|
Banned
|
IN 1981, REAGAN said that US troops in Vietnam had 'been denied permission to wiin"
I've read that Joshua Sparling rec'd a "hate card" in Dec., 2005 and displayed it on the wall next to his bed at Walter Reed Army hospital. Along came Ollie North & Brian K. from Fox News, Brian's reporting was seen by Malkin. Malkin posted the report and appealed to the public to send Sparling cards. Malkin sez he got 20,000. The White House invited Sparling to sit next to cheney's wife at last years SOTU address. Hannity promised him a trip to NYC.
Sparling's father, in "letter" below, claimed Sparling was verbally abused at airport by anti Iraq war folks. NY Times reporter Ian Urbina who wrote the Sparling spit "reporting", also wrote this article, 5 years ago,
http://www.villagevoice.com/generic/...kwNDcsMS5odG1s
Will Sparling's supporters as eagerly embrace Urbina's "psyops" reporting, as they seized upon his reporting of a spitting incident against oft "victimized" Cpl. Josh Sparling?
Sparling is reported to have been in the company of a group of freerepublic.com counter-protestors when spit "flew" in his direction.
A few days after the spitting reporting, I watched a video of Sparling proposing marriage on Fox & friends to his girlfriend, as he discussed the "incident". The video also cut away to a clip of Sparling's father, who mentioned that his son is having a tough financial time.
<b>Links to Sparling reports and the Fox & Friends video here:</b>
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...off.html#links
Quote:
http://www.allthingspolitics.com/index.php
....From the January 29 edition of Hannity & Colmes:
SPARLING: What we were doing, actually, was doing the anti-protest protest, and we were there with our flags, and all that happened was a fella saw me wearing my 82nd Airborne sweater, and I noticed he also had an 82nd patch on his own sleeve, and he said I was a disgrace, basically, and that I was -- that I had blood on my hands and that I had no right wearing the uniform, and he spit at me.
ALAN COLMES (co-host): And you spit back?
SPARLING: Of course I did not.
COLMES: That's what was reported. That did not happen?
SPARLING: No sir, it did not.
COLMES: But this was directed specifically at you as far as -- [Fox News Radio host] Griff [Jenkins], were you there? Did you witness this?
[...]
COLMES: Joshua, I understand that last spring you were demeaned in an airport when you were told you couldn't board a plane? You got a hate letter at Walter Reed in 2005. Why do you think this always happens to you?
SPARLING: To tell you the truth, Alan, I really couldn't know......
[...]
COLMES: Hey, Josh, I'm glad you're getting better. I have just one question. It was said in the press you said, "These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned." Did you say that, and were you referring to the people spitting or anybody who was demonstrating against the war?
SPARLING: Oh, no, actually, that was just for the vulgar people, let me clarify something here.
On the January 30 edition of Fox & Friends, Sparling did not address the alleged spitting incident but claimed he was "not going to judge all of" the protesters, and that a "couple of folks actually were waiting for clubs to meet with me after it was over with, and the police had to stop them from bull-rushing us on the sidewalk."
From the January 30 edition of Fox & Friends:
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): And you lost your leg, Joshua, and still, despite your own physical travails, you wanted to go out there and get your -- you got the megaphone, we've seen some of the footage. What were the people saying to you there for the alleged peace rally as you told them, essentially, that the war was right and should be finished?
SPARLING: Well, you know, I think I've seen more fingers that day than I've ever seen in my whole life. But, yeah, they basically told me that -- you know, at first they were all about the veterans, and then when I claimed I was a veteran they said, "Well, you should have stayed in Iraq," and, "You're just a murderer," and, "You have blood on your hands," they don't know how I sleep at night. You know, that kind of propaganda there.
KILMEADE: And you said you're kind of glad your unit is deployed so they don't have to see this. You're with the 82nd Airborne.
SPARLING: Correct.
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Joshua, after having been to that peace rally, what's your impression of those people?
SPARLING: Well, you know, obviously I'm not going to judge all of them, because it wasn't everybody, and there was a couple of peaceful people that actually just walked by. But for the most part, there was just people lining the fence just screaming and jumping over it trying to get at us. A couple of folks actually were waiting for clubs to meet with me after it was over with, and the police had to stop them from bull-rushing us on the sidewalk.
