Could the Press Grow a Spine?

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Note the caveat above 'for a time'.

Really, I meant that. It took a while for the warlords to gain
control. Even after they did, I am sure that the Somalis who
had the means to procure the food from the warlords distributed it
further in exchange for various forms of renumeration to themselves,
such as labor. That's called 'trickle down'. Perhaps you can
find some Ronald Reagan fans who can explain to you how that works.

If you can explain how sending food to a starving country fails to
help to relieve that famine regardless of who distributes
the food, please do so.

You keep arguing the same point, i.e.-that regardless of who got the food, those
Somalis didn't starve. I haven't disagreed with you....I merely took a partial
exception and, at risk of being repetitious, this is what I said:

"So, when all was said and done, we sent food over there and only affluent
or
relatively affluent Somalis got to eat any of it. The starving poor
continued
to starve in spite of our best efforts. I don't think I would call that a
successful effort."

The point I've been trying to make is that we never intended our relief supplies
to go to only those who could afford to buy it. We expected that it would be
distributed on some sort of equitable basis, the only prerequisite being that
they didn't have enough food to sustain themselves and their families.
Unfortunately, that didn't happen. That's what made our effort somewhat short
of successful.

If that doesn't explain my position to you, then it'd probably be just as well
to drop the semantic ****ing match and move on to something else. I'll just
conclude that my explanatory skills are not hitting on all cylinders.

George Z.

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

State and Federal criminal laws, among others.

It wasn't a trick question, I'm not clear on what you didn't
understand.


I was giving the benefit of the doubt. There's no similarity between
someone stealing a car and Congress or the President or the USSC acting
contrary to the Constitution.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Note the caveat above 'for a time'.

Really, I meant that. It took a while for the warlords to gain
control. Even after they did, I am sure that the Somalis who
had the means to procure the food from the warlords distributed it
further in exchange for various forms of renumeration to themselves,
such as labor. That's called 'trickle down'. Perhaps you can
find some Ronald Reagan fans who can explain to you how that works.

If you can explain how sending food to a starving country fails to
help to relieve that famine regardless of who distributes
the food, please do so.

You keep arguing the same point, i.e.-that regardless of
who got the food, those
Somalis didn't starve.

No. That argument came later. The first argument I advanced was:

At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
humanitarian relief effort was a success.

You replied:

Unless my foggy memory is again playing tricks on me,
I seem to recall that the people who profited most from
the relief supplies that we sent to that unfortunate country
were the very war lords who kicked us out of it. I seem to
recall that they sold the relief supplies we sent over there
to whichever starving Somalis had something of value to
trade for those supplies.

Please feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.

Your statement was not wrong in the sense of being contrary
to fact and I never said that it was wrong. To be clear, I
agreed that it was a true statement while also pointing out
that the effort continued to save lives despite the unfortunate
developements you noted.

However, the context in which it was introduced gave me the
impression that it was an objection to my statement, and a
falacious one, specifically an argument from irrelevency.
That appears to have been a false impression on my part,
though had you preceded your remarks with "Yes, but" I
might have done better.

In a similar vein, I observed that despite the
corruption of the relief by the warlords starvation was
still reduced in Somalia. That statement was made neither
in support of my earlier statement as it referred to later
developments, nor was it made to contradict yours, which
in fact it does not. It was made to keep it clear that
the humanitarian relief effort, even after being corrupted,
continued to accomplish some good.

I will agree that the effort was corrupted by the warlords.
Yet despite that, there were fewer people starving in Somalia
even with the warlords in control of the food supply. The
demagraphic distribution of the famine victims is less important
than their sheer numbes which continued to be reduced even with
the warlords in control of the food supply. I suspect that many
who received food through the warlords were as poor as those
who did not. The warlords needed soldiers, starving men and men
with starving families could be bought for food. In every modern
nation the soldiers are recruited from the poorest of the social
classes. This had seriously bad implications as it helped to
perpetuate the civil war by keeping the militias populated with
soldiers But starvation was reduced notwithstanding.

