by hilzoy
There’s an op-ed in today’s Washington Post by Jumah al Dossari, who was imprisoned at Guantanamo. It’s horrible to read, but worth it. At one point, he writes:
“Physical brutality was not uncommon during those first years at Guantanamo. In Camp X-Ray, several soldiers once beat me so badly that I spent three days in intensive care. My face and body were still swollen and covered in bruises when I left the hospital. During one interrogation, my questioner, apparently dissatisfied with my answers, slammed my head against the table. During others, I was shackled to the floor for hours.
In later years, such physical assaults subsided, but they were replaced by something more painful: I was deprived of human contact. For several months, the military held me in solitary confinement after a suicide attempt. I had no clothes other than a pair of shorts and no bed but a dirty plastic mat. The air conditioner was on 24 hours a day; the cell’s cold metal walls made it feel as though I was living inside a freezer. There was no faucet, so I had to use the water in the toilet for drinking and washing.
I was transferred to the maximum-security Camp Five in May 2004. There I lived — if that word can be used — in a cell with cement walls. I was permitted to exercise once or twice a week; otherwise, I was alone in my cell at all times. I had nothing to occupy my mind except a Koran and some censored letters from my family. Interrogators told me that I would live like that for 50 years. (…)
Between suicide attempts, I tried desperately to hold on to the few fleeting moments of light that presented themselves to me. I met every few months with my attorneys and felt better whenever they were in Guantanamo, but my despair would return within a day of their departure. On occasion, I was helped by compassionate guards. After the beating in Camp X-Ray, a young female guard appeared at my cage, looking to make sure that no other guards were watching. “I’m sorry for what happened to you,” she whispered to me. “You’re a human being just like us.” These words were a temporary balm for my bruises and loneliness. Ultimately, though, I believe it was God who did not allow me to die.”
Note that last bit. There are guards in all sorts of unlikely places who are willing to display some humanity towards tortured prisoners.
I mention this because I think people should be very wary of leaping to conclusions about what it means that John McCain’s story of a guard who scraped a cross in the dirt on Christmas is (reportedly) similar to an anecdote from Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. It’s not a gesture so unusual that it could not have happened twice. Christianity is not unknown in Vietnam. To my mind, it means next to nothing that the details varied slightly from one version to the next: that happens all the time in normal life, especially forty years after the fact. The only odd thing is that McCain didn’t mention it in his first account of his captivity, which is quite detailed, and does bring up religion. But there are a whole lot of reasons why he might have omitted it other than its not being true.
If I were a reporter, I would check it out, for instance by asking people who were prisoners with McCain whether they had heard this story at the time. Since I’m not a reporter, I plan to reserve judgment.
As Digby says, there are more important things to worry about.
Special pleading for McCain? For a man who has consistently shown a willingness to lie, cheat and betray? This is ridiculous! There are very few Christians in Vietnam, and the vast majority of them fled south during the war. It stretches all credibility to imagine that this incident is not a McCain (or more likely Mark Salter) theft. Please, reason is one thing, but the probabilities are wholly against McCain’s little fairytale being true.
I would agree but quite frankly, if McCain is upset nasty rumors are circulating about his past, I hope a journalist answers “Gotta keep your sense of humor, sir”.
I would be interested in whether he ever mentioned the incident before his 1999 book. If not, it seems extremely likely that it’s invented. Regardless, it’s unprovable, and it won’t have legs because IOKIYAR, even though the media trashed Gore and Kerry for lesser embellishments (real or imaginary).
Another thing that is … strange is that Mark Salter is a well-known scholar of Solzhenitsyn and that McCain keeps proclaiming himself a fan of the man and keeps talking about him. You would think they would have mentioned at least once that a similar story had happened to both men.
I’d just note again the asymmetry between how Democrats and Republicans pursue these kinds of questions.
If in fact our party is too decent to play the game the same way as the Republicans, that’s heartening in a way and ominous in another. In that case, it becomes a strategic imperative to win back the electoral advantage we concede to the Republicans by not pursuing questions about their character when they present themselves. I’m not sure how we win that advantage back, but we better figure it out.
Southpaw, I don’t think it’s about the fundamental decency of Democrats. It’s about the tilted media playing field. There are people on the left in the blogs making plenty of noise about all manner of things, but the media simply ignore them, while picking up insignificant kerfuffles from the right-wing sites (“Drudge rules our world”) and spreading them all over. I don’t know what the solution is.
Are you insane?
If this is fabricated then there is nothing more important than this! Unless you think it doesn’t really matter much who becomes the next president.
And if it really is fabricated and the Democrats chicken out (again!) then I will have to add that to my very long list of things for which I will never forgive the Democratic Party.
Callimaco, since it won’t be possible to prove that it’s fabricated, I doubt any prominent Democrats are going to jump on it, and rightly so, since the media would flay them for casting aspersions on a Republican former POW’s religious anecdote.
I see that the New York Times is covering McCain’s violation of the “cone of silence”. We’ll see how the rest of the media handle it.
“If this is fabricated then there is nothing more important than this!”
Yes, clearly claiming that a story that can’t be disproven, and isn’t even grossly unlikely, is infinitely more important than McCain’s horrific judgement about war and peace, or the economy, or his sense of ethics, or his staff being divided between lobbyists and Rovians, or his willingness to pander, or his inability to keep facts straight, or his questionable temperment, all of which there are hundreds of examples of, as well as more important than every question judgement and policy McCain has ever supported or supports now. Very sound judgment there.
Right up there with declaring that if Hilzoy doesn’t agree with you, then she’s “insane!”
Excellent sense of proportion.
(I already gave my opinion here.)
Provability has zippy to do with it. If you want to say that the Obama campaign shouldn’t touch this with a ten foot pole, then – sure – I agree with that. If you want to say that nobody should around pushing this, then – no – you are wrong. There are good questions to be asked here. Let them be asked.
My reaction, watching the forum, was that this was a potentially compelling story that also seemed entirely unfalsifiable. If it was a lie, it was a “good” one, as regards its execution.
In a more perfect world, we’d expect our politicians to make their points on the basis of falsifiable (fact-checkable) claims. In this one, discretion may be the better part of valor, when they choose another path.
Conceding the claim, however, does not require us to foresear conversations about what lessons Sen. McCain took away from the [conceded] incident. Did he simply take away the lesson that even some of the “gooks” [evildoers] could acknowledge the incorrectness of their position (and the righteousness of his), or did he instead take away a lesson that has guided his response to others when situations were [relatively] reversed? My recollection of his committments to lawful, humane treatment of detainees post-911 find them woefully lacking. Perhaps, however, one of his supporters would like to educate me.
…and of course two fine responses precede mine, because I’m slow.
Gary, I think Callimaco may believe that this story is important because of its potential to derail McCain’s campaign, not because it should be more important than those other points you mention (which clearly haven’t done much derailing). I don’t share that belief, but the problem seems to be more about judging media reactions than about sense of proportion.
Ah, as usual, the high-minded and impractical gather to congratulate themselves on their superior virtue. How nice to watch the sensitive souls of this world tripping over themselves to give a lying, adulterous, corrupt politician the benefit of the doubt.. even in the most implausible circumstances. This ain’t epistemology 101 – the standard is “reasonable doubt”, and McCain doesn’t have any defense that would withstand scrutiny. Still, enjoy the sanctimonious self-awarded feeling of “being right”!
KCinDC has me correct. If this really became an issue, if it really looked like there were serious doubts about the stories he’s told about his time as a POW, if all of a sudden he seemed, in fact, quite possibly to be lying about those times and fabricating events for political convenience, then McCain’s political viability would very quickly collapse.
So, yes, I perceive the faint smell of blood here. And I say attack without mercy.
Avram, it’s not giving McCain the benefit of the doubt — it’s recognizing the reality that the media will give McCain the benefit of the doubt and more, leading them to turn on anyone impugning his story. It does no good to throw bombs that are only going to blow up in your own face.
Callimaco, I think you’re being unrealistic about the likelihood of being able to prove anything, and about how much impact even somehow proving that McCain embellished a war story would have. How much damage did Reagan’s hallucinatory accounts of his war years do him with the public?
It does even less good to never throw any bombs at all. That’s not a strategy, just surrender in advance, hidden behind a certain amount of pompous language and assumed morality.
KCinDC — You don’t seem to understand. You don’t need to prove anything. You just need to raise and propagate doubts.
And I wouldn’t make comparisons between the media and news environments of 30 years ago and those of today.
This ain’t epistemology 101 – the standard is “reasonable doubt”, and McCain doesn’t have any defense that would withstand scrutiny.
It’s not a court case and you’re apparently not a lawyer if you’re making that argument.
It does even less good to never throw any bombs at all.
It’s also not a war, but regardless, if you’re going to throw (drop?) bombs, you don’t target anything that moves just because you’re angry. Hopefully that, at least, is obvious.
Well, gee, Adam, what can I say to your statement of the obvious? Not a court case? How clever of you! As for the random remark,did you fail to notice that this bomb goes straight for McCain’s credibility and his uneasy relationship with evangelicals? That’s precise enough for me, and if you don’t have the stomach to rumble, get out of the way and let the people who do get their hands dirty while you sit around mouthing precious little pieties to yourself.
Note that last bit. There are guards in all sorts of unlikely places who are willing to display some humanity towards tortured prisoners.
It’s amazing to me how our foreign policy seems to reward least those acts of compassion and stoicism that give me the most pride in my country. Surely I can’t be the only person that feels this way.
I mean — I recognize that there’s other emotions involved here and that different people respond in different ways, but the only thing that really gives me the warm fuzzies about America are acts of grace, and yet there seems to be no political incentive for that. I wonder why that is.
“If you want to say that the Obama campaign shouldn’t touch this with a ten foot pole, then – sure – I agree with that. If you want to say that nobody should around pushing this, then – no – you are wrong.”
Who is the “you” you are addressing? Me, I said not a single word about what I “want.”
It helps to quote whomever it is you are responding to.
It’s hardly being nasty to raise a question of personal credibility when McCain, (who seems to have retailed this story only since 1999), suddenly decides to use it to advance his political cause – especially when someone else (in whom McCain and Salter clearly take a lot of interest) told the story previously in a very similar version. You can’t really demand absolute proof of anything in this world, for reasons which students learn in Philosophy 101. That’s why avram is quite right to set the standard at reasonable doubt, and Adam is wrong to assume that this automatically means court time.