Following Sparling's appearance on Fox & Friends, during which he proposed marriage on the air to his girlfriend, Kilmeade stated affirmatively that protesters were "spitting on" him -- even though Sparling claimed he was "spit at," not "spit on":
DOOCY: By the way, if you'd like to send an email to the happy couple, send it to friends@foxnews.com, and we will pass it along to the future Sparlings.
KILMEADE: Especially if you have a different view from those who were spitting on him and cursing at him over the weekend.
|
Quote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702010008
Beck went beyond NY Times' and Sparling's (contradictory) accounts of "spitting incident" to ask: "Have we learned nothing from Vietnam?"
Summary: Glenn Beck stated that an alleged incident in which a protester supposedly spit "at the ground near" a wounded Iraq war veteran -- Beck asserted that the veteran was "spit on" -- was a "reminder to all of us about a promise we made to ourselves, or should have" and repeatedly suggested that the incident echoed similar actions toward Vietnam War veterans returning to the United States," despite contradictory accounts of the incident and a lack of evidence that similar incidents did, in fact, occur during the Vietnam War......
.....In addition to peddling a questionable report that originated in the Times, Beck asked: "Have we learned nothing from Vietnam?" invoking claims that Vietnam veterans were spit upon when they returned to the United States, which, according to a May 2, 2000, article, by Slate.com editor-at-large Jack Shafer has been "reduce[d] ... to an urban myth." Shafer returned to the topic on January 30 in a short piece about Newsweek's "resuscitat[ion of] the vet-spit myth." From Shafer's May 2, 2000, article:
Although Nexis overflows with references to protesters gobbing on Vietnam vets, and Bob Greene's 1989 book Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned From Vietnam counts 63 examples of protester spitting, Jerry Lembcke argues that the story is bunk in his 1998 book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam. ... Lembcke, a professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam vet, investigated hundreds of news accounts of antiwar activists spitting on vets. But every time he pushed for more evidence or corroboration from a witness, the story collapsed -- the actual person who was spat on turned out to be a friend of a friend. Or somebody's uncle. He writes that he never met anybody who convinced him that any such clash took place.
While Lembcke doesn't prove that nobody ever expectorated on a serviceman -- you can't prove a negative, after all -- he reduces the claim to an urban myth. In most urban myths, the details morph slightly from telling to telling, but at least one element survives unchanged. In the tale of the spitting protester, the signature element is the location: The protester almost always ambushes the serviceman at the airport -- not in a park, or at a bar, or on Main Street. Also, it's not uncommon for the insulted serviceman to have flown directly in from Vietnam.
[...]
<b>The myth persists because: 1) Those who didn't go to Vietnam -- that being most of us -- don't dare contradict the "experience" of those who did; 2) the story helps maintain the perfect sense of shame many of us feel about the way we ignored our Vietvets; 3) the press keeps the story in play by uncritically repeating it, as the Times and U.S. News did; and 4) because any fool with 33 cents and the gumption to repeat the myth in his letter to the editor can keep it in circulation. Most recent mentions of the spitting protester in Nexis are of this variety.</b>
As press crimes go, the myth of the spitting protester ain't even a misdemeanor. Reporters can't be expected to fact-check every quotation. But it does teach us a journalistic lesson: Never lend somebody a sympathetic ear just because he's sympathetic. ....
|
Quote:
http://gunnnutt.blogspot.com/2006/05...e-of-hero.html
April 29, 2006
Dear Mr. “John Doe”,
...... I cannot fly with Joshua, because when he is home we need a car to go back and forth to the hospital and to dental and ortho appointments....
We arrived at the airport at 4:30 pm for a 5:10 flight. When we arrived there was no wheel chair, no one at the SPIRIT counter and no security. I looked for a SPIRIT employee for ten minutes. Joshua said, “Dad I’m going to miss my flight, just get me to the gate and they can help us there.” Northwest gave us a wheel chair, but we still had no security. Security would not let us through because we had no boarding pass. We informed them that SPIRIT had our boarding pass and asked that he please let us go to the gate with him and he could verify it, or get someone from SPIRIT and they could give it to him. The security guard said, “You are no different than any other passenger with no boarding pass - no go.”
