You know, I'm thinking of cancelling my Chuckie Watch feature. If I want to follow the antics of a blithering rightwing hack pretending to be a regular good-ole-boy Southern white guy, I could just start tracking Zell Miller's every word.
But for now, I guess I'll stick with Chuckie. Chuckie's been thankin' about The Real Issue (08/30/04). Chuckie's done heard that John Kerry used to be out there a'protestin' against the Vietnam War. And Chuckie don't like it.
Chuckie says he don't feel like he can criticize Kerry's military service like them there Swift Boat Liar fellers has been doin'. But Chuckie does say this about Kerry's protestin' and stuff (my emphasis):
I cannot understand how Mr. Kerry can act so proud of his military service these days, when thirty years ago or so he condemned the U.S. military for a bunch of wanton thugs who raped and murdered at will without conscience or remorse. ...
But to take a few isolated incidents and make a statement indicting every person who served in Vietnam is not only a horrible untruth but a disservice to everyone who has ever worn the uniform. ...
[H]ow he found out so much while only spending only four months in country is beyond me.
This man wants to be Commander and Chief of a military he once betrayed.
Naw, Chuckie won't criticize Kerry's military service. Well, but ain't it kinda funny he only spent four months in country? Uh, Chuckie, the guy was wounded three times. And at least for Army infantry, I believe six months was the standard combat tour of duty during the Vietnam War. But I don't have such good sources as the Swift Boat Liars for Bush, so I could be remembering that wrong.
And, of course, a small problem like the fact that Kerry didn't say that ain't gone bother our boy Chuckie.
Chuckie gits in a reminder of what seems to be his favorite piece of folklore, the one about protesters spitting on Vietnam veterans.
But Chuckie says something that deserves to be taken at least as seriously as anything in Zell Miller's demented rant Wednesday night. He refers to a claim on an anti-Kerry vet named Paul Gallanti, who claims he was forced to listen to recordings of Kerry's antiwar testimony while his North Vietnamese captors tortured him. Gallanti is fairly explicit about this:
He lived in, or subsisted in, a seven-foot by seven-foot room with a concrete bed. He was tortured and mistreated and told that he would never get back to the United States because he was a war criminal.
Every morning at 5 am and every evening at 9 pm he and his fellow prisoners were forced to listen to a recording of John Kerry’s testimony before the United States Senate in which he accused the American military at large of rape, mutilization and torture of the Vietnamese people, thereby reinforcing the war criminal stance of his captors.
Now, what is the truth-value of this, first of all? Because, as we know from that spittin'-on-the-veterans thing, Chuckie's reality-testing abilities aren't always fully engaged.
I haven't investigated this particular claim. But I'm putting it here because I know the Swift Boat Liars crowd have been promoting at least something resembling this. And if Chuckie's circulating it, it must be a pretty well-known story among the blithering rightwingers already.
It's certainly true that some American prisoners in North Vietnamese prisons were tortured, including John McCain. I do recall instances of that being reported in the early 1970s - Kerry's antiwar testimony was in 1971 - but it mostly occurred in the late 1960s. But notice how Chuckie mentions torture and being forced to listen to tapes of Kerry as though they were the same thing.
In terms of the general claim, this is another that can be reality-tested, if actual reporters act like journalists and do it. For instance, David Corn reports: "Earlier in the day, McCain met with editors of The New York Times and told them that when he was a Vietnam POW his captors never used Kerry's congressional testimony to taunt or pressure him. This undermined yet another claim of the Swift Vets."
But when governments use statements by people in enemy countries as propaganda, let's think about what that means. Most of us would say that it's another reason to think about how one's statements could be misused or taken out of context. But does that mean that Americans should never make a criticism of war policy because it somehow someway might be misused by somebody?
For instance, if a terrorist group were to force an American captive to read a rant about the evils of America, say like this:
Iniquity stalks the streets of America. Drugs, murder, rape, robbery and home invasion just to name a few.
Greedy lawyers defend the ones who can pay, no matter how guilty they are, while they would not raise one manicured finger to defend the life of an unborn child who is going to have a pair of scissors stuck into its innocent skull.
A day of reckoning is fast approaching and believe me folks, it’s not something that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of California can reverse.
Or like this:
The morals of this nation are headed for the sewer. There is a concerted effort to normalize homosexuality and belittle the importance of marriage and family.
People openly scorn the name of God and say that the Bible is out of touch with today’s society.
Revisionist history, humanism, new age, the taking of unborn life and the “If it feels good do it” don’t worry about the consequences attitude which is inundating the society of this nation is appalling and apostate. ...
Sodom and Gomorra were totally destroyed for their rampant sins. The Hebrew children were banished from the promised land for forsaking their God. Why will America be any different?
I don’t really worry about Osama Bin Ladin and his fanatics destroying this country. I don’t believe that there is a nation or a combination of nations on earth who can defeat us militarily.
What concerns me is America’s rampant apostasy and losing divine protection.
I sometimes wonder how long God will put up with us.
Just because something like this might be used by people who hate America, even used to torment captive American soldiers, should we blame the person who said them? Should we call him a traitor? I'm not sure we should look at thingsthat way.
I'm just saying...
No comments:
Post a Comment