I hope we can agree that for a time the humanitarian effort was
a success and starvaton was reduced, that the warlords took
control of the food supply which both reduced that success and
reinforced some of the problems that had created the famine in
the first place, and that despite the corruption of the relief
effort by the warlords famine continued to be reduced because in
order for the warlords to use the food to their advantage they
had to distribute it to someone who otherwise faced starvation.

Perhaps we can also agree that the only way to keep the relief
effort from being corrupted by the warlords was the creation of
a strong central unified Somali government superior both in moral
authority and in brute force to the warlords. In short, nation
building.

I'm pretty sure we can agree that the nation building effort in
Somalia failed, in no small measure due to incompetant leadership
from the Clinton White house.

Have I got that right?

--

FF

Michael Wise wrote in message ...
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.


Exit strategy? Wasn't the exit strategy "do the job, then leave"?

Is there any reason to suppose that a withdrawal or the forces from
Somalia would not have resulted in a restoration of the power of
the warlords and a return of the famine?


Wasn't is George Herbert Hoover Bush who began the mission with an
amphibious landing of Marines and SEALs in full cammy face paint and
weapons at the ready with CNN TV crews on the beach filming the start of
the "humanitarian" mission?


That was a very embarassing moment. As was 'securing' the Mogadishu
airport which was already under UN control. Organising the early
stages of the operation as a training exercise seemed to sort of
miss the point of the effort.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

(Snipped for brevity)

I'm pretty sure we can agree that the nation building effort in
Somalia failed, in no small measure due to incompetant leadership
from the Clinton White house.

Have I got that right?

Yes, although perhaps some of Clinton's leadership failures could have been
attributed in part to his selection of Les Aspin as his first Secy. of Defense.
Aspin, in spite of a prior extensive Congressional exposure to military matters,
turned out to be an ineffectual civilian leader of the DOD who made mistake
after mistake. Those occurred at a time when Clinton needed strong civilian
leadership in the DOD to compensate for his prior lack of exposure to military
affairs. He obviously didn't get much.

George Z.

--

FF

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...


I'm pretty sure we can agree that the nation building effort in
Somalia failed, in no small measure due to incompetant leadership
from the Clinton White house.

Have I got that right?

Yes, although perhaps some of Clinton's leadership failures could have been
attributed in part to his selection of Les Aspin as his first Secy. of Defense.
Aspin, in spite of a prior extensive Congressional exposure to military matters,
turned out to be an ineffectual civilian leader of the DOD who made mistake
after mistake. Those occurred at a time when Clinton needed strong civilian
leadership in the DOD to compensate for his prior lack of exposure to military
affairs. He obviously didn't get much.


Thanks.

Advancing the clock a bit, could you suppliment my foggy memory further?
After the Mogadishu disaster, wasn't Aspin replaced? As I recall,
subsequent military action by the Cinton administration, in the
Balkans, and against Al Queda assets in the Sudan and Afghanistan
were much better managed, though the Republicans complained fiercly,
especially about the counterstrikes against Bin Laden and AL Queda.

Imagine the uproar during the impeachment trial if the Republicans
had learned that Clinton had rescinded Carter's ban on assasination
and personally marked bin Laden for death!

Just thought I'd slip that in.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...


I'm pretty sure we can agree that the nation building effort in
Somalia failed, in no small measure due to incompetant leadership
from the Clinton White house.

Have I got that right?

Yes, although perhaps some of Clinton's leadership failures could have been
attributed in part to his selection of Les Aspin as his first Secy. of
Defense.
Aspin, in spite of a prior extensive Congressional exposure to military
matters,
turned out to be an ineffectual civilian leader of the DOD who made mistake
after mistake. Those occurred at a time when Clinton needed strong civilian
leadership in the DOD to compensate for his prior lack of exposure to
military
affairs. He obviously didn't get much.


Thanks.

Advancing the clock a bit, could you suppliment my foggy memory further?
After the Mogadishu disaster, wasn't Aspin replaced?