I’m tired, so rather than defending my usually-chronic pragmatism, I’m simply going to point out that Avram is, I believe, violating the posting rules — and based on a non-falsifiable assertion, no less.
Good night.
“That’s precise enough for me, and if you don’t have the stomach to rumble, get out of the way and let the people who do get their hands dirty while you sit around mouthing precious little pieties to yourself.”
How anyone here is standing in your “way” is unclear. But it doubtless feels good to express your anger by being rude and convincing yourself that you’re superior to those you address. What political good that does remains unclear.
No, it’s definitely better not to throw a bomb a all than to throw one that will damage you more than the enemy.
In any case, the idea that we can’t beat the Republicans unless we’re willing to spread lies about them seems strangely similar to the idea that we can’t beat the Islamofascists unless we’re willing to torture them and hold them without legal process in secret prisons.
Gary Farber, pointing out that others evidently prefer to surrender in advance is scarcely unreasonable or rude. I find this contemptible and I am happy to be honest about it. Perhaps you might ask yourself where playing nice has gotten the Dems and the US for the last 8 years? FISA anyone?
That’s why avram is quite right to set the standard at reasonable doubt, and Adam is wrong to assume that this automatically means court time.
The verbiage of the original sentence was pretty clear, but it was either an inaccurate statement about a judicial standard or a baseless assertion of a political standard. I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt, but I suppose you can take your pick between the two. Now seriously, good night.
Avram, if you have a media empire ready and willing to amplify whatever negative material you come up with and spin it in a way that benefits Democrats, then knock yourself out. The rest of us have to make do with the media we have, who are definitely not our friends. That’s a huge problem, and not one that can be solved by simply throwing a tantrum.
KCinDC – exactly what is the “lie” you suggest that some people want to spread? From where I sit, it looks like a pretty good bet that McCain stole this story. You must admit, his track record on truthfulness leaves quite a bit to be desired. Also, “throwing the bomb” language is a bit melodramatic – but if the word on the street is “McCain lied about his faith”, I’d say that damages him pretty intensely. The Obama camp would be crazy not to at least discuss these “worrying revelations” in sad and concerned voices, while making clear that they hope McCain was being honest.
Adam, I think you are trying to construct a pair of straw-men out of pique. From the vehemence of your reaction, I’d suggest that avram, perhaps tactlessly, struck quite a chord there. I don’t see why “reasonable doubt” is a baseless standard for politics, and I don’t see you giving any benefit of the doubt whatsoever. Less rhetoric, sir, more argument, please.
KCinDc – you seem to be saying that the media makes it impossible for us to say anything. If that’s true, what’s the point of even discussing what Democrats should do? Aren’t you taking despair to an extreme?
On a somewhat related note, the McCain camp seems to be coming unglued over suggestions that McCain cheated somehow. They’ve sent a strikingly injudicious letter to NBC which basically rants about the impertinence of anyone who dares to question the Maverick’s integrity. Can you imagine the bellow of rage when they hear suggestions that McCain plagiarized his own story of Christian witness?
I think I’m going to call Saddleback Church and ask them how they feel that McCain was “creative” to them about [a] the “Cone of Silence”, [b] the breakup of his marriage, [c] his policy on Russia and Georgia being based on lobbiests, [d] the definition of “rich”. Then I might mention this cross incident, just as a fillip.
How do they feel about McCain using them to spread his “piety”?
KCinDC has the right of this. Why argue any of the host of points where McCain is falsifiably wrong, when you can go all-in to challenge a point that cannot ever be falsified… Clearly a winning strategery.
How many questionable positions did McCain stake out at this forum? Why do we need to go all-in challenging the one where factual evidence can’t profitably be brought to bear? Especially when we can concede his story, ask for examples of the lesson he took away from it and his implementation of that enlightenment in future challenges, and still find his behavior obviously lacking?
There’s a segment of the population that wants exactly what they got from McCain at this forum; namely confirmation that things are exactly as simple and straightforward as they thought.
We can only hope that a majority wants a candidate who doesn’t treat us like we’re fncking stupid; and court that majority by addressing issues where we can bring them factual information to evaluate, instead of forcing them to pick candidates based only on two “trust me”s.
I’m saying that arguing the veracity of McCain’s story is “trust me” territory.
Hmmm.. a cynic might argue that pouncing on the non-verifiable element is actually the best attack available. Can’t be proven wrong, can’t be proven right. Where better to put the nefarious McCain into a tight spot? He can’t prove it, which leaves him looking distinctly the worse for wear.
I first heard McCain tell the cross-in-the-dirt story during one of the early GOP debates. It struck me at the time as a transparently phony little parable, but also as something nobody would ever question. It’s refreshing to see that at least some people do question it.
Is McCain’s story true? Maybe. But what does it say about candidate McCain even if it is true? At the very least, the telling of the story by McCain the candidate (whether or not it actually happened to McCain the POW) shows a certain confidence on candidate McCain’s part: a faith (if you will) that nobody will ever ask for proof of an inherently unprovable story. He’s John McCain, after all.
Poor Rudi Giuliani tried his own similar ploy with the story about telling Bernie Kerick on 9/11, “Thank god George Bush is our president.” Didn’t work out quite as well.
— TP
I am saying that trying to win by copying the Republicans’ smear techniques won’t work, at least not in this environment. I think that the media will not go for it, and I think that making the campaign be about smears puts people in a frame of mind that’s favorable for Republicans. It’s not just that the Republicans are better at the game — it’s that the game fits better with the mindset they’re trying to inculcate.
If Avram is not arguing in favor of lying, then I withdraw that part of my earlier comment, but I’ve certainly had plenty of similar arguments with people saying things like “Still, enjoy the sanctimonious self-awarded feeling of ‘being right’!” who were not so scrupulous.
For myself, I am waiting for the day when we discover that the Blessed John received the stigmata, but “doesn’t like to talk about it”.
At the same forum, McCain took, among others, the positions that human rights begin at conception and that we should “defeat it” [re. evil (as we see it)] … no caveats.
Why are we better off arguing the non-falsifiable cross-in-the-dirt story than the obvious implications of McCain’s stated positions?
Why are we better off arguing the non-falsifiable cross-in-the-dirt story than the obvious implications of McCain’s stated positions?
Posted by: CMatt | August 18, 2008 at 02:04 AM
Because the abortion issue is more or less “settled”, and McCain has an easy out – God led him to the “right” position. Falsehood about one’s faith, before a pastor in a public forum, however, is rather harder to defend.
The abortion issue may be “settled”, but plenty of voters are unaware of just how extreme McCain’s position on it is, because he’s supposedly a moderate maverick. I think educating more people about that will do more good than nitpicking McCain’s POW story.
KCinDC – you are making this into a “nit-picking” issue when it isn’t one. If McCain gave false testimony about his faith before a pastor in public, that will resonate very strongly with evangelicals – who are already somewhat suspicious of him. That really has the potential to be a game-changer. McCain may now be extreme on abortion, as you put it, but he won’t lose many votes by that. Losing the evangelicals to any significant degree would be a massive blow to him.
If McCain gave false testimony about his faith before a pastor in public, that will resonate very strongly with evangelicals – who are already somewhat suspicious of him.
Let me see if I understand you. You’re suggesting that evangelical voters who are perfectly fine with McCain cheating on his first wife when she was ill so that he could marry a wealthy beer heiress who would bankroll his political career will suddenly go nuts because he told a suspicious but plausible story about how his POW days over three decades ago?
Turbulence, evangelicals forgive McCain because, among other things, they think that he has repented and seen the error of his ways. If he is now exposed as having played them for fools, that would really not go down well. Remember, they like repentance, forgiveness etc. What they do NOT like is having to face how phony this storyline often is.
The larger issue here is McCain’s image of incorruptibility, which is a huge–and entirely unearned–advantage he has going into this campaign. See, for example, the WaPo’s Ruth Marcus on PBS’s NewsHour last Friday, arguing that Randy Scheunemann’s lobbying for the government of Georgia should be a non-issue because “anybody who knows Senator McCain” understands that he simply couldn’t be swung by a lobbyist.
Now it’s possible that Obama will be able to defeat McCain even if the press and public remain convinced of St. John’s incorruptibility.
But it seems like a better proposition all around for Obama and his supporters to push back against this image, both because it’s fundamentally false and because it’s rather difficult to defeat the putatively incorruptible.
There’s every reason in the world to think that the Obama campaign ought to be reframing McCain as fundamentally dishonest. It would seem foolish to leave any stone unturned in this effort.
Regardless of whether it happened or not, it clearly wasn’t important enough to him to think of mentioning it for more than two decades. So at the very least, he’s taking the Evangelicals for a ride when he claims that it was some wonderful Christian bonding moment for him.
I might point out that the guard did not have to be a Christian, he could simply have been familiar with the cross iconography from the French period. Does he mention the age of the guard at any point? If he was young it would be odd, you’ve got to keep in mind the political training North Vietnamese society had been treated to for two decades by this time.
Of course, the guy might actually have been drawing a tic-tac-toe board, but since John I’ll-Follow-Osama-to-the-Gates-of-Hell-but-not-to-Pakistan McCain defeats evil, he probably refused to play the devil’s game.
How do you imagine that happening? Obama will say “That sounds fishy”, and rather than angrily denouncing him for daring to question his POW experience and his Christian faith, McCain will break down and tearfully confess the lie? There’s no way of disproving the story.
The people who are eating up this glurge aren’t going to let go of it simply because it’s implausible.
As noted on another forum, if it’s pointed out that this story bears a striking resemblance to a story recounted by Solzhenitsyn in 1973, right-wingers could merely claim that there was no reason the same thing couldn’t have happened twice.
However, I do think it’s worth noting:
John Kerry recounted an anecdote about spending Christmas Day “five miles across the Cambodian border”.
This got leapt on and nitpicked to death – it was alleged that Kerry couldn’t have been in Cambodia on Christmas Day that year, that official records showed him somewhere else, etc, etc. Even though the substance of the account was certainly true – Kerry was on patrol right up next to the Cambodian border that December, whether or not on Christmas Day he was actually over the border and in Cambodia, it was argued that if he was in Vietnam on 25th December 1968 that showed he was lying about his war experiences.