<b>My son started to cry uncontrollably and told the guard to go to hell. Another lady spoke up and said, “That’s what you get for fighting in a war we have no business in.” Madder and very emotional I asked, “Can’t you remember 9-11?” She responded that was just our excuse to be in Iraq when we should not be there and we deserved whatever we got.</b> That is when my son really lost it. Three WWII vets were coming off flights into DC, gave my son a hug, and stood up to the lady and security guard. They stayed with my son until he flew out....
....Meanwhile, Joshua was still at security. I told him “SPIRIT would not help us, but hang tight, I’ll get you out tonight, I promise.” Joshua said, “never mind Dad, it’s not worth it. I’m going to end it tonight. I said don’t you dare do anything stupid. There are too many people who care about you and too many people have got you where you are today. Remember they thought you were going to die and you fought hard to stay alive.
I went to the Northwest counter and the lady was crying because of what had happened. She told me she was already working on a ticket for Joshua. Northwest offered any passenger a free roundtrip ticket to anywhere they flew, if they would give up their seat for a soldier who was severely injured in Iraq.
EIGHT businessmen came forward and said he could have their seat and no compensation was necessary. .....
......That is when I broke down and started to cry. Everyone on that Northwest flight began patting Joshua on the back shaking his hand and telling him what a great job he did and how proud they were of him and the other troops who serve. ...
...Since this ordeal began, I have lost my job, Joshua and I have missed the birth of my grandson and granddaughter, my 18-year-old son’s graduation from high school and every holiday. Joshua and I feel we would go through it again if need be. My belief has always been God, Family and Country, in that order, nothing else matters..........
|
<b>Lightening does not often strike twice, but I am starting to believe that the folks who believed Reagan, and now Josh Sparling, but ignored Cronkite, Ellsberg, and the 'Winter soldiers" are going to:</b>
Quote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/congress-iraq
Fallows@Large | by James Fallows
Where Congress Can Draw the Line
No war with Iran
Deciding what to do next about Iraq is hard — on the merits, and in the politics. It’s hard on the merits because whatever comes next, from “surge” to “get out now” and everything in between, will involve suffering, misery, and dishonor. It’s just a question of by whom and for how long. On a balance-of-misery basis, my own view changed last year from “we can’t afford to leave” to “we can’t afford to stay.” <h3>And the whole issue is hard in its politics because even Democrats too young to remember Vietnam know that future Karl Roves will dog them for decades with accusations of “cut-and-run” and “betraying” troops unless they can get Republicans to stand with them on limiting funding and forcing the policy to change....</h3>
|
Quote:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/lea...m/cronkite.cfm
Walter Cronkite's "We Are Mired in Stalemate" Broadcast,
February 27, 1968
Walter Cronkite reports on his recent trip to Vietnam to view the aftermath of the Tet Offensive in his television special Who, What, When, Where, Why?
The report is highly critical of US officials and directly contradicts official statements on the progress of the war.
After listing Tet and several other current military operations as "draw[s]" and chastising American leaders for their optimism, Cronkite advises negotiation "...not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could."
Walter Cronkite and a CBS Camera crew use a jeep for a dolly during an interview with the commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, 1st Marines, during the Battle of Hue City., 02/20/1968, National Archives and Records Administration
Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff.
On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.
<b>We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds.</b> They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.
To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism.<b>To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.</b>
This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.
|
Quote:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...8ED85F428785F9
EHRLICHMAN GUILT UPHELD ON APPEAL IN ELLSBERG CASE; Conviction of Liddy Is Also Affirmed in Break-In at Office of Psychiatrist 2 OTHERS ARE CLEARED Federal Panel Rules,2-1,for, Miamians Who Conducted Raid for the 'Plumbers' Guilt of Ehrlichman Upheld on Appeal
May 18, 1976, Tuesday
By LESLEY OELSNER Special to The New York Times
Page 1, 587 words
DISPLAYING FIRST PARAGRAPH - WASHINGTON, May 17 The United States Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed today the conviction of John D. Ehrlichman, once President Nixon's chief domestic affairs adviser, for his role in the 1971 break-in of the office of Dr. Daniel Ellsberg's former psychiatrist by the White House "plumbers."
|
Quote:
http://www.ellsberg.net/content/view/14/27/
......Daniel Ellsberg was born in Detroit in 1931......Between 1954 and 1957, Ellsberg spent three years in the U.S. Marine Corps, serving as rifle platoon leader, operations officer, and rifle company commander.
