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

[JohnDubYa]

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

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

 

[plover]

JohnDubYa:

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

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

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

 

[JohnDubYa]

Here is my earlier statement, to which you objected.

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

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

 

[plover]

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

Here is my earlier statement, to which you objected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[megashawn]

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

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

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

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

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

And it was orchestrated by the bush campaign. Excellent.

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

And it was orchestrated by the bush campaign. Excellent.

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

 

[megashawn]

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

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

 

[kat]

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

 

[megashawn]

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

Again, my apoligies.

 

[Loren Booda]

'Bush, Warmonger,' is a Reality

 

[kat]

'Bush, Warmonger,' is a Reality

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

 

[kat]

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

Again, my apoligies.

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

 

[megashawn]

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

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

I've seen plenty debunk the SBVT group however.

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

 

[kat]

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

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

I've seen plenty debunk the SBVT group however.

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

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

 

[megashawn]

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

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

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

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