Yes. He had been having some heart problems at about that time, one of which
resulted in him having a pacemaker implanted. After Somalia, he submitted his
resignation "for personal reasons", although most observors thought that
political reasons provided far more impetus than personal ones.

As I recall, subsequent military action by the Cinton administration, in the
Balkans, and against Al Queda assets in the Sudan and Afghanistan
were much better managed, though the Republicans complained fiercly,
especially about the counterstrikes against Bin Laden and AL Queda.

Imagine the uproar during the impeachment trial if the Republicans
had learned that Clinton had rescinded Carter's ban on assasination
and personally marked bin Laden for death!

Just thought I'd slip that in.

--

FF

Steve Hix wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

[Attributions deleted for brevity]

Whom did Kerry ever stab in the back?

How about pretty much every single person serving in the military during
the late '60s and early '70s.


... he knifed them figuratively by
claiming that war crimes against civilians were the normal course of
business [in Vietnam], and that officers knew about it and approved
of it.

Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply. That is pretty much
what I thought you meant but it would not have been polite of me act
on that presumption without first verifying it with you.

Shall we extend a similar courtesy to Kerry and try to find a
direct quote, rather then relying on your memory and your
paraphrasal? I want to discuss EXACTLY that statement or those
statements by Kerry to which you object.

I found this page and have extracted some material which might
be what you're talking about. I encourage the reader to
go to that page themself, so as to understand the proper context
of the remarks:

http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp

Legislative Proposals Relating to the War in Southeast
Asia Thursday, April 22, 1971 United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, D.C.


The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m.,
in Room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W.
Fulbright (Chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Fulbright,
Symington, Pell, Aiken, Case and Javits

....

Statement of John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War

Mr. Kerry: Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator
Javits, Senator Symington, Senator Pell. I would like to
say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are
also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting
here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I
am here as one member of the group of veterans in this
country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at
this table they would be here and have the same kind of
testimony.

I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I
apologize if my statement is general because I received
notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid
because of the injunction I was up most of the night and
haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.


Winter soldier Investigation

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans,
and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an
investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged
and many very highly decorated veterans testified to
war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated
incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis
with the full awareness of officers at all levels of
command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did
happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings
of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam,
but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what
this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped,
cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable
telephones to human genitals and turned up the power,
cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians,
razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan,
shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and
generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in
addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and
very particular ravaging which is done by the applied
bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation."
The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine
in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime
soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was
rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because
we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come
back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold
our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam,
but we feel because of what threatens this country, the
fact that the crimes threaten it, no reds, and not redcoats
but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it,
that we have to speak out.

....

Extent of Problem of Vietnam War

We are here in Washington also to say that the problem
of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy.
It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying
as human beings to communicate to people in this country,
the question of racism, which is rampant in the military,
and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the
hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions
and using that as justification for a continuation of this
war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations
of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones,
harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions,
the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of
prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
That is what we are trying to say. It is party and parcel
of everything.

....

end quoted material

Now, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this transcript,
but am willing, for the sake of this discussion, to accept it
as accurate for the moment. Have I found the words spoken by
Kerry, that led you to say:

he knifed them figuratively by
claiming that war crimes against civilians were the normal course of
business [in Vietnam], and that officers knew about it and approved
of it.

If not, could you find them for us?

--

FF

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 25 Jun 2004 17:12:10 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:



In the interest of thoroughness, here is some more non-news on
the subject:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d=544&ncid=716

I'm not surprised that records from back then have been lost, damaged
or
destroyed making it hard to prove how much time GWB spent on duty.
Not being able to prove how much tiem he put in is a far cry from
evidence, let alone proof, that he was AWOL, let alone a deserter.

Do you guys have a memo from back then saying something like
"Bush missed roll call this morning." or "What happened to Bush,
he never showed up today" or anything like that?

Because like, I have a very hard time believing that he just stopped
showing up and nobody noticed.