..He earned his Ph.D. in Economics at Harvard in 1962 with his thesis, Risk, Ambiguity and Decision, a landmark in decision theory which was recently published. In 1959, he became a strategic analyst at the RAND Corporation, and consultant to the Defense Department and the White House, specializing in problems of the command and control of nuclear weapons, nuclear war plans, and crisis decision-making. He joined the Defense Department in 1964 as Special Assistant to Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs), John McNaughton, working on Vietnam. He transferred to the State Department in 1965 to serve two years at the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, evaluating pacification on the front lines.
On return to the RAND Corporation in 1967, he worked on the Top Secret McNamara study of U.S. Decision-making in Vietnam, 1945-68, which later came to be known as the Pentagon Papers. In 1969, he photocopied the 7,000 page study and gave it to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; in 1971 he gave it to the New York Times, the Washington Post and 17 other newspapers. His trial, on twelve felony counts posing a possible sentence of 115 years, was dismissed in 1973 on grounds of governmental misconduct against him, which led to the convictions of several White House aides and figured in the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon....
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...8FD85F478785F9
Ellsberg Gives His Reasons; Void for Vagueness' Pentagon Papers Habeas Corbus Extended Matter of Conscience' Law
April 22, 1973, Sunday
Section: WR, Page 173, 483 words
DISPLAYING FIRST PARAGRAPH - Daniel Ellsberg, on the 71st day of his trial, last Monday got to tell the jury why he had disclosed the Pentagon papers. The reason, he said, was "to give Congress the confidence to act" to end the Vietnam war.
|
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel...on3/doc253.htm
<b>Draft Memorandum from McNaughton to Robert McNamara, "Proposed Course of Action re: Vietnam," (draft) 24 March 1965</b>
Source: The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 3, pp. 694-702.
JTM to MCN 3/24/65 (first draft)
PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION RE VIETNAM
1. Assessment and prognosis. The situation in Vietnam is bad and deteriorating. Even with great, imaginative efforts on the civilian as well as military sides inside South Vietnam, the decline probably will not "bottom out" unless major actions are taken.
<b>2. The "trilemma." US policy appears to be drifting. This is because, while there is near-consensus that efforts inside SVN will probably fail to prevent collapse, all 3 of the possible remedial courses of action have been rejected for one reason or another: (a) Will-breaking strikes on DRV; (b) large troop deployments; (c) exit by negotiations.</b>.....
....4. Actions:
(1) Redouble and redouble efforts inside SVN (get better organized for it!).
(2) Prepare to deploy US combat troops, first to Pleiku (and more to Danang).
(3) Continue distended strike-North program, postponing Phuc Yen until June.
(4) Initiate quiet talks along the following lines:.......
|
Quote:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...8FD85F478785F9
ELLSBERG TELLS OF SHIFT IN VIEWS; Describes to Jury Sights in Vietnam That Turned Him Against U.S. Role There Became a Dove Repeated Objections Returned in 1967
April 12, 1973, Thursday
By MARTIN ARNOLDSpecial to The New York Times
Page 1, 560 words
DISPLAYING FIRST PARAGRAPH - Dr. Daniel Ellsberg testified today at the Pentagon papers trial that his feelings about the Vietnam war had been changed by such experiences as standing amid burning huts or watching schools built with American supplies turn to dust and "blow away" on the wind. ....
|
Quote:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...88D85F458785F9
CALLEY CASE GOES TO MILITARY JURY; Defense Asks: 'Let This Boy Go Free' -- Guilty Verdict Urged by Prosecutor Calley Mylai Slaying Case Goes to a Military Jury
March 17, 1971, Wednesday
By HOMER BIGARTSpecial to The New York Times
Page 1, 659 words
DISPLAYING FIRST PARAGRAPH - FORT BENNING, Ga., March 16 -- The case of First Lieut. William L. Calley Jr., who is charged with the murder of at least 102 unresisting South Vietnamese civilians, went to the jury this evening.....
|
Quote:
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archive...981/22481d.htm
Remarks on Presenting the Medal of Honor to Master Sergeant Roy P. Benavidez
February 24, 1981
Men and women of the Armed Forces, ladies and gentlemen:
..... <b>They came home without a victory not because they'd been defeated, but because they'd been denied permission to win.</b>
They were greeted by no parades, no bands, no waving of the flag they had so nobly served. There's been no ``thank you'' for their sacrifice. There's been no effort to honor and, thus, give pride to the families of more than 57,000 young men who gave their lives in that faraway war.....