The same nitpickery is not being applied to McCain’s war experiences, any more than it was applied to the lies Bush told about what he did in the war.
(Of course the same double standard was in evidence during 2000, when the big lies Bush told were ignored in favor of nitpicking small discrepancies in things Al Gore had said and claiming each discrepancy is a lie.)
But here have two veterans, one of whom got Swiftboated, one of whom is getting kidglove treatment – even when his anecdotes don’t pass the smell test.
I think McCain’s staff probably did borrow that story from Solzhenitsyn, perhaps via Internet glurge e-mails (that’s the problem with not being Internet-savvy: you don’t know enough to know when your staff are being lazy and cribbing from their inbox legends or Wikipedia). But as with the best glurge, there’s no way to disprove it.
Oh yes, this was the Obsidian Wings post/comment thread I was first thinking about: Sebastian Holsclaw, nitpicking on Kerry’s opposition to the Vietnam war (and without any reference to Kerry’s opposition to American atrocities in Vietnam, though in theory at least that ought to have been one reason for Sebastian to support Kerry over Bush).
The whole draw a figure in the dirt is a trope, with the ichthys figure of two arcs supposedly being drawn by two different people as a signal of mutual recognition. As such, it takes on a symbolic meaning rather than a literal one and pointing out the inaccuracy rather is missing the literal truth for the symbolic truth. The whole thing seems to be a dogwhistle moment, and getting hung up in the truth/falsity of the anecdote puts us a day late and a dollar short.
The whole thing seems to be a dogwhistle moment, and getting hung up in the truth/falsity of the anecdote puts us a day late and a dollar short.
Not really.
Glurge about Bush’s status as an evangelical Christian has been passed around the Internet for years: examples on Snopes include The Evangelical Prez and Jesus Day.
These stories, true or false, are presented as having been told of Bush by others – not anecdotes that Bush tells of himself. Whether or not these stories originate with Bush staffers, they’re certainly dogwhistles for the evangelical Christians who want to think that the President who doesn’t read the Bible or go to church on Sunday is “one of them”.
The right way for McCain’s staffers to present this anecdote would have been via e-mail circulation as a piece of “true story” glurge. That way it reaches the evangelical Christians who have been reliable voters for Bush, and since it’s not falsifiable, the worst that Snopes could say of it would be “Undetermined”.
For McCain himself to repeat this piece of glurge as a true story puts it on to a level where it should have a literal meaning as well as a symbolic one. If McCain lived in a country where journalists routinely challenge politicians, he would be leaving himself open to the question, “Senator, did that actually happen? And why haven’t you mentioned it before?”
“Gary Farber, pointing out that others evidently prefer to surrender in advance is scarcely unreasonable or rude. I find this contemptible”
Oh, well, you needn’t be so hard on yourself.
“As noted on another forum, if it’s pointed out that this story bears a striking resemblance to a story recounted by Solzhenitsyn in 1973, right-wingers could merely claim that there was no reason the same thing couldn’t have happened twice.”
One doesn’t have to be a right-winger to point it out. Once can be an atheistic Jew with relatively little knowledge of Christianity to be familiar with the fact that a very reason the cross is a Christian symbol is because it is so easy to draw, and was thus a symbol used cryptically as a successor to the fish.
But, me, I’m going to start telling people about my prisoner-of-war days, since it’s evident that being a POW means one becomes morally pure, incapable of telling a lie, and totally Jesus-y.
Off-topic, but btw, Musharraf announced his resignation as of today on live tv.
If you are a Jew, that should of course be KZ stories (Gulag may do but is less effective). Doesn’t matter should you be not old enough for that. Any birth certificate can be challenged as a shameful forgery 😉
I agree that the truth value of the story is irrelevant. Even if every single Hanoi Hilton prison guard would deny it under oath or show evidence that it was actually a swastika and The Son of Cain Sieg-Heil-ed it, it would not gain traction where it should. Maybe we should look for gay-porn videos involving the Son of Cain, the desecration of bibles and cries of “Yes, abort me, abort me!”. That could maybe turn some people off 😉
[evangelicals] like repentance, forgiveness etc. What they do NOT like is having to face how phony this storyline often is.
I see. And McCain’s joining a Baptist church just before his presidential run, after seven decades of being a not particularly zealous Episcopalian, doesn’t strike any of them as phony? Even though he hasn’t been baptised?
For McCain himself to repeat this piece of glurge as a true story puts it on to a level where it should have a literal meaning as well as a symbolic one.
In an ideal world, yes, but I tend to agree with Hartmut, the truth value of the story is irrelevant. Suggesting that the cadre members who were prison guards, especially in the North, were not likely to be Christian or any of the other improbabilities that dot a story like this just confirms the miraculous nature of the story.
liberal japonicus: In an ideal world, yes
Wow. I hadn’t realized that the UK looks like an “ideal world” from the outside.
Yet in the UK, a politician who suddenly came up with a piece of glurge like this, told as a true story…
The borrowing from Solzhenitsyn here is obvious and contemptible. As others have mentioned, proving it is impossible, but I would love to see a reporter ask him a series of questions about it. At this point he probably truly believes that it happened, so he may not squirm as much as one might wish.
Remember that he also lied about reciting the names of the Steelers defensive line when he was in Pittsburgh, and he was caught on that one. That was easily provable because he changed the story from more recent versions involving the Green Bay Packers.
I agree that the more important issue from the so-called Civil Forum is McCain’s absolutism. His position that human rights begin at conception puts him in a box on a range of issues – contraception, IVF, stem cell research, woman’s rights, rape/incest – that cannot be reconciled with his record.
His pledge to kill OBL (“I know how to do it”) is delusional. If he knows how, and he hasn’t shared this knowledge with the current administration, isn’t that the height of irresponsibility?
The list goes on and on.
This is from the NYT story on the cone of silence linked above–
“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.”
Which is the line that will be used if McCain is attacked on this story.
And I don’t doubt it’ll be effective.
BTW, I’m not 100 percent convinced he is lying, though I lean that way. If he is telling the truth, there’s also a very slight chance the guard who drew the cross might be found. Much more likely, some POW will remember being told the story or think he remembers telling the story, or claim he remembers being told the story. Get Jerome Corsi on the case–I’m sure he could find some corroboration.
maybe the guard really did draw the cross, but he got the idea from reading a Vietnamese translation of a publisher’s pre-release proof copy of the Gulag Archipelago.
I agree with HIlzoy’s take.
On veracity: It’s quite likely that McCain, a Solzhenitsyn fan, read this, identified, and gradually merged it with his own memories of his experiences. I don’t think this was deliberate stealing, a la Biden’s son-of-a-coalminer gaffe, and I don’t think it’s a senior moment–rather, it’s how memory works. Get some people together talking about “do you remember the time….” My father-in-law’s 50th reunion was spent discovering that none of them remembered the stories of their college days–stories all had told and polished repeatedly–with the same details. Memory. Searching for a personal anecdote about the importance of Christian faith in McCain’s life, it came to the top.
But it could be true. Unlike Biden’s patently untrue claim, you can’t prove it didn’t happen, and that he didn’t mention it because the role it played in his personal faith wasn’t then evident to him. Get the “huh, interesting coincidence” stuff out there, but a full-bore attack won’t work–it could happen twice.
On Donald Johnson’s point above mine, though, people should rag long and hard on “that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous.” Really? What happened with his first marriage? What was the Keating Five? This flagrant attempt to play the “Former POW” as a get-out-of-jail-free card is laughable and ripe for mockery. “The accusation that John McCain, a former POW, flip-flopped on tax cuts is outrageous” and so on.
Jes,
If you believe that demanding an accounting of how true that anecdote was wouldn’t line up quite conveniently with the sense of Christian put upon-ness that has been the fulcrum for political power for the right, you don’t really understand the Christian right in the US.
I don’t see anyone above commenting about one aspect of the story that makes it very risky to attack: the story is tremendously flattering to McCain’s audience. Compare it to the story Hilzoy cites: both have a man imprisoned for years overseas by strange and foreign armed forces, and amidst a sea of torture and hostility one captor comes forward with an isolated gesture of comfort, aid, and sympathy. But now consider the key difference: in the story Hilzoy relates’ no motive is presented for the kindness beyond a shared humanity, while McCain/Solzhenitsyn’s guard is motivated by Christianity. What McCain is saying to his Christian audience is something like “in a cruel, unjust, and (especially) godless world, in which a good man (and a brave American soldier) is tormented by this evil power, a Christian like you like you defied this evil world and do the brave and kind thing despite worldly consequencesl” The Christians want this to be true. It’s a parable, and its message is that Christians like them will remain true to each other no matter what. Because the story is really about them, attacking it brings tremendous potential for resentment.
liberal japonicus,
Any Obama strategy that is predicated on making the Christian right feel less put-upon is guaranteed to fail. This would be a bit like the 2004 Democratic hope that “maybe if we nominate a war hero, they won’t attack us on national security.”
Yes, attacking the veracity of this story will play right into the Christian right’s persecution complex. But this should hardly be an important factor in Obama’s determining whether or not to push this story. One way or another, McCain will win the Christian right. Their reaction to this isn’t the issue.
The whole draw a figure in the dirt is a trope, with the ichthys figure of two arcs supposedly being drawn by two different people as a signal of mutual recognition. As such, it takes on a symbolic meaning rather than a literal one and pointing out the inaccuracy rather is missing the literal truth for the symbolic truth.
it’s one thing to recite a parable; it’s quite another to tell it as if it was a true event while casting yourself as the main character.
my friends, i was walking along the beach on night, thinking about my time as a POW, when i stopped to look back. i saw my foot prints, as you would expect. but sometimes there were two sets of footprints side by side. so, my friends, i asked God – no, not that, no one my opponent – what was going on…
blah.
i asked God – no, not that, no one my opponent – what was going on…
=
i asked God – no, not that one, not my opponent – what was going on…
Deborah, RE Biden, I’ve got little brief for the guy (though the Giuliani quip was great), but I’m pretty sure I read that the coal miner story was part of a speech he gave dozens of times, complete with attribution to Kinnock, and that he once neglected to cite Kinnock and was endlessly pilloried for it. Still dumb, but note that the key ingredient was the press response, a great example of IOKIYAR.