--

FF

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

Show your evidence that Kerry didnt earn his third purple
heart, received in his second tour of duty.


I didn't say it was his third purple heart, I said he used an unearned
purple heart to get out of Vietnam after serving just a third of his tour.
I believe the award in question was the first one.

Ok, thanks.


The following letter appeared in the USA Today "Letters" section on June
25th last, page 8A:


I have questions about some parts of the story below. They may have
reasonable answers, but we won't find out unless the questions are
asked.



Criticism of Kerry's Purple Heart is just

Retired U.S. army colonel David Hackworth defends presidential
candidate John Kerry's Purple Hearts. He correctly notes that they are
awarded for a wound that necessitates treatment by a medical officer and
that is received in action with an enemy ('The meaning of a Purple Heart,"
The Forum, June 16).

I was the commanding officer to whom Kerry reported his injury on Dec.
3, 1968. I had confirmed that there was no hostile fire that night and that
Kerry had simply wounded himself with an M-79 grenade round he fired too
close. He wanted a Purple Heart, and I refused. Louis Letson, the base
physician, saw Kerry and used tweezers to remove the tiny piece of
shrapnel - about 1 centi*meter in length and 2 millimeters in di*ameter.
Letson also confirmed that the scratch was inflicted with our M-79.

If there was no enemy fire, or at least enemies present, why was the
M-79 grenade fired?


We admire Col. Hackworth, but he, above all people, knows why it is
unac*ceptable to nominate yourself for an award.

If so, why was the nomination accepted?

It compromises the basic
military principle that we survive together. To promote yourself is to
denigrate your team. I hope Col. Hackworth will rethink his characterization
of Kerry's swift-boat comrades as "grousers" passing on "secondhand bilge."
In our case, this is firsthand knowledge, and our integrity is unquestioned.


For Mr Hibbard to have first hand knowedge of the incident he would have
had to witness it himself. He doesn't ocme out and say one way or the
other but it seems that his account is based on what he heard from others,
including Kerry, making it second hand, not firsthand.

Kerry orchestrated his way out of Viet*nam and then testified, under
oath, be*fore Congress that we, his comrades, had committed horrible war
crimes. This tes*timony was a lie and slandered honor*able men. We, who were
actually there, believe he is unfit to command our sons and daughters.


Mr Hibbard does not quote from Kerry's testimony. Therefor I cannot
be sure as to exactly what testimony he refers. But if he referes to
the testimony at the link I posted eslwhere in this thread then clearly
Mr Hibbard misconstrues Kerry's testimony to the extent that Hubbard's
statement is a lie and slanders an honorable man.


Grant Hibbard, retired commander US. Navy, Gulf Breeze, Fla.
Louis Letson, M.D. Retired lieutenant commander Medical Corps, US. Navy
Reserve Scottsboro, Ala.

Louis Letson, M.D. Retired lieutenant commander Medical Corps, US. Navy
Reserve Scottsboro, Ala.


Did you see this in USA TOday, or did you get it from somewhere else?



ALso,

Show your evidence that Bush didn't get out of Vietnam.


Evidence that Bush didn't get out of Vietnam? What the hell are you talking
about? Bush did not serve in Vietnam.

Oh, so Bush did get out of serving in Vietnam. Smart move, IMHO.




Show why any of that is more important than what both men have
done since.


I can't. I don't believe it is more important than what both men have done
since.

Me neither.

But Kerry and the Democratic Party apparently do believe it is more
important than what they have done since. Since Kerry became the
frontrunner for their nomination Vietnam has been the key issue in their
campaign to defeat Bush.

I have seen only a handful of ads for Kerry and do not recall them
even mentioning his service in Vietnam.

You can check out his website he
http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

I see no mention of his military service at all on the frontpage and
only two sentences devoted to it in his biography.

Ofhand, I'd have to say that your statement "Vietnam has been the
key issue in their campaign to defeat Bush." is completely unfounded.
AFACT, Iraq has been the key issue in their campagn to defeat Bush.

--

FF