.....There's been little or no recognition of the gratitude we owe to the more than 300,000 men who suffered wounds in that war. ...
.....None of the recent movies about that war have found time to show those examples of humanitarianism. In 1969 alone, United States Army volunteers helped construct 1,253 schools and 597 hospitals and dispensaries, contributing $300,000 from their own pockets. ....
.....An Air Force pilot saw 240 lepers living in unimaginable filth. S..oon there were volunteers from all branches of the military spending their weekends building houses at a hospital.
The stories go on and on. ...
......In his book, ``The Bridges of Toko-Ri,'' novelist James Michener writes movingly of the heroes who fought in the Korean conflict. In the book's final scene an admiral stands on the darkened bridge of his carrier waiting for pilots he knows will never return from their mission. And as he waits he asks in the silent darkness, ``Where did we get such men?'' Almost a generation later, I asked that same question when our POW's were returned from savage captivity in Vietnam: ``Where did we find such men?'' We find them where we've always found them, in our villages and towns, on our city streets, in our shops, and on our farms.
I have one more Vietnam story, and the individual in this story was brought up on a farm outside of Cuero in De Witt County, Texas, and he is here today. ....
.....Ladies and gentlemen, we are honored to have with us today Master Sergeant Roy P. Benavidez, U.S. Army, Retired. Let me read the plain, factual military language of the citation that was lost for too long a time.
``Master Sergeant Roy P. Benavidez, United States Army, Retired, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.'' Where there is a brave man, it is said, there is the thickest of the fight, there is the place of honor.
[At this point, the President read the citation, the text of which follows.]
The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress, March 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of the Congress the Medal of Honor to
Master Sergeant Roy P. Benavidez
United States Army, Retired
for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:
On May 2, 1968, Master Sergeant (then Staff Sergeant) Roy P. Benavidez distinguished himself by a series of daring and extremely valorous actions..........
Ronald Reagan
Sergeant Benavidez, a nation grateful to you, and to all your comrades living and dead, awards you its highest symbol of gratitude for service above and beyond the call of duty, the Congressional Medal of Honor.
[At this point, the President presented the award to Master Sergeant Benavidez.]
|
<b>If Reagan's purpose was to make a factual speech, the following, 35 days after his 1981 inauguration, was available in FBI records, from the mid-1970's:</b>
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines
<b>Civilian Killings Went Unpunished
Declassified papers show U.S. atrocities went far beyond My Lai.</b>
By Nick Turse and Deborah Nelson, Special to The Times
<b>August 6, 2006</b>
.......In 1971, Henry joined more than 100 other veterans at the Winter Soldier Investigation, a forum on war crimes sponsored by Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
The FBI put the three-day gathering at a Detroit hotel under surveillance, records show, and Nixon administration officials worked behind the scenes to discredit the speakers as impostors and fabricators.
Although the administration never publicly identified any fakers, one of the organization's leaders admitted exaggerating his rank and role during the war, and a cloud descended on the entire gathering.
"We tried to get as much publicity as we could, and it just never went anywhere," Henry says. "Nothing ever happened."
After years of dwelling on the war, he says, he "finally put it in a closet and shut the door."
The Investigation
Unknown to Henry, Army investigators pursued his allegations, tracking down members of his old unit over the next 3 1/2 years.....
|
Quote:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...FORCE/40406017
Article published Tuesday, April 6, 2004
Blade wins Pulitzer: Series exposing Vietnam atrocities earns top honor
By KELLY LECKER
BLADE STAFF WRITER
Three Blade reporters won the Pulitzer Prize - journalism's highest honor - yesterday for uncovering the atrocities of an elite U.S. Army fighting unit in the Vietnam War that killed unarmed civilians and children during a seven-month rampage.
Michael D. Sallah, Mitch Weiss, and Joe Mahr received the investigative reporting prize for their series - "Buried Secrets, Brutal Truths" - which detailed how the Army failed to stop the atrocities after commanders were told about them. The reporters also discovered that the Army failed to prosecute soldiers who killed unarmed civilians after an investigation found the platoon had committed war crimes .....
|
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,3848602.story
I Wrote Bush's War Words -- in 1965
By Daniel Ellsberg, Daniel Ellsberg worked in the State and Defense departments under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. He released the Pentagon Papers to the press in 1971.