LJ: If you believe that demanding an accounting of how true that anecdote was wouldn’t line up quite conveniently with the sense of Christian put upon-ness that has been the fulcrum for political power for the right, you don’t really understand the Christian right in the US.
Well, that’s a much more telling argument than “in an ideal world”, yes: in a country where religious lunatics hold public office, and the religious right sounds off about being martyred because sales assistants wish them “Happy Holidays!” instead of “Merry Christmas!” then I can quite see that pointing out McCain is repeating glurge cribbed from Solzhenitsyn is practically the same as burning him at the stake.
If “in an ideal world” translates to “anywhere but in the US” you had a point.
Ben,
I’d just echo what WT says immediately above, especially on the parable like quality of the story. I think that Obama has to pick his spots, and I’m thinking that violating the ‘cone of silence‘ is a much better option than challenging the POW story, largely because the former violates that peculiar sense of American fair play (cf. Reagan’s ‘I’m paying for this microphone’ line) Pressing McCain’s buttons on the cross story and having him blow up would ‘verify’ the the story and the notion that Christianity plays a big role in McCain’s thoughts, but complaining about McCain being a cheater and having McCain blow his top, while it might not shake the Christian right, would be a little harder to say that he is defending something that is vital to his being.
I’d also point out that it is not a case of getting the Christian right out to vote for Obama, it is to get them to stay home. Ginning up a sense of resentment because you know they would vote for McCain anyway would be a mistake.
Lest anyone think that I am suggesting some sort of vote suppression, I am not, but if it is felt that the choice between McCain and Obama is not one of Christians versus verificationists who demand proof of McCain’s religious convictions (and Jes is right, the double standard between Kerry and McCain becomes glaring), the turnout may make a difference. It is unfortunate that this is the way it is, but I think that is the way it is.
OT – seen on the way to work this morning, a bumper stick reading: Cheney/Satan ’08.
As they say: Heh.
I wasn’t in that POW camp. And maybe this is another case of me being too naive, but I believe the senator’s story.
If he made the story up, he is going to have to live with that.
Otherwise, I chose to see it as an example that humanity exists in the most unlikely places.
Maybe the incident with the guard happened, but McCain is wrong in his interpretation. I suspect the guard was bored and was trying to start a game of Hangman, which would explain the idle scratching in the dirt with the stick.
What is not explained is why McCain would put down his baseball glove and baseball (he’d bounce the ball off the bamboo wall of his cell practicing his infield skills) to play an inferior game. Maybe McCain was trying to distract the guard from hearing the noises of the tunnels being dug beneath his cell and the fact that he had to let tunnel dirt fall out of his pantleg.
Another issue that is fodder for Democrats:
Solzhenitsyn hated contemporary American consumer culture and moved back to the Soviet Union, despite his crush on Brittany Spears. He hated America. Further, he had a thing about the Jews and it wasn’t a crush exactly although it could have led to crushing. Worse, he was on pretty good terms with Putin, whose soul he once looked within and caught doing a nationalistic dance with Mother Russia while George W. Bush played the balalaika.
Otherwise, I chose to see it as an example that humanity exists in the most unlikely places.
And perhaps one could use this story to build the idea that the world is not such a simple place, and that starting wars so easily is apt to harm countless people of good will.
As one son of a fundamentalist preacher said to his mother during a particularly vivid sermon by his father, “Mom, is that the truth, or is Dad just preaching? ” i.e.: when the (Holy)(S)pirit moves you, objective truth is no obstacle. The only object is to create the necessary suspension of disbelief to your purpose.
OT — Kudos for Obama saying Clarence Thomas was unqualified at the time of his Supreme Court nomination.
McCain was hypocritical when he called out Breyer, Stevens, Souder and Ginsberg for being “activist” judges when Scalia seems to be the head of Right Wing Central. I would have liked to have heard Obama say something about Scalia, who wants to take us all back to the dark ages.
The Rick Warren forum served as good debate prep. I would advise Obama not to use the prhase “that’s above my pay grade” when running for President of the United States.
The right is going to attack a pro-life stance no matter what, so I would have preferred he had given an answer to the question of when he thinks life begins.
When you don’t give an answer, I believe it gives the other side to much room to fill in the blanks.
The problem with this analysis is that there is no convenient nit to pick. All of the factually checkable parts of the McCain story are already known to be true. The uncheckable ones are uncheckable. You can’t easily compare the two cases because in the Kerry case there were demonstrably wrong facts for whatever reason (and the reason is what was argued about) while with the McCain story you can’t ‘nit-pick’ because all the nits you could pick are true.
“And perhaps one could use this story to build the idea that the world is not such a simple place, and that starting wars so easily is apt to harm countless people of good will.”
Yes, yes, yes.
I dare say we have more in common with the “enemy” than most of us realize.
It would be helpful for the Bush Administration — and the McCain camp — to remember this before they ignite another Cold War. Gorbachev and Reagan accomplished as much as they did by focusing on common ground between the two nations.
Well, I’d point out the double standard of Clinton v. McCain, except there of course the male/female double standard as well as the Republican/Democratic double standard was in action – plus the very special “We hate the Clintons” double standard that combined to create a primary where even serious Democratic/leftwing bloggers were routinely picking up right-wing attacks on Clinton and running them as if they should be taken seriously.
lj,
I think that Obama has to pick his spots, and I’m thinking that violating the ‘cone of silence’ is a much better option than challenging the POW story, largely because the former violates that peculiar sense of American fair play (cf. Reagan’s ‘I’m paying for this microphone’ line)
I don’t think it’s an either-or proposition.
My feeling basically is that if Obama is serious about reframing McCain as a liar, the concept needs to be–to borrow from Mary McCarthy’s famous line about Lillian Hellman–that every word McCain says is a lie, including “and” and “the.”
Though I would certainly draw the line at attacking McCain for saying things that are incontrovertibly true, attacking him for possibly false statements that lie at the heart of his appeal seems like a pretty good idea to me. It’s a bit like the GOP choosing to attack Kerry’s war record in 2004.
Right now many “serious” people think that McCain’s integrity is essentially beyond criticism. And the McCain campaign is actively trying to reinforce this idea.
The politically effective response is not to laugh at the notion of a perfect John McCain or even to suggest that McCain is sometimes corrupt.
The effective response is to turn this around 180 degrees, so that the public, when it hears John McCain say anything, assumes he’s lying. Dithering over which statements to go after is defeatist. Go after them all.
As I first read about this controversy, “Christmas in Cambodia” sprang to mind for me, as well, but more in the sense that I remembered how disgusted I was at the relentless nit-picking of 30-year-old memories and the constant assertion of speculation and google-flavored imitation expertise as fact. If you are going to impugn the recollections of a man who went through what Senators Kerry or McCain went through, you’d damn well better have more evidence than I see on display in either case, and there had better be a whole lot more riding on the truth of the matter.
The failure to see the relationship between the application of “the ends justify the means” to campaigning and that same principle’s application to governance is a far greater peril to the Democratic party than are a few wavering evangelical voters.
“The same nitpickery is not being applied to McCain’s war experiences, any more than it was applied to the lies Bush told about what he did in the war.”
To this day, Bush really hasn’t had to face the fact that he lied when sending a nation to war — other than Colin Powell’s silence speaks volumes.
Candidates repeat so many stories that I can see where they might embellish them as time goes on.
However, that’s far different to me than a president making policy and going to war based on outright falsehoods. Yet where’s the accountability?
The problem with this analysis is that there is no convenient nit to pick. All of the factually checkable parts of the McCain story are already known to be true.
Ah, the hallmark of a good lie.
— TP
I don’t think it’s an either-or proposition.
The problem with going after both attacks is that the weakness of the cross attack can be used to neuter the cone of silence attack. McCain’s surrogates can go on TV and act offended about the cross story while claiming that the cone of silence story is just another insulting deception by the insultingly deceptive Obama campaign which has no honor since it would impugn the integrity of a POW.
It would be nice if different lines of attack were completely decoupled so that we could pursue them all independently, but that’s not how the current media environment works. Pretending otherwise is unlikely to help matters.
if this can’t be proved false, then it can’t be proved true, either. all we have is McCain’s word for it. and we already know there’s reason to doubt his word on things. so… ?
Dithering over which statements to go after is defeatist. Go after them all.
exactly.
this whole thread is a depressing example of why the Dems continually get their asses kicked right and left. this is an opportunity to start chipping away at McCain’s saintly image. yet the general consensus here is that it shouldn’t be done because it can’t be definitively proven – as if air-tight logical proof is somehow relevant to political campaigns.
QED! Vote For Me!
well, news flash, none of the recent attacks McCain is successfully using against Obama can be logically proven either. yet, he keeps making them. and the press doesn’t care. and voters respond to them favorably.
if the situation was reversed, this story would be all over the news, for the next five days.
It would be nice if different lines of attack were completely decoupled so that we could pursue them all independently, but that’s not how the current media environment works. Pretending otherwise is unlikely to help matters.
The goal shouldn’t be to carefully point out where McCain has been loose with the truth. The goal should be to paint McCain as essentially dishonest and corrupt. And all of his statements should be called into question.
The inability to decouple McCain’s various lies isn’t a bug. It’s a feature.
“It’s a bit like the GOP choosing to attack Kerry’s war record in 2004.”
What the Republicans did to Kerry made me go from disliking their views to developing a real disdain for their party.
I hope the Democrats don’t go down that road.
Yet at the same time, I’ve advocated the need for Dems to be tougher and not be reluctant to get down in the weeds.
Kerry’s biggest problem was he didn’t fight back when people questioned his integrity — the Obama campaign seems to be real quick to answer false charges or fales campaign ads, so that’s a step in the right direction.
The people he was talking to would certainly agree that God outranks the president.
I’m not sure if any question is above the president’s pay grade.
And even if there is such a question, it just looked like Obama was ducking the question, which made him look weak.
The goal should be to paint McCain as essentially dishonest and corrupt.
