August 22, 2004
A "Voice" of Reason?
Posted by scott at August 22, 2004 12:07 PM
Hey, isn't the Village Voice supposed to be a center-left rag? If so, this is doubly interesting:
Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners—perhaps hundreds—were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.
A nice change from the "Kerry in Cambodia" stuff. Well, if you're a Bush supporter anyway.
Now, some in the peanut gallery seem to expect me to go digging around to find evidence that this is an obvious lie... you know, to avoid that terrible "Rhetoric" charge. To which I can only say it ain't my job to do something for free that newspapers pay people to do full time. If you have or find proof to the contrary, link it, that's what the comments are for. If you don't...
eMail this entry!
Unless evidence can come out to the contrary, this is absolutely unbelievable. As an ex-military member, this sort of behavior is so far past unnacceptable that I can't even describe it. Yes, this might be a minority view, but I believe that if there is credible evidence to prove that there are American soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines being held in a foreign country, our leaders are completely obligated to go and get them - let the means be economic, political, social, military (as a last resort), but this can't be allowed.
Potential commander in chief my ass
You realize, I hope, that Schanberg (the author of the article you cite) believes that Kerry and Dick Cheney cooperated in covering up the existence POWs, and that he also believes Kissinger, Nixon, Reagan and GHW Bush are complicit in the cover up?
In re-reading the article, I don't see that at all. I do see that Cheney was the Sec of Defense at the time, but I don't see any mention of his covering up or participating in the cover-up. There is definitely a potential link there based on his position, however, nothing that I can see states this. As for the other folks, it says that they weren't required or even asked, near as I can tell.
Now, if I'm missing something, please feel free to point it out (either in this article or from other sources). I'll be more than happy to do the appropriate research and, if I'm proven to be mistaken, I'll recant.
However, I will say that, in reading this article, it is very clear to me that the primary blame for this failure of our government has to do with the Chairman of the committee's absolute failure to discharge his duties. And that is the source of my comment.