July 3, 2005
President Bush's explanation Tuesday night for staying the course in Iraq evoked in me a sense of familiarity, but not nostalgia. I had heard virtually all of his themes before, almost word for word, in speeches delivered by three presidents I worked for: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon. Not with pride, I recognized that I had proposed some of those very words myself.
Drafting a speech on the Vietnam War for Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara in July 1965, I had the same task as Bush's speechwriters in June 2005: how to rationalize and motivate continued public support for a hopelessly stalemated, unnecessary war our president had lied us into.
Looking back on my draft, I find I used the word "terrorist" about our adversaries to the same effect Bush did.......
|
Quote:
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=236440
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 15, 2005
Contact: Press Office
Phone: 202.228.3685
Levin Releases Newly Declassified Intelligence Documents on Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship
<b>Documents show Administration claims were exaggerated......</b>
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/in...i=5088&partner
<b>Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says</b>
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
<b>Published: March 27, 2006</b>
...But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable...
....... "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.
"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."
The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.
Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.
Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.
Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.
The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. <b>Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.......</b>
|
<b>Read the previous line and then try to persuade me that it isn't necessary, given the slim democratic party senate majority, to provide extra bodyguards to all democrats and independents in the US senate from states with republican governors....</b>
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0061108-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 8, 2006
Press Conference by the President
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said you're interested in changing the tone, and committed to changing the tone in Washington. <b>Just a few days before this election, in Texas, you said that Democrats, no matter how they put it, their approach to Iraq comes down to terrorists win, America loses.</b> What has changed today, number one? Number two, is this administration prepared to deal with the level of oversight and investigation that is possibly going to come from one chamber or two in Congress?
THE PRESIDENT: What's changed today is the election is over, and the Democrats won....
.....Q But to follow, we were speaking about the war, and during the campaign, two very different viewpoints of the war came out. You spoke a lot, as Bret mentioned, about what you saw as the Democratic approach to the war, which you were greatly concerned about. Are you worried that you won't be able to work with the Democrats, or do you feel like you have to prevail upon them your viewpoint?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we're going to have to work with them, but -- just like I think we're going to have to work with the Baker-Hamilton Commission. It's very important that the people understand the consequences of failure. And I have vowed to the country that we're not going to fail. We're not going to leave before the job is done. And obviously, we've got a lot of work to do with some members of Congress. I don't know how many members of Congress said, get out right now -- I mean, the candidates running for Congress in the Senate. I haven't seen that chart. Some of the comments I read where they said, well, look, we just need a different approach to make sure we succeed; well, you can find common ground there.
See, if the goal is success, then we can work together. If the goal is, get out now regardless, then that's going to be hard to work together. But I believe the Democrats want to work together to win this aspect of the war on terror.
I'm also looking forward to working with them to make sure that we institutionalize to the extent possible steps necessary to make sure future Presidents are capable of waging this war. Because Iraq is a part of the war on terror, and it's -- I think back to Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. Harry Truman began the Cold War, and Eisenhower, obviously, from a different party, continued it. And I would hope that would be the spirit that we're able to work together. We may not agree with every tactic, but we should agree that this country needs to secure ourselves against an enemy that would like to strike us again. This enemy is not going away after my presidency.
And I look forward to working with them. And I truly believe that Congresswoman Pelosi and Harry Reid care just about as much -- they care about the security of this country, like I do. They see -- <b>no leader in Washington is going to walk away from protecting the country. We have different views on how to do that, but their spirit is such that they want to protect America. That's what I believe.
Just like I talked about the troops. I meant what I said. Look, the people that's -- are going to be looking at this election -- the enemy is going to say, well, it must mean America is going to leave. And the answer is, no, that doesn't --- not what it means. Our troops are wondering whether or not they're going to get the support they need after this election. Democrats are going to support our troops just like Republicans will. And the Iraqis have got to understand this election -- as I said, don't be fearful. In other words, don't look at the results of the elections and say, oh, no, America is going to leave us before the job is complete. That's not what's going to happen, Jim.</b>
Yes, sir, Fletcher....