But talking up the cross story doesn’t do that effectively. People are already disposed to think the best of POW war heroes. Most people are never going to hear or understand how similar the stories are or that McCain’s close adviser is a Solzhenitsyn admirer or that McCain never mentioned any of this until relatively recently or any of the other tiny inconsistencies. The media is certainly not going to be able to process such things because of their stupidity and their mancrush. So most people who hear the attack will hear a vague accusation that doesn’t make much sense regarding stuff that happened 4 decades ago against an American hero. This is weak sauce indeed.
Mind you, I’m fine with various surrogates hammering McCain on his unethical behavior (i.e., by talking up his abandonment of his wife and his infidelity), but this attack seems really dumb and unlikely to work.
bedtimebonzo: To this day, Bush really hasn’t had to face the fact that he lied when sending a nation to war — other than Colin Powell’s silence speaks volumes.
Well, it’s not as if Bush ran any risk of being impeached for lying the US into war. If he had, the situation might be different. It’s usual to blame “spineless Congressional Democrats”, but the fact is, in a democracy you can rightly blame: anyone who voted for Bush in 2004; the media who carried water for the Bush/Cheney campaign and disinformed the voters; the Republican party workers who ran the Bush/Cheney campaign and wore the Purple Heart bandaids at the RNC; the Republicans in Congress who made clear they’d never vote to impeach Bush no matter that he lied the US into war; and of course the Bush administration itself, given how many high-placed individuals (including Colin Powell) could testify against Bush and Cheney and have not. But IOKIYAR, so blame the “spineless Democrats”.
Gromit: If you are going to impugn the recollections of a man who went through what Senators Kerry or McCain went through, you’d damn well better have more evidence than I see on display in either case, and there had better be a whole lot more riding on the truth of the matter.
If you are going to impugn the recollections of a man who went through what Senator Kerry went though, as the Republicans did without shame in 2004, you had better not then cry “OMG, you’re attacking a veteran” as the Republicans are doing in 2008. Unless, of course, you can rely on Republican voters to join you without shame in either case, and a Republican-biased media to fail entirely to note the double standard.
What did McCain have to say about the Swift Boat Liars or the Purple Hearts bandaids in 2004? Anything at all? He was at the RNC in 2004, wasn’t he?
What the Republicans did to Kerry made me go from disliking their views to developing a real disdain for their party.
Let me be clear what I’m advocating here…and why I used the Kerry analogy.
I’m suggesting that the Dems ought to go after McCain’s greatest strength–his reputation for honesty and independence–just as the Republicans went after Kerry’s greatest strength–his war record.
I’m not at all arguing that the Democrats should lie about McCain as the Republicans did about Kerry. As it turns out, an assault on McCain’s honesty and independence does not require them to do so (though in fact Republicans themselves have done just this to McCain in the past, e.g. the Manchurian Candidate and interracial-love-child whispering campaigns of 2000).
If the cross-in-the-sand story were unquestionably true, I would not be arguing for attacking it. But it isn’t. And the prudential arguments against going after McCain on this one seem fundamentally wrongheaded to me.
Democrats have a dilemna: we just cant get away with the kind of unfair attacks that Republicans are allowed to do. If promenent Dems start questioning McCain’s faux POW stores there will be a backlash in the press against the Democrats. All the things that the press should say about McCain’s sleazy ads but aren’t will be said about the Democrats. That’s just the way it is.
So Obama and other Deomcrats need to be much more aggressive about the failings-the lies, the corruption, the bad economy–of the Republicans and pin those things on McCain., Get at the myth of the maverick that way. Get at the mygh of the straightalker that way.
Let the cros on the floor plagerism perk thru the internets via email. or drop it altogether.
Thank you Youtube… Yes, he was.
Democrats have a dilemna: we just cant get away with the kind of unfair attacks that Republicans are allowed to do.
how could anyone possibly know that… since the Dems don’t actually try.
Democrats have a dilemna: we just cant get away with the kind of unfair attacks that Republicans are allowed to do.
Also…when y’all make your own attacks, you might want to consider not characterizing them as “unfair.”
Cleek: how could anyone possibly know that..
Well, you know that the media are heavily biased towards the Republicans – as well as what Krugman calls an “inside the beltway” thinking. And while what the media is saying is not necessarily reflective of public opinion, in a country where elections are neither free nor fair, the media narrative counts for a lot – it’s the key tool in covering up past Republican election-rigging as well as their other crimes, and in setting in place a narrative that makes Bush’s “victory” in 2004 and McCain’s “victory” in 2008 publicly plausible.
The Scott Trust is a damned useful institution…
Jes,
I viewed Bush’s re-election, sadly, as validation that a wide swath of Americans just didn’t care that he lied about the reasons for taking us to war.
That, and they just don’t pay attention.
Let’s remember that much of the right-wing noise machine was in the Hanoi cell with McCain.
It was very crowded, as they will attest.
The right wing bloggers and radio hate talkers were sitting there in the jungle mugginess at keyboards and in front of microphones in their bathrobes and bomber jackets serving their country.
Much of the Republican Congressional caucus were there too, taking classes at univerity via mail order while getting girls drunk at the frat parties, letting their hair grow, and nursing those disqualifying hemmoroids for the Draft Board.
It was Apocalypse Not Yet Because It’s Inconvenient Right Now But We Can’t Wait for the lot of them.
They took turns picking the nits out of McCain’s patchey hair for future political hygeine, like a Greek chorus of patriotic chimpanzees.
These people know exactly what war means; it means you have to put down your 64-ounce Big Gulp before manufacturing whoppers in spoken and written form.
I don’t think engaging McCain on Vietnam is going to work at all. That’s his sweet spot.
Go after him on his Iraq bellicosity and his plans for domestic policy. Run ads with his Georgia lobbyist’s face all over the place asking why mushroom clouds might be in our future.
He will gut Social Security and Medicare. He will reroute most of the West’s water to Arizona. He will drill for oil in wealthy Westerner’s backyards. He will destroy what’s let of the Federal budget with tax cuts.
Trying to question the myth of what happened 40 years ago is going to be like arguing over the Book of Genesis. Fifty-one percent of the American electorate believes myth is literal truth and another 5% suspect it’s bullshit but think it’s impolite to call it so.
America sings itself to sleep every night telling itself stories about Vietnam. Don’t wake the thumbsuckers.
The Republican Party is boxing the Democrats and Obama into the same old crap.
Obama needs to get angry.
Sort of OT, but there is a study showing religious faith follows the path of disease through the world.
My experience was the opposite. Every time my mother wanted me to get out of bed to go to church, I came down with the flu.
I have a question it has been quite a while since I read Solzhenitsyn and I don’t remember that story directly from him, but rather one attributed to him. Does anyone have page cites directly from Solzhenitsyn?
Also, like several people have mentioned the double standard when compared to Kerry is amazing. We can learn from the right though. It is the way it is. We need to hammer these people and continue to work the refs (MSM) as hard as possible in hopes that we might change the way it is. To make it a little more the way it ought to be.
Ben Alpers is right.
I guess I’m a Jimmy Breslin liberal.
Here’s what fair: In a political streetfight with known earbiting bullies, you sucker punch the throat first and kick them in the short-ribs while they are trying to get their breath back.
Here’s what’s unfair: Getting kicked in the gonads while wishing Republican politicians good luck in the coming fray.
The people he was talking to would certainly agree that God outranks the president.
Even a godless librul like me would agree that some questions are above the president’s pay grade. Whether to go to war, for instance.
Therein lies a fundamental rift in modern American politics: some of us cling to the quaint notion that the president is a hired temp, some of us don’t. To the latter, the president is daddy, chieftain and totem all at once. They need somebody to play that role in their mental universe. God will do, in a pinch.
— TP
“Well, you know that the media are heavily biased towards the Republicans – as well as what Krugman calls an ‘inside the beltway’ thinking.”
I agree entirely about the inside-the-beltway mindset of the Washington press corps.
And while it might not go over too well here, I just don’t buy the Republican bias in the media, just as I never understood it when the right cried about the so-called liberal media.
I think most media outlets try to be objective, the less talented getting too caught up in a given narrative of a story.
Of course, FOX has a strong Republican bias — but if it’s not hidden too well, I can deal with that. And now you have MSNBC becoming the anti-FOX.
I don’t think Newsweek is biased toward Obama, yet they’ve run numerous covers of the senator. They’re simply following a big story, a hot candidate.
And so it goes.
John Thullen,
I would love it if hilzoy and the headliners asked you to do a guest post every now and then.
Your writing reminds me of my favorite sports writer, former Philadelphia Daily News columnist Bill Conlin.
When he was the Phillies beat writer, his opinionated game stories would take these marvelous detours that would put you in a different era, place or subject and you kept wanting more. Never mind that you forgot by the end if the Phillies had won or lost.
Huh.
A few weeks ago there was a whole lot of talk about how dreary and buzz-killing and played out the political frameworks of the boomer generation are, how nice it will be when we die off, and especially how wrong it is for us to utter the word “Viet Nam” –even though we’re bogged down in multiple wars of choice begun and sustained by lies that are sapping the country’s economy and reputation.
But today, declining to make an issue of an unfalsifiable dog-whistle parable of McCain’s, connected to an aspect of the Viet Nam war that has no relevance to or equivalent in our current military quagmires is somehow a sign of Democratic weakness.
bedtimeforbonzo: And while it might not go over too well here, I just don’t buy the Republican bias in the media
Probably because you’re fed the brown stuff for long enough, you begin to think that’s what chocolate tastes like.
Look, before 2004, Bush had: Been “elected” to the White House by his brother’s cohorts determinedly resisting any attempt to count all the votes cast in Florida (which count, which eventually carried out, discovered that Gore had won): Presided over the largest foreign terrorist attack on US soil in history: Stalled the setup of an investigation into how that terrorist attack could have taken place: Refused to testify under oath to the commission which was eventually set up: Lied the US into war with Iraq: Carried out an invasion/occupation with a force too small to be successful, against expert advice: Taken part in the cover-up that followed the betrayal of a covert CIA agent: Set up an extrajudicial prison camp on US-controlled territory with the explicit intention of contravening the Geneva Conventions.
So why weren’t all of the above a constant part of the media narrative as Bush/Cheney tried to get back to the White House? Could there be any other reason besides a consistent Republican bias?
