Tag Archives: Vietnam War

national news, political news

Rudy talks himself out of relevance

Two of the smarter pundits — one a liberal, the other a conservative — have found common ground on the remarks delivered recently by former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani.

Mark Shields and David Brooks agree that Guiliani’s assertion that President Obama doesn’t “love America” are unacceptable and the Republican Party to which Guiliani belongs needs to call him out.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/21/david_brooks_giulianis_comments_unacceptable_incumbent_upon_republicans_to_police_the_party.html

What “America’s Mayor” seems to be doing — if the GOP follows through on the advice — is talking himself out of becoming a relevant voice in the nation’s political discourse.

Brooks, who writes a right-leaning column for the New York Times, told the PBS NewsHour that Guiliani’s remarks are “self-destructive” and are just plain wrong.

Guiliani spouted off during a political event honoring Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. It took place in New York City. He prefaced his remarks by acknowledging it was difficult to say, but then he said the president doesn’t love the country he governs.

This is a shameful act of demagoguery.

Shields, whose column tilts to the left, brought up a fascinating element to Guiliani’s doubts about Obama’s patriotism. It was that Guiliani received six draft deferments to get out of serving in the Vietnam War and persuaded a judge to get him reclassified to 2A specifically to keep him from going to war. Are those the actions of a patriot? Shields asked.

Shields also noted: “I go back to John McCain, who in 2008, when this was a hot issue, had the courage to confront a Republican audience in Lakeville, Minnesota, when they made this charge and said, no, that is untrue. President Obama is an American. He cares about this country. He loves this family, and I like him, but I disagree with him on the issues.”

If the mayor is setting the tone for the upcoming GOP presidential primary campaign, then the developing field of candidates talking about entering the race need to switch to a new song sheet.

NewsHour moderator Judy Woodruff did note that several Republican officials denounced Guiliani’s remarks. They were correct to do so.

Brooks responded: “It’s incumbent on Republicans to do that, just to police the party.”

 

military news

Hey, how does 'conflict' sound?

A good friend of mine has an idea about how to deal with the word games being played over what we call the current war we’re waging with international terrorists.

My pal Jim, who lives in Arizona, writes: “Let‘s call it a conflict. Didn’t we use that term before to soften the impact?”

Boy, howdy! We sure did.

Remember the Korean conflict? Or the Vietnam conflict? The “conflicts” in Korea and Vietnam turned into  “wars” eventually, but many headline writers and journalists writing about Vietnam often didn’t capitalize the “w” in “war,” as if to suggest that it wasn’t really a war.

Perhaps this sidesteps the issue. My earlier blog post noted the discussion about whether the Obama administration is right to avoid using the term “Islamic terrorists” to describe the enemy with whom we are at, um, war. My point is that we need not quibble over what to call the enemy, but we should instead concentrate our efforts solely on actually fighting these monsters.

Whatever we call the enemy, or the fight in which we are engaged, it’s a war by any known definition of the word.

I’ve noted before that we’re in a form of a world war, although it doesn’t resemble the two previous world wars in which we fought — Nos. I and II. Those wars involved nations declaring war on other nations. It involved mass mobilizations of men, who then were sent to battlefields to fight men from other nations that had done the very same thing.

Our wars since WWII, though, have materialized differently. We’ve had no formal declaration since President Roosevelt asked Congress on Dec. 8, 1941 to declare that “a state of war has existed” between the United States and Japan.

But we’ve fought actual wars. The men and women who’ve died in battle have been killed just as dead as they were in World Wars I and II.

I told my friend Jim that I’ve always hated the term “conflict” to describe war.

Instead, I prefer to call these fights what they are. And what we’re fighting today is no less gruesome and deadly than any war we’ve ever fought.

 

political news

'Born in the U.S.A' hardly a campaign theme

Bruce Springsteen makes great music and some of his songs have become American anthems — of sorts.

Should politicians running for public office use a particular song, “Born in the U.S.A.,” to somehow proclaim the nation’s greatness?

Highly debatable. Yet former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who’s thinking of running for president next year, strode onto a stage to that particular song.

As the blog attached by John Fea notes, Perry needs to think carefully about using this song as a campaign theme.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/14/why_rick_perry_should_think_twice_before_he_makes_born_in_the_usa_his_theme_song_125604.html

It’s not exactly a love song to the United States of America, as Fea points out.