...Q Mr. President, you mentioned the prospect that your successor would be dealing with the war. You'll be making your first trip to Vietnam in roughly a week. Some people are still -- are looking at the war as another Vietnam War. Are they wrong to do so? And if so, why?
THE PRESIDENT: I think they are. I think they are. First of all, Iraq, after the overthrow of the tyrant, voted on a constitution that is intended to unite the whole country. And then they had elections under that constitution where nearly 12 million people voted for this unity government. Secondly -- which is different from Vietnam.
Secondly, in terms of our troops, this is a volunteer army. Vietnam wasn't a volunteer army, as you know. And in this volunteer army, the troops understand the consequences of Iraq and the global war on terror. That's why re-enlistment rates are up, and that's why enlistment is high.
Thirdly, the support for our troops is strong here in the United States, and it wasn't during the Vietnam era. So I see differences, I really do. And you hear all the time, well, this may be a civil war. Well, I don't believe it is, and the Maliki government doesn't believe it is. Zal, our Ambassador, doesn't believe it is. But we've got to make sure it isn't by implementing a strategy which helps -- a politics strategy which helps unify the country, and a security strategy that makes sure that the Iraqis are better capable of fighting off the extremists and the radicals that want to stop progress in Iraq.
So I don't think it is a parallel.
Mike. ......
|
Quote:
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Released: February 28, 2006
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
* Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
* While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
* Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
<b>Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks.....</b>
|
On sunday,Sept. 10, 2006, Cheney was saying this, during a prominent news program, telecast:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
.....Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate intel committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda......
........we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02......
.........Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, a poisons facility run by an Ansar al-Islam, an affiliate of al Qaeda......
|
<b>Cheney was saying it, even though this was reported, just two days before:</b>
Quote:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/08/D8K0PV600.html
By JIM ABRAMS, AP Writer Fri Sep 8, 12:17 PM ET
WASHINGTON - There's no evidence
Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on
Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts
President Bush's justification for going to war.....
.....It discloses for the first time an October 2005
CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."......
|
Quote:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...watada17m.html
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Watada can't base defense on war's legality, judge says
By Hal Bernton
Seattle Times staff reporter
In a major blow to the court-martial defense of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, a military judge has ruled that the Fort Lewis Army officer cannot try to justify his refusal to deploy to Iraq by raising questions about the legality of the war.
The ruling released Tuesday sets the stage for a Feb. 5 court-martial trial, where Watada faces up to six years in prison for his failure to join his brigade in Iraq last June and his outspoken attacks on the Bush administration conduct of the war.
Defense attorneys had hoped to argue that the war is illegal, in part, because it violated Army regulations that call for wars to be launched in accordance with the United Nations charter.
<b>But in a ruling, Lt. Col. John Head said that "whether the war is lawful" is a political question that could not be judged in a military court.</b>
Head, citing federal court precedents, also rejected defense attorneys' claim that Watada's First Amendment rights shielded him from charges relating to his criticism of the war.
Instead, Head ruled that there are limits to the free-speech rights of military personnel and that a military panel should decide whether Watada's criticism of the war amounted to officer misconduct that could have endangered the morale, loyalty and discipline of troops.
"We have been stripped of every defense," said Eric Seitz, a civilian attorney representing Watada. "This is a disciplinary system, not a justice system. Otherwise, we would have been entitled to defend ourselves....
Quote:
http://www.benferencz.org/arts/83.html
<B>The Legality of the Iraq War</B>
April 10, 2005
<B>Postscript to Agora: Future Implications of the Iraq Conflict</B>
........On August 3, 2002, UK military spokesmen briefed the Pentagon and US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the status of UK's preparation. The next day they briefed President Bush. Coordinated plans for the attack on Iraq continued, despite a reported private statement by Britain's Foreign Secretary Straw that "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." His legal advisers in the Foreign Office had submitted a Confidential 8-page memorandum casting doubt on whether Security Council (SC) resolutions 678 (1990) or 687 (1991), that had authorized members "to use all necessary means" to restore peace in the area" could justify the forceful invasion of Iraq.