I think most media outlets try to be objective
I think most of the journalists on the spot try to be objective. I don’t think the media outlets themselves are one whit objective.
BTFB:
Thanks much.
But if you wanna see creativity dry up, ask me to guest-post.
I’m a wise-guy sitting in the second row.
Hilzoy and headliners: please ignore BTFB this one time 😉
But today, declining to make an issue of an unfalsifiable dog-whistle parable of McCain’s, connected to an aspect of the Viet Nam war that has no relevance to or equivalent in our current military quagmires is somehow a sign of Democratic weakness.
seems to me this goes straight to the heart of McCain’s character, which is essentially what he’s running on.
oh, and he was a POW.
noun, verb, POW.
but what if he’s not the straight-shooting, honest maverick of the myth ? what if he just makes things up (or steals them from world-renowned authors) to please evangelical voters?
I just called Saddleback Church (949-609-8000; info [at] saddleback [dot] net) to ask if they were going to have any analysis of the forum. Their response was “We held the forum; it’s over; that’s it — goodbye.” No care if McCain abused their forum, no care if he was less than forth-coming, much less dishonest, nothing.
Why hold the forum in a church if there’s no moral focus to the forum?
As Gary has pointed out well in a different thread, there are so many McCain lies and flip-flops and Bush-rubberstampings that matter to voters’ lives and futures, that I can’t imagine choosing to make this weak, obscure picky reed the tool with which to crack the facade of straight-shooting maverick.
this weak, obscure picky reed
i guess we just see different potential in this.
“Look, before 2004, Bush had: Been “elected” to the White House by his brother’s cohorts determinedly resisting any attempt to count all the votes cast in Florida (which count, which eventually carried out, discovered that Gore had won)”
Jes, I must say the recent HBO docudrama on the 2000 Florida recount — it very well may have been called “Recount” — painted a picture that Gore took too much of a passive approach during the recount. If so, shame on him.
And if that docudrama was anywhere near the truth, I think Bush will never be able to pay off his debt to James Baker, beautifully played by Tom Wilkinson.
Meanwhile, there’s no denying these last eight years do make it seem like Bush has gotten a free ride. I’d be ashamed if I were a member of the White House press corps, which used to be the pinnacle of the journalistic profession.
So much BS in the comments I don’t know where to begin. Just from a casual reading:
1) McCain in fact denounced the Swift Boat Vets, not that he should have, because despite moonbat claims they were never discredited on any of the major details. Besides, the circumstances were entirely different. It’s a lot different having 90% of the people who were with you at the time coming out saying you’re full of it, and purporting that because your brilliant intellects can’t come up with a reason he didn’t mention it right after his release, it must be a lie.
2) A rather OBVIOUS reason he wouldn’t have mentioned it in 1973 is that, if he had, it’s exceedingly likely the Vietnamese would’ve been easily able to identify the guard who helped him and shot him. 1999, not as big a concern.
3) The claim that later recounts showed that Gore won the 2000 election is the most outrageous piece of bullshit I’ve ever read in my life. Two entirely different consortiums of media outlets determined the -exact opposite- a year after the election. Wow, you guys are shameless.
Qwinn
Qwinn,
I’d love to see McCain win the popular vote and Obama win the Electoral College, and the presidency.
Let’s see who’s shameless then.
Bedtime, it might be poetic justice, but it would almost guarantee political violence. The right wouldn’t take that lying down.
“I’d love to see McCain win the popular vote and Obama win the Electoral College, and the presidency.”
I wouldn’t. I’d love for Obama to win a convincing win in the popular vote and the Electoral College so we can have a little less whining from all sides and more getting down to business.
bedtime: Jes, I must say the recent HBO docudrama on the 2000 Florida recount — it very well may have been called “Recount” — painted a picture that Gore took too much of a passive approach during the recount. If so, shame on him.
Michael Moore used live footage from the Senate to show many black Representatives from Congress lining up to protest the acceptance of the Florida “election”, while the massed ranks of white Senators looked on in silence, and Al Gore gavelled down each protest.
I agree Gore should have fought harder against the media bias that declared Bush the winner before the election was over, and the Republican dirty tricks that got Bush into the White House without ever counting the vote. But I think Gore was genuinely and fairly concerned that if he did, he would be perceived as a “sore loser” for the next four years – after all, he’d witnessed the Republican/media hate campaign against the Clintons at first hand – and, also to be fair, could not have had a realistic idea of how bad Bush’s administration was going to be – Molly Ivins made some very prescient comments, but no one knew, after all, that the Bush administration would ignore or scrap all the Clinton administration’s efforts against terrorism: nor that at the beginning of August 2001, Bush would be formally warned that al-Qaeda intended to attack the US …and would then go on vacation.
Sebastian: I’d love for Obama to win a convincing win in the popular vote and the Electoral College
My God, we agree on something at last. *sets off fireworks* *makes tea* *offers cake*
KCinDC and Sebastian,
Agree with you both.
Didn’t really mean what I said, other than to hopefully have Qwinn understand how the losing side might be so outraged by such an outcome.
KC said it best: “poetic justice.”
Sebastian is so right: Will the whining ever stop?
A rather OBVIOUS reason he wouldn’t have mentioned it in 1973 is that, if he had, it’s exceedingly likely the Vietnamese would’ve been easily able to identify the guard who helped him and shot him.
*snicker*
“But I think Gore was genuinely and fairly concerned that if he did, he would be perceived as a “sore loser” for the next four years – after all, he’d witnessed the Republican/media hate campaign against the Clintons at first hand.”
I agree, Jes.
In the end, that’s why I respect Gore so much: He was principled — too much so for his own good, I guess.
His concession speech made me heartsick but proud to be a Dem.
You guys are delusional. Gore blatantly attempted to steal an election that it was repeatedly proved he lost under all but the most absurd possible conditions (like ONLY recounting the counties Gore wanted to, and denying counties Republicans wanted to). He didn’t have a leg to stand on, but the liberal Florida court pretended the law didn’t matter (just as NJ courts pretended the law didn’t matter when enabling Lautenberg to replace Toricelli on the ballot well after it was legal to). The Supreme Court rightfully told the partisan Florida courts to pound sand, and that Gore doesn’t get to recount -just- the areas he wants, it’s recount everything or nothing.
None of this even mentions the Gore campaign attempting to disenfranchise military votes, or the fact that several media outlets called Florida for Gore -before the polls even closed-, thus sending a hell of a lot of people in the heavily Republican pandhandle home, or Democrat attempts to allow prisoners to vote that were legally barred from doing so.
Democrats are the masters of voter fraud, and their obsession with the 2000 election is simply a testament to their unbelievable capacity for projection.
Qwinn
“I’m not sure if any question is above the president’s pay grade.”
Really? The president should rule on: child custody cases? What is the nature of good and evil? What happens if an immovable object meets an irresistible force? How many blog commenters can dance on the head of a pin? Locked box mysteries? What is the nature of dark energy? Will humanity ever be able to travel beyond the speed of light? How do we cure cancer? Why is there evil? What’s the exact position and momentum of a subatomic particle? Was the Civil War an irrepressible conflict? What happened before the Big Bang? Why is there an arrow of time? What’s the correct theory of neutrinos? What is the meaning of life?
“Jes, I must say the recent HBO
docudramapartisan fiction”Fixed.
Qwinn: None of this even mentions the Gore campaign attempting to disenfranchise military votes
Or, put another way:
Unfortunately, Gore decided that he couldn’t afford to contest those invalid ballots in court, because he was saying “every vote should count”.
Bizarrely, as Qwinn proves, the mere fact that Gore did not contest those invalid military ballots didn’t stop loyal Republicans from claiming that the Gore campaign had done so.
And yet, Qwinn calls us “delusional”…
Yep. Compare the strength of this literary lie to hitting McCain on his reckless, wrong eagerness to attack Iraq (which most voters now agree was a bad idea). He was pushing it before Sept. 2001, immediately thereafter, and eagerly during the very period when the U.S. should have been intensely bearing down on meeting objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Footage of McCain’s warmongering could be intercut with his inane recent “21st century” line to infinitely greater effect than dragging us back to some picky little fraud that inevitably focuses on the very thing McCain wants you to focus on — his POW days.
Footage of McCain’s warmongering could be intercut with his inane recent “21st century” line to infinitely greater effect than dragging us back to some picky little fraud that inevitably focuses on the very thing McCain wants you to focus on — his POW days.
maybe. sure. but as Ben Alpers said, way up yonder:
Dithering over which statements to go after is defeatist. Go after them all.
the Dems leave too many opportunities for point-scoring un-explored, IMO.
Qwinn: “You guys are delusional.”
I think “delusional” would be well down the list — if at all — of adjectives describing bloggers here.
If you know a group that is more grounded in reality, I’d like to meet them.
We’ve seen innumerable times that if the right wing can find something to complain about — a minor inaccuracy, or a supposedly offensive statement — in a single facet of a story, then they can get the whole collection of facts dismissed because of the “tainted” bit, and turn the media conversation toward the distraction. It happened with the Koran desecration. It happened with Dick Durbin’s statement about torture. It happened with the Amnesty International report. It happened with the story about Bush’s (lack of) National Guard service.
Why put a boobytrapped weapon into our arsenal when we don’t have to?
Gary,
I’m not so sure about “Recount” being a work of partisan fiction.
Its makers, including lead actor Kevin Spacey, were liberals who took pains in being as factual as possible while making it entertaining.
Even at that, they made Baker and Katherine Harris — what a piece of work, she — two pretty memorable villains.
It happened with the Koran desecration. It happened with Dick Durbin’s statement about torture., etc…
yep. but that comes with playing offense: sometimes your shots get blocked. but you don’t score if you don’t take the shot. and sometimes, taking a shot means leaving your own zone unguarded for a bit and using everything you have to break the opponents’ defense.
the Dems are stuck in a defense mindset. they need to quit worrying about losing and start thinking about winning.
that said, i won’t defend this metaphor. 🙂
No. “Going after them all” means losing message discipline and focus and getting sucked into just the subject the opposition would like (the tarbaby syndrome).
And if ever there was a tarbaby topic, this one is it — POW-hood and Christian religiosity combined.