The lyrics tell a story of a Vietnam War veteran’s heartache when he returns home and can’t get a job. His country didn’t take very good care of him. Springsteen sings about his “brother” who died in battle and how the love of his life is left with just a picture of him.

Fea notes that President Reagan in 1984 sought to wrap himself in the lyrics of the song, apparently believing they paid tribute to our great nation. They don’t — at least not in any traditional sense.

But as the blogger notes, Republican presidential candidates are going to pattern their own themes after The Gipper, perhaps even mimicking President Reagan’s misplaced salute to song lyrics that don’t mean quite what they think they mean.

Be careful, Gov. Perry.

It’s a great song, to be sure. Is it the stuff about which you should frame your campaign? Think again.

 

military news, national news, political news

Take care in defining 'combat veteran'

It didn’t take Joni Ernst long to make a name for herself in the U.S. Senate.

The Iowa Republican is now defending her military record in which she defines herself as a “combat veteran.”

I would caution her to speak very carefully when using such terminology.

At issue is her service in an Iowa National Guard transportation company in Iraq and Kuwait in 2003 and 2004. She calls herself a “combat veteran” even though she didn’t face enemy fire during her deployment in the Middle East.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/joni-ernst-says-she-earned-the-right-to-call-herself-a-combat-veteran-despite-never-seeing-combat/

Sen. Ernst defends her record, saying that because she drew hazardous duty pay while deployed, she has earned the right to call herself a combat vet.

“I am very proud of my service and by law I am defined as a combat veteran,” Ernst said. “I have never once claimed that I have a Combat Action Badge. I have never claimed that I have a Purple Heart. What I have claimed is that I have served in a combat zone.”

Technically, she is correct. But it is a technicality that can be misconstrued. She needs to be careful how she uses such language in the future.

I understand where she’s coming from. I, too, served in a war zone for a time. The Vietnam War was raging when I arrived in-country in the spring of 1969. I received hazardous duty pay while serving as a U.S. Army aircraft mechanic and later as a flight operations specialist at the I Corps Tactical Operations Center in Da Nang.

Do I refer to myself as a “combat veteran”? No. I didn’t see direct combat — except for having to run for cover while the Viet Cong lobbed mortars into our position on occasion.

Sen. Ernst is rightfully proud of her service in Iraq and Kuwait, as I am of my service many years ago during another armed conflict.

But be careful, senator, when using terms such as “combat vet,” especially around those who’ve actually seen the real thing.

 

national news, political news

Second thoughts on 'scum' comment

We’re all entitled to having second thoughts, aren’t we?

I put a tweet out there a few days ago in response to Sen. John McCain’s angry comment at protesters who were holding up signs while several former secretaries of state were testifying before McCain’s Senate Armed Services Committee.

He called them “low-life scum.” I said they were entitled to protest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/01/mccain-im-still-outraged-by-kissinger-protesters-at-hearing/?tid=sm_tw

Well, McCain’s anger was justified in one important sense.

One of the former diplomats they were accosting in the hearing room was 91-year-old Henry Kissinger, who served Presidents Nixon and Ford and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating an end to the Vietnam War. Also testifying with Kissinger were Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice.

Yes, the demonstrators had a right to protest. They should have demonstrated at least a bit of decorum and kept their distance from Kissinger, Rice and Albright. Kissinger in particular was actually threatened physically by the demonstrators, who were carrying signs that declared Kissinger to be a “war criminal.”

McCain made no apologies for his outburst. In retrospect, I wouldn’t have apologized, either.

“Of course, I was outraged, and I’m still outraged. It’s one thing to stand up and protest. It’s another to physically threaten an individual,” Chairman McCain said.

You were right to be angry, Mr. Chairman.

 

national news

Snipers are not 'cowards'

Michael Moore’s assertion that snipers are cowards comes apparently from his father’s experience during World War II.

Therefore, the filmmaker asserts that snipers are cowardly because they don’t fight “fair.”

http://www.people.com/article/michael-moore-explains-snipers-tweets-american-sniper

His comments came as a critique of “American Sniper,” the film about the late Chris Kyle, whose exploits as a Navy SEAL sniper in Iraq have become the stuff of military legend.

I’ll just add that snipers are as brave as frontline grunts — infantrymen who walk the point and expose themselves to enemy fire. They are heroes because they, too, expose themselves to the enemy the moment the muzzle flashes or the sound of the weapon echoes.