Straw made the interesting point that if the SC would again demand that Saddam allow UN inspectors to confirm that he had complied with earlier resolutions to destroy his WMD and, if the inspectors discovered that he had failed to do so, that might justify a renewed use of force. A refusal to accept inspection would also be politically helpful to justify the invasion. The best that could be achieved, however, was SC Res. 1441 of November 8, 2002, again demanding that Iraq disarm and allow UN inspectors to report back within 30 days. The Resolution ''recalled" that Iraq had repeatedly been warned that it would "face serious consequences as a result of its violations". The "decision" taken by the Council was to "await further reports" and then "to consider the situation." Troops were being mobilized for a combined massive military assault but there was still no clear agreement on the legal justification for such action.
On February 11, 2003. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith went to Washington where he conferred with leading lawyers in the Bush administration - including White House lawyer Alberto Gonzales, State Department Legal Adviser William Taft IV, Jim Haynes, Adviser for the Defense Department and US Attorney General, John Ashcroft. A 13- page memo by Lord Goldsmith dated March 7, 2003, still expressed doubts about the legality of the contemplated assault on Iraq but seemed to be softer than the firm stand taken by him at the meeting of July 23, 2002.
Ten days later, on March 17, 2003, and just two days before the war was scheduled to begin, Goldsmith made a summary statement in Parliament in which he noted that a reasonable case could be made "for war without a Security Council resolution." William Taft IV is reported to have commented that the Goldsmith statement "sounded very familiar" - presumably because it echoed the US position.
In his report to his Prime Minister, Goldsmith wrote: " I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorize the use of force...nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history, which I have been given, and to the arguments which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that Resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorization in 678 without a further resolution." He noted that such an argument could only be sustainable if there was clear evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation by Iraq. These qualifying conditions were not mentioned in the 1-page summary given to the Cabinet on March 17.
UK military leaders had been calling for clear assurances that the war was legal under international law. They were very mindful that the treaty creating a new International Criminal Court in the Hague had entered into force on July 1, 2002, with full support of the British government. General Sir Mike Jackson, chief of the defense staff, was quoted as saying "I spent a good deal of time recently in the Balkans making sure Milosevic was put behind bars. I have no intention of ending up in the next cell to him in the Hague." On the eve of war, the British Attorney General's abbreviated statement of March 17 was accepted as legal approval of the official US/UK line. Not everyone in the British government could agree that the war that was about to begin was legal.
Prime Minister Blair chose to rely on the summary opinion of his Attorney General rather than the views of the Foreign Office which, ordinarily, would be responsible for opinions affecting foreign relations and international law. On March 18, 2003, the Deputy Legal Adviser to the Foreign Ministry, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, resigned. Her letter of resignation, after more than 30 years of service, stated: "I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution..." She had, for many years, represented the UK at meetings of the UN preparatory committees for an international criminal court and was recognized as one of the foremost experts on the subject of aggression. Her letter stated..."an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law."
Elizabeth Wilmshurst remembered that the Nuremberg trials had condemned aggressive war as "the supreme international crime" That decision had been affirmed by the UN General Assembly and followed in many other cases. She demonstrated Professor Tom Franck's concluding appeal in the 2003 Agora that "lawyers should zealously guard their professional integrity for a time when it can again be used in the service of the common weal."
<B>Benjamin B. Ferencz
A former Nuremberg Prosecutor</B>
J.D. Harvard (1943)
<i>Main Sources:
97 AJIL 553-642 and Special Supplement, Sept, 2003.
The Sunday Times, May 1, 2005.
The Observer, May 1, 2005.
Sunday Times, July 23, 2002, with Secret memo of the July 22, 2002 meeting.
Channel 4 News extract from Minute of the Attorney General to the Prime Minister, March 7, 2003.
The Independent, London, March 25, 2005 with text of Wilmshurst's resignation letter.</i>
|
|
powerclown, the Reagan "view" and the compartmentalized propaganda that brands critics of the war as "troop hating" "liberals" (a small number were...) is no more accurate or fair as branding all Vietnam vets as "baby killers" (a small number were...) would be.....
Your dimissal of the Iraq war as a legal "problem" iis contradicted by the deliberate duplicity of Bush and Cheney, et al. Why would they need to be so slimey if it is as you say? You're mindset strands the principled stand of Lt. Watada. Why dismiss the opiinion of Ben Ferencz and so much iinformation that you and the rest of the remaining 30 percent try to ignore?
<b>You folks have never stopped "dogging us", have you?</b> |