Be combative on the issues where voters can see and feel that the candidate and the party are doing something on their behalf, and where the contrast between the candidates works in our favor.
McCain = McSame, Bush’s third term, same failed old policies, reckless, out of touch.
(applied to the problems Bush and McCain and the rest of the Republican rubber stamps have let pile up: Iraq and the wars, the houseing and finance near-collapse, health care crisis, etc. etc. etc.)
“the Dems are stuck in a defense mindset. they need to quit worrying about losing and start thinking about winning.”
Indeed, and more than anyone, Barack Obama needs to get this message.
While we are obsessing on the veracity of McCain’s Christmas story while he was a POW, he was back on the trail today attacking Obama on national security.
McCain seems revitalized, a much more confident and focused candidate than he was two months ago.
I’d like to see Obama make a few headlines and not wait until next week’s convention to take center stage.
“We’ve seen innumerable times that if the right wing can find something to complain about — a minor inaccuracy, or a supposedly offensive statement — in a single facet of a story, then they can get the whole collection of facts dismissed because of the “tainted” bit, and turn the media conversation toward the distraction.”
So find the minor inaccuracy and go after it. The problem is that you are complaining about an allegedly unfair distinction between Kerry and McCain without actually having an inaccuracy to go after. You have a suspicion. Either prove it or go after one of the hundreds of obviously legitimate problems one could have with McCain.
These complaints strike me as a weird inability to deal with the reality that McCain will score *SOME* points some of the time. So long as Obama does better overall, we’ll be fine. Don’t focus on the one time in the past month that McCain has done something right by fruitlessly trying to tear it down.
Instead, focus on the hundreds of things he has done wrong. When you look like you are grasping at straws (which is exactly how you will look if you try to push this issue) you look like you don’t have anything worth talking about.
The Kerry attacks had a legitimate hook, it turns out that he definitely wasn’t there when he said he was, and very probably not at all. The purple heart thing was similar–he made a big show of throwing someone’s purple hearts away, and let people believe they were his own. You can take issue about how those (perhaps mildly) bad factual hooks were used, but until you get a similar factual hook on McCain’s story, just forget about it.
Sebastian, I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m agreeing with you. I was arguing that including criticism of the cross anecdote among the attacks on McCain would open Democrats up to the possibility that Republicans would use that technique again to dismiss all other criticisms of McCain as connected with a supposedly anti-Christian, anti-military, outrageous attack on him. The parallel would be more with the response to Durbin or to Amnesty, where the distraction was about offensive speech rather than inaccuracy.
“Its makers, including lead actor Kevin Spacey”
He’s an actor. He neither produced nor wrote the film. He had no input into the slant. Neither do I recall ever vetting Kevin Spacey as a political reporter and expert on the events, even if he had anything to do with the writing of the film, which he didn’t.
“who took pains in being as factual as possible”
And yet endless numbers of participants in the events strenuously disagree. Pardon me if I take their word over your firsthand knowledge.
Warren Christopher:
Did you actually read the link I previously gave?
Terribly fair. I’ll take this account, and their views, over your assurances.
In any case, while I haven’t seen the film, getting your history from works of fiction isn’t a technique I recommend. As it happens, we actually have, like, books. Of nonfiction. I recommend them.
Sebastian: The Kerry attacks had a legitimate hook, it turns out that he definitely wasn’t there when he said he was
Or at least, that if it was said often enough that he wasn’t, the lie would become more convincing than the reality…
and very probably not at all. The purple heart thing was similar–he made a big show of throwing someone’s purple hearts away, and let people believe they were his own.
…and this applies to the Republican claims that he never deserved his Purple Hearts how? The Republican attack on Kerry was that he got his decorations by lying – that Vietnam veterans could get Purple Hearts for bandaid injuries.
Gary,
“Recount” is a docudrama, not a documentary, so I wouldn’t take it as a gospel.
Just as Katharine Harris didn’t like the way she was portrayed, I would cast a skeptical eye on her account — just as I would Warren Christopher’s.
These people have egos and I’m not surprised if they don’t like it if they don’t come off looking good.
Your initial comment called the piece “partisan.”
I’d say if you have Harris upset on the one hand and Christopher upset on the other, that should erase that perception.
I heard the makers of the film on one of those “Making Of” shorts on HBO and choose to take their word on what lense they decided to look through when making this story.
Spacey was interviewed heavily in this short and it’s fair to say an actor of his stature brings a great deal of influence to such a project — one that might not get made if it didn’t have a marquee name such as his in the lead role.
Did you see the movie?
I don’t think it pulled any punches on either side.
“Or at least, that if it was said often enough that he wasn’t, the lie would become more convincing than the reality…”
He bloody ADMITTED it.
But for you, accusing Republicans of “lying” over absolutely every last single possible detail, no matter how ironclad it is, not even when it’s been admitted to, just comes as natural as breathing. No Republican has ever said a true word, ever. And then you wonder why you’re so easily discredited.
“The Republican attack on Kerry was that he got his decorations by lying – that Vietnam veterans could get Purple Hearts for bandaid injuries.”
That was a -part- of the attack. There were many aspects to it, all legitimate. The main issue was his BS “Genghis Khan” testimony in front of the Senate. But since you’ve decided to misrepresent the entire thing as being about nothing but the “tiniest detail” that isn’t directly provable so you can dismiss the entire thing (once again doing EXACTLY what you were just projecting onto your enemies), do share with us, since there’s no record that Kerry spent even a single day in the hospital for any of his injuries, and with reports from attending medics that at least one -was- in fact a band aid injury, what is your evidence that they were anything but?
Qwinn
Sorry, Gary, I didn’t read the end of your comment, so I see you didn’t see the movie.
I identified this film as docudrama from the start — not as a complete historical accounting — which you also seem to have overlooked.
Spacey was interviewed heavily in this short and it’s fair to say an actor of his stature brings a great deal of influence to such a project — one that might not get made if it didn’t have a marquee name such as his in the lead role.
Um…actors get paid for looking pretty and saying lines. They are not, generally, trained in the methods of professional historians or investigators. That means that even actors of very great stature don’t have the skills or experience needed to examine a script and determine if it is a good representation of what actually happened. That sort of work is very challenging: I’ve been amazed watching very smart observant people in my workplace disagree about the recent historical origins of a product design.
I’ll put it to you this way: let’s say Kevin Spacey officially endorsed an investment company that employed complex and extremely risky financial instruments. Do you think Spacey is qualified to assess complex financial modeling? If you don’t, what makes you think he’s qualified to ferret out the truth from conflicting narratives about a complex crisis?
I don’t think it pulled any punches on either side.
But how can you know unless you’re familiar with lots of other material about these events?
“Your initial comment called the piece “partisan.”
I’d say if you have Harris upset on the one hand and Christopher upset on the other, that should erase that perception.”
Harris was made to look banal and evil, in order to further the narrative that all Republicans are banal and evil.
Christopher was made to look weak and ineffectual in defending against brutal, dishonest Republican attacks, in order to further the narrative that all Republicans are banal and evil.
Yep, can’t see any hint of partisanship there.
Qwinn
Turb,
Spacey’s job wasn’t “to ferret out the truth” but if he decides to put a spin on how his character comes across he is going to do it — especially since he’s playing a role in a “docudrama.”
I’d leave it in Spacey’s hands to add “drama” to a story anytime.
“Recount” didn’t pull any punches on either side in that both Democrats and Republicans didn’t come across all that great, albeit in different ways.
Qwinn: civility. It’s the rule. Anyone else who has been uncivil: this means you too.
Fixed.
By the way, I thought it was a really good movie.
Three stars.
The main issue was his BS “Genghis Khan” testimony in front of the Senate.
Yes, because in 2004 it was a very real issue for the Bush/Cheney administration that the next President should not be a man who, even 33 years earlier, had the principle and integrity to stand up and speak out against US military atrocities. For the fairly obvious reason that they themselves had in 2002/2003 repeatedly discussed and approved specific details of torture techniques to be used against prisoners of the US.
The transcript of BS “Genghis Khan” testimony that got Bush and Cheney so chickeny scared…
Spacey’s job wasn’t “to ferret out the truth” but if he decides to put a spin on how his character comes across he is going to do it — especially since he’s playing a role in a “docudrama.”
OK, it wasn’t his role to ferret out truth…I’ll buy that. But if that’s true, why talk about his stature and influence at all (without him, the movie might not even have been made)? You can’t rely on Spacey’s stature and influence to endorse the even-handedness of the movie in one comment and then say that figuring out what happened wasn’t his job…
Wait, so all the Vietnam-related smears of Kerry were okay, because he supposedly admitted they were true (?!), but Kerry’s testimony 1971 congressional testimony is an outrage, even though the soldiers he’s talking about had admitted their actions? Is there any logic operating here other than IOKIYAR?
“but Kerry’s testimony 1971 congressional testimony is an outrage, even though the soldiers he’s talking about had admitted their actions?”
It would behoove you to actually know what the Swiftboat vets -said- before dismissing them as liars.
You are apparently unaware that dozens of the “Winter Soldier” testimonies were patently false, being as the “admissions” were made by anti-war activists that -never went to Vietnam-.
Educate yourself at least slightly. Google Al Hubbard, Kerry’s co-leader in his little protest group. He was one of the frauds who claimed he saw atrocities and was never in Vietnam. He wasn’t the only one. Dozens of them never went there but claimed to witness atrocities. It was an orchestrated fraud. Their testimonies have been debunked countless times.
The Swiftboat Vets didn’t do that debunking of those testimonies, by the way. They merely repeated it. The debunking began immediately after his testimony in front of the Fulbright committee, and a dozen books have been written about it, but of course the media wasn’t really interested, and so the vets bore the stain of his slander for 35 years before finally being in a position to be heard. Is it any wonder they spoke out? But naturally, since it puts a Dem in a bad light, you claim the Swiftboat Vets are the liars.
Qwinn
“Really? The president should rule on: child custody cases? What is the nature of good and evil? What happens if an immovable object meets an irresistible force? How many blog commenters can dance on the head of a pin? Locked box mysteries? What is the nature of dark energy? Will humanity ever be able to travel beyond the speed of light? How do we cure cancer? Why is there evil? What’s the exact position and momentum of a subatomic particle? Was the Civil War an irrepressible conflict? What happened before the Big Bang? Why is there an arrow of time? What’s the correct theory of neutrinos? What is the meaning of life?”