Moore sought to walk some of his comments back by praising the Oscar-nominated performance by Bradley Cooper as Kyle. But then he took off after director/producer Clint Eastwood, who — according to Moore — conflates Iraq with Vietnam. He mentions the use of the word “savages” to describe the Iraqis.

Well, that’s the kind of language warriors use to refer to the enemy, Michael.

I, too, saw the film over the weekend and for the life of me, I do not see any confusion between those two wars. Eastwood told a compelling story in riveting fashion.

As for Michael Moore, I believe I’ve heard enough from him on this topic.

 

national news

What if MLK Jr. had lived?

Morris Dees, founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, has written a tribute to Martin Luther King Jr. in which he declares that the message of peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience is as relevant today as it was when he preached it way back then.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/mlk-s-words-just-as-relevant-today

On this day when we mark what would have been Dr. King’s 86th birthday, I cannot help but get past this historical tidbit that few — if any — historians ever seem to examine.

How in the name of all that is holy did Martin Luther King Jr. summon the poise to stand before the world as he did at such a young age?

MLK was 39 years of age when James Earl Ray gunned him down in Memphis on April 4, 1968.

Thirty-nine! That’s all.

Yet, it seemed at the time as if he’d been on the national stage forever. At least that’s my memory.

He was 34 when he stood before those hundreds of thousands of spectators on the Washington Mall to deliver the famed “I Have a Dream” speech that energized a generation of young black and white Americans. He would be 36 when he led the march across the Edmund Pettis Bridge at Selma, Ala.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_ZgSK9yIbk

How was this young man able to stand often in church pulpits, make appearances on national TV news-talk shows, speak to mass gatherings of supporters, accepted a Nobel Peace Prize and became one of the leading voices of protests against the Vietnam War — all before he turned 40. Where did he acquire that wisdom? Or was he born with it?

He wouldn’t reach that milestone age. There would be no black balloons, gag gifts for his becoming an “old man,” or silly jokes and pranks from his friends and family members.

It’s been said of President Kennedy that his life was one of untapped potential, given that he, too, died at a young age.

I cannot stop thinking on this day what impact Martin Luther King Jr. might have had on his beloved nation had he been given the chance to reach middle age, let alone grow old.

As Dees points out: “In his speech of March 25, 1965, King spoke of the nation we could become – a ‘society of justice where none would prey upon the weakness of others; a society of plenty where greed and poverty would be done away; a society of brotherhood where every man would respect the dignity and worth of human personality.’”

He was just 36 years of age.

 

military news, national news, political news

Fonda feels the heat once again

Jane Fonda is likely going to take the burden of a “huge mistake” with her to the grave.

She’s now 77 years of age, an acclaimed actress, a one-time fitness guru and she remains more or less active in certain political causes, although age and life experience seem to have taught her to pick her battles carefully.

She showed up recently in Frederick, Md., for a speaking engagement and — guess what — she drew protestors who are still angry over a single act she committed back in 1972.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Jane-Fonda-Draws-Protesters-in-Maryland-288958811.html

The Vietnam War was still raging and Fonda decided to show some sort of solidarity with the North Vietnamese government. How did she demonstrate that loyalty? By posing in an anti-aircraft battery, where she was photographed smiling and laughing with enemy soldiers who either had fired their weapon at U.S. aircraft or were to do so later, putting U.S. aviators in mortal danger.

The protest in Frederick involved a number of Vietnam veterans. Some of whom were carrying signs that read, “Forgive? Maybe. Forget? Never.”

Fonda said the other day her posing with that piece of enemy artillery — and acting as if she didn’t have a care in the world — was a “huge mistake.”

I agree with the language of the forgive-but-not-forget signage. I’ve forgiven Fonda for that terrible demonstration, but I cannot forget it. I played a tiny part in that war three years before Fonda’s infamous photo op. Indeed, I formed my own anti-war feelings based partly on what I drew from my brief exposure to what was happening there.

She told the audience in Frederick that the episode left many with the impression she was against U.S. service personnel participating in that war. Fonda contends she supported them. Well, you could have fooled a lot of us, which she managed to do.

I’ve never bought into the Hanoi Jane description that others have hung on her. But oh, man, it’s tough to forget the insult she laid on those who merely were doing their duty.

