trying to stop atrocities means he hated America, then why are you complaining about the atrocities he supposedly committed? Doesn't that mean you hate America, too?

WINGNUT: Four more years! Four more years!

Of course, the wingnut may complain that it wasn't the atrocities, but the hypocrisy that they're complaining about. But if John Kerry worked tirelessly to end atrocities in Vietnam, it makes little sense to claim he's being hypocritical in condemning atrocities in Iraq. In fact, he appears to have been remarkably consistent.

Yet another reason to vote Kerry in November: basic, bedrock principles.
- posted by Jonathan @ 12:15 AM
|