Gary, you forgot the most important question of all:
Boxers or briefs?
Qwinn: You are apparently unaware that dozens of the “Winter Soldier” testimonies were patently false, being as the “admissions” were made by anti-war activists that -never went to Vietnam-.
According to Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veterans’ Movement, by Gerald Nicosia, every veteran who participated in Winter Soldier was required to bring their DD-214’s and IDs to the investigation – and, according to the same source, though every participant was rigorously investigated over the next several years by Nixon’s Special Investigations Unit and by the media (Detroit News is named on the Wikipedia article), not one fraudulent veteran was ever found. You are apparently unaware of this…?
The military divisions who were represented at Winter Soldier are listed.
It was an orchestrated fraud. Their testimonies have been debunked countless times.
Well, if you call soldiers standing up to speak truth about their wartime experiences an “orchestrated fraud”, and if you describe people calling Vietnam veterans liars a “debunking”.
It is odd that the same people who repetitively claim that anti-war protesters “spat on veterans” should usually be the first to call Vietnam veterans liars and traitors.
and so the vets bore the stain of his slander for 35 years before finally being in a position to be heard
You don’t consider that calling Vietnam veterans liars and claiming that they were “anti-war activists that never went to Vietnam” is “slanderous”? I do. The least you could do to respect their service, it seems to me, is not to assume they are liars.
Congratulations on mastering Wikipedia. It is, of course, totally false. Quite the opposite – only one of their claims has ever actually been substantiated, and during the investigations you mentioned, dozens of them recanted their WSI claims.
This is but one of many sources, but it delivers the information in a good concise form.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Swett_CID
Qwinn
By the way, for the sake of accuracy, I will admit that I erred in my statement that the men who testified at the Winter Soldier hearings weren’t in Vietnam, I was confusing those who actually testified with the leaders of the organization that coerced false testimony from them that those who were willing to cooperate with the investigation later redacted.
Let’s see if you’re capable of admitting when you are wrong, as well.
Qwinn
We don’t really need to rely on the Winter Soldier investigation for knowledge of US war crimes in Vietnam–
Link
Another Link
And if you’re interested in any facet of the Vietnam War, Edwin Moise has a pretty thorough bibliography. This is where I found the previous two links.
Link
Yes, Qwinn, I think you’re quite confused.
Quite the opposite – only one of their claims has ever actually been substantiated
So which one do you agree has been substantiated? Then we’ll know which Vietnam veterans you are accusing of being liars, now you know you can’t get away with claiming none of them were Vietnam veterans at all…
and during the investigations you mentioned, dozens of them recanted their WSI claims.
Hostile government investigations have a strange habit of doing that to people.
I was confusing those who actually testified with the leaders of the organization that coerced false testimony from them that those who were willing to cooperate with the investigation later redacted.
Very odd confusion. Almost as if you had never in your life actually read the Winter Soldier Investigation, but only the “debunking” of it.
“I’d say if you have Harris upset on the one hand and Christopher upset on the other, that should erase that perception.”
This notion, or any notion that because there are objections on two sides of a question that therefore the Truth Lies Somewhere Approximately In The Middle is a classic logical fallacy, you know.
“since there’s no record that Kerry spent even a single day in the hospital for any of his injuries”
There’s a requirement that one spend a day in the hospital to qualify for a Purple Heart? I’m unaware of that: what’s your cite, please?
“‘Recount’ didn’t pull any punches on either side in that both Democrats and Republicans didn’t come across all that great, albeit in different ways.”
What that has to do with determining the best approximate historical truth of an event, or what a piece of fiction has to do with determining the truth of a real event, I have no idea. You liked the movie; that’s nice, and that’s fine. What relevance it has to the actual events, I don’t know. If you’d like to discuss the events, please try a cite to a reputable historian. If you’d just like to say that you enjoyed a nice piece of fiction, fine.
Qwinn: “You are apparently unaware that dozens of the “Winter Soldier” testimonies were patently false, being as the “admissions” were made by anti-war activists that -never went to Vietnam-.”
Is it your claim that most all or all of the Winter Soldier testimonies were false? If so, can you give a cite demonstrating that? If not, are you asserting that true accounts are contaminated by being given in proximity to false or doubtful ones? If not, what are you asserting?
“The debunking began immediately after his testimony in front of the Fulbright committee, and a dozen books have been written about it, but of course the media wasn’t really interested”
This is not a credible cite.
“The debunking began immediately after his testimony in front of the Fulbright committee, and a dozen books have been written about it, but of course the media wasn’t really interested, and so the vets bore the stain of his slander for 35 years before finally being in a position to be heard. ”
This, btw, is why I posted the links above. What I assume you mean is that Kerry slandered all Vietnam vets by claiming that there were many war crimes committed by US soldiers in Vietnam. But what exactly is the stain and who is supposed to carry it? There were, I think, over 2 million Americans who served in Vietnam and nobody claims that more than a small minority actually committed atrocities. But that Americans often behaved brutally is undeniable even by apologists for the war like Guenter Lewy. In the first link I provided a US vet is cited as saying that there were massive numbers of civilians being killed by the Ninth Army division in the Mekong Delta. If you’re familiar with Vietnam atrocity allegations, that will sound familiar–several Vietnam books, including Lewy’s, mention how Operation Speedy Express, carried out by that division in the Mekong Delta gave a reported bodycount of nearly 11,000, while supposedly capturing less than 800 weapons. That struck Newsweek reporter Kevin Buckley as quite peculiar, and it’s been seen that way by a number of people. Link
Verbum sat. As to credible cites, assuming that this is the same Qwinn, s/he feels that Ann Coulter‘s book Liberal Treason is credible. Ironically, support of Liberal Treason is the inverse of the complaint against Kerry, in that Coulter is simply not listing names but describing a pattern. Some goose/gander issues here.
Hmmm…the same Ann Coulter who’s taken scientific advice on biology from people who’ve done no work in biology and refuse to do any research to support their thesis?
I don’t think engaging McCain on Vietnam is going to work at all. That’s his sweet spot.
Bingo.
Look, in many parts of the country, nothing sells like religious kitsch. Score one well-played point for McCain and move on. There’s no value to be had in hammering on this.
I guess I’m a Jimmy Breslin liberal.
Now you’re talking.
Harris was made to look banal and evil
Sorry, but no. Harris was not “made” to look anything. Harris, with no help from anyone else, presented herself as the political reincarnation of Hot Lips Houlihan, and received all of the respectful attention that her performance deserved.
And I hate to burst your bubble, Qwinn, but it’s neither 2000 nor 2004. You’re living in the past, dude.
Thanks –
“Harris, with no help from anyone else, presented herself as the political reincarnation of Hot Lips Houlihan”
With some vintage Margaret Hamilton in the mix.
Which was only appropriate, given all the flying monkeys called in.
Russell, it’s not every day that you get to read a Hot Lips Houlihan reference or, for that matter, Gary, the wonderful Margaret Hamilton and her flying monkeys. (My mom went into labor with me during the very first showing of the “Wizard of Oz” on TV, so I’m partial to anything Oz.)
Gary, having viewed it as a docudrama, I understand some of your points about “Recount,” knowing they took dramatic license with the story.
That said, I don’t think you are giving the film enough credit.
In fact, if I were a high school civics teacher, it might be a good idea to show it to my students.
Returning to the original topic, apparently the reason McCain never mentioned the “cross in the dirt” story before 1999, is that it wasn’t part of conservative Christian consciousness until (via) a sermon which used the story in 1997.
The story itself is not from Solzhenitsyn – it’s an American conservative fabrication invented by Billy Graham and re-used regularly by Jesse Helms.
Or, of course, uh, Billy Graham heard the story from John McCain and retold it as from Solzhenitsyn and John McCain never until now reclaimed it…
Mainstream conservative consciousness, I should say: Billy Graham and Jesse Helms had presumably spread it far and white among the peculiar brand of right-wing racist Christianity…
This is gold, thanks Jesurgislac.
I hadn’t heard it before, Jesurgislac, but then again I don’t give much credit to what Billy Graham has had to say. Or Jesse Helms, for that matter.
If I’d heard it, though, I’d have passed it off as glurge. Glurge is part of what TV evangelists do, after all. And politicians, as well; I think there’s some mapping, there.
If I’d heard it, though, I’d have passed it off as glurge.
Well, so it is, whether told by Billy Graham and Jesse Helms of Solzhenitsyn, or John McCain of himself.
Well, it’s also very probably what we non-conservative non-Christians call “a lie”, when John McCain claims it as his own personal experience.
Possibly. Unprovably, though.
I’d say “probably” rather than “possibly” but, as you say, unprovably.
It’s possible this much-repeated piece of conservative Christian glurge that became part of McCain’s self-story at just the time McCain needed to start wooing the conservative Christians, is “based on a true story” that actually happened to McCain himself. McCain is known to have “redecorated” his PoW anecdotes with whatever he feels will sound best to his audience at the time. So there’s no real reason not to believe he is doing just that with this piece of glurge.
Only, as I said, to non-conservative non-Christians, this is what you call “a lie”.
Memories of actions which shouldn’t have happened are common among combat veterans of the later years of the war in Viet Nma. It isvery weird how people who calim to be more pagtriotic and more supportive of soldiers are also prone to labelling veterans as liars if the veterans dont’ report what the so-called supporters want them to report.
The same phenomenon is in affect now concerning Iraq vets. Rightwings act as if they own vets. The rightwing belief is that vets are supposed to support them, the rightwing. So if a vet says something the right doesn’t like, then t he vet gets attacked as a liar etic. All of the attacks on returning vets from Iraq have come from the political right,
Rightwingers don’t form their opinons based on the real world. They believe what their emotions compell them to believe. The root of their worldview is fear and they erect and internal edifice designed both to keep themselves fearful but also to create a self image of heroism by association. So there has to be an evil enemy to fear and the rightwinger has to be associated with the pure and noble good that fights the evil. The fantasy world IS the real world and the rightwinger is impervious to information, capable of rationalizing but not of reasoning.
So we had to fight the ZCommies in Viet NAm and the soldeirs had to be pure and good and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.