 

local news, medical news, military news, national news

VA whistleblowers deserve national honor

An editorial in the Arizona Republic honors the men and women who blew the lid off the Department of Veterans Affairs shabby health care policies in Phoenix.

They have been named Arizonans of the Year.

For my money, they ought to be named Americans of the Year.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2014/12/27/va-whistleblowers-arizonans-year/20876573/

What did they do to merit national acclaim? Oh, they merely revealed to the nation that veterans were dying because hospital administrators were fabricating wait times that vets were enduring as they sought medical care at the VA hospital in Phoenix. As many as 40 them died while waiting for that care.

The news of this scandalous treatment exploded across the country.

Yes, news of this hideous treatment cost an honorable man his job. Veterans Secretary Eric Shinseki, a retired Army general and Vietnam War combat veteran, lost all credibility through his inability to fix the problems that developed on his watch.

As the Arizona Republic editorial noted: “Without the courage of whistle-blowers like (Sam) Foote and (Katherine) Mitchell, the American public would still be under the wholesale delusion that the VA hospital system is run well. We would still believe — erroneously— that the often-troubled VA had turned the corner on providing prompt, quality patient care.”

The impact of this scandal has reached across the country and throughout the enormous VA health care network. The Thomas Creek Veterans Medical Center in Amarillo was not immune from heightened scrutiny as officials sought to ensure that veterans did not fall through the cracks as they had done in Phoenix.

Hey, I’ve got some skin in this game as a veteran who signed up a little more than a year ago with the Amarillo VA system. So I am quite grateful for the attention brought to this disastrous problem by Drs. Foote and Mitchell.

The honor “Arizonans of the Year” somehow doesn’t seem quite fitting enough.

 

political news

Campaign button brings back cool memory

Cleaning and rearranging my desk this week brought me in touch with a memento of a long-ago event that means much to me to this day.

It is a campaign button, given to me not many years ago by a gentleman — a friend of mine — who had a similar political coming of age at the same time.

It is a McGovern-Shriver presidential campaign button.

I cast my first vote for president on Nov. 7, 1972 for Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota and former Peace Corps director Sargent Shriver of Maryland. McGovern was the presidential nominee selected at a tumultuous Democratic National political convention in Miami; his running mate, Shriver, wasn’t his first pick, as you’ll recall. The first selection was Sen. Thomas Eagleton of Missouri, who then revealed he had gone through treatment for depression; McGovern dumped him because at the time the public didn’t understand fully that Eagleton was cured of whatever ailed him.

But that was a vote of which I remain perhaps most proud of all the votes I’ve ever cast for any candidate running for any office.

I was nearly 23 years of age. The Constitution had been amended the previous year granting 18-year-olds the right to vote. But because the voting was still 21 when I was 18, I couldn’t vote in the 1968 election — even though I had a keen interest in that contest.

My own interest came from uncertainty about the Vietnam War and whether we were engaging in a conflict that was worth fighting. I had just returned home from my own service in the Army and came away from my time in Vietnam asking questions about the wisdom of our continuing along that futile course.

There also was that break-in at the Watergate office complex that would grow into a significant constitutional crisis.

Sen. McGovern was a war hero who rarely mentioned his combat service along the campaign trail. Meanwhile, his Republican foes kept denigrating his opposition to the Vietnam War as some sort of chicken-hearted cop-out. This man knew war. He’d fought it from the air as a bomber pilot in Europe during World War II.

McGovern’s opposition to the Vietnam War didn’t sell in the final analysis. Even though public opinion was deeply split on that war, McGovern would lose the election almost immediately after the polls closed. The TV networks declared President Nixon’s re-election literally within minutes of the polls closing.

It was over. Just like that.

I had taken on a duty for the McGovern campaign in my home state of Oregon. I helped spearhead a voter-registration effort at the community college I was attending. Our task was to register young Democrats to vote that year. We did well on the campus.

As a result — I’d like to think — Multnomah County went for McGovern narrowly over Nixon that year. Mission accomplished in our tiny portion of the world.

I’ve voted in every presidential election since. This was the first — and so far only — election in which I served as a foot soldier in a cause in which I believed. By the time 1976 rolled around, my journalism career had just begun. Therefore, all I could do was vote.

The campaign button reminds me of how idealistic I was in those days. It also reminds me of how much energy I possessed as a young man who saw politics as fun, exciting and quite noble.

Age has rubbed some of that idealism and energy away. But only some of it.