However, the latest "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" ad is just more proof that political activist commercials don't necessarily have to tell the complete truth. This is true whether the creator of the ad is the Swift Vets or Michael Moore. I don't even think that I've seen the ad on television (other than in news analysis). However, it gives little snippets of John Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1971. The ad doesn't come anywhere close to providing context. I fear that in our "instant gratification", "give me a snippet and it'll be good enough" society, the full picture of what Kerry said in 1971 might be hard to visualize unless you read the whole thing. Yes, it's long.
The Annenberg Political Fact Check Center has a decent write-up on why half-truths are allowed to continue. The hard thing to accept is that I know there are people who won't do their own research. Believe it or not, there are some people who will take Fox News (O'Reilly and Fox are still too chicken-hearted to have Michael Badnarik make an appearance) or Democratic Underground at face value.
So, there we are about a week and a half ago, taking a 567 question psychological test. For some reason, mine was flagged as requiring follow-up. My curiosity has been piqued. Some of my co-workers say that I should wear the kilt to the interview on Wednesday. I don't think I will. When I mentioned this to Suzanne, she seemed a little worried. I'm not so worried.
2 comments:
I think that some people are believable. However, face value is never a good way to go through life anyway. If you start thinking that you can just blindly trust anyone based on whatever trait you define as making someone immediately trustworthy, it might easily end up biting you on the backside.
Hi Art,
I've read the transcript again, thanks to your link. I still find him objectionable from the beginning
" I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that."
His freelance negotiating with the NV is to me, no different from those who freelanced with Saddam (despite what you think of this war). He was out of line then, and even more so when acting as though HIS discussions "negate" what the then-President said. Like Nixon or not. The arrogance shows even back then.
His dismissal of Communism as a threat to the world was naive and appears to have colored his views from then on out. I was a kid in 1971, when he declared that the Cold War as outdated. He was wrong, of course; I grew up during the Cold War, and it was REAL. His distorted view of Communism/the Cold War makes me wonder today if he DOES have any position on North Korea, and if so, is it a firm position or one likely to change with the wind (as with so many other issues)?
"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."
So says Kerry. And so punished were our POWs, as a result.
I'm a military veteran, and I can say that although VN was different in many ways--first, that there isn't a draft going on now, thank God--his actions in the streets, in Paris, and in testimony must have been extremely demoralizing to those military members who volunteered and to those who didn't. Indeed, who wanted to be called the last man to die in Vietnam? And who wants to be the last to die in Iraq? But do we allow that "last man" to die in vain, and dishonor him and his family? Do we take their dignity as well after their lives are gone?
I know you're no John Kerry fan. However, the Swift Vets have the right to oppose Kerry for his demoralizing activism while they suffered the same or worse circumstances in Vietnam. I personally don't give a rat's ass about his medals--except for when he tossed them out!!! But if he did lie to get them, and I'm sure we'll never know for sure, it shows the kind of guy he is.
John Kerry is nothing but a self-serving, arrogant jerk. He's been gunning for the Oval Office since he was a kid (as reported by his former classmates, and not in a derogatory way) and has staged his entire adult life as such. His only vision and ideology is that which serves himself. Someone like that CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
Ok, rant complete. Thanks for visiting my blog--you are always welcome back there--"right wing conspirators" always have a soft spot for Libertarians.
Post a Comment