Gosh, I seem to remember some groups claiming that the Dixie Chicks and Linda Ronstadt were victims of censorship. Now that someone wants to air Stolen Honor, many of the same folks are advocating a boycott and have even set up a web site to build support.
Talk about commitment to ideals!
All I can say is if that pack of lies is aired Faranheit 911 needs to see air time also, then let everyone decide which lies they prefer to believe.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — October 10, 2004 @ 2:35 pm
Bubba- Farenheit 9/11 has been released and has received an inordinate amount of media attention.
Are you suggesting that ‘Stolen Honor’ deserves less?
Comment by Alex — October 10, 2004 @ 3:03 pm
Have you seen it, or are you basing your opinion on the opinion of others?
I’m sure Moore’s film will get airtime. I’ve never had any doubt. And I, for one, will agree that if a station owner wants to show it, he can.
Comment by Bunker — October 10, 2004 @ 3:04 pm
I’ve read Kerry’s 1971 testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations several times to familiarize myself with the issues that are coming up in this election. Now, 1971 was 3 years prior to my birth, and I believe there’s no way I can understand that era in the same way as anyone who actually lived through it, but I just don’t read anything in that testimony that can really be construed as a “blanket accusation” of all (or even most) American troops in Vietnam.
Yes, it states that some people did some really atrocious things, and yes, it states that at times they were even pressed by their commanding officers to do such things. And honestly, I find pretty it hard to believe that all of the thousands and thousands of solidiers we sent to Vietnam were on their best behavior at all times… So many of them were young, inexperienced, and scared as hell, were they not? I’m not a history buff, but my feeble understanding is that they were fighting against guerilla tactics in totally foreign terrain on the other side of the world. It doesn’t sound like an easily controlled environment.
The entire testimony just reads to me as an indictment of the govenment’s policy towards communism as misguided and overzealous, with often tragic results… not an attempt to shame or slander those who’d served honorably or even those who’d acted otherwise. The swift boat vets’ group and the producers of “Stolen Honor” certainly took it as the latter, though. I think they’re well within their rights to hold a grudge and pursue the revenge they seem to crave. I still think I’m within my rights to conclude that much of their anger is misplaced.
Comment by Bogey — October 10, 2004 @ 3:58 pm
Also brought up by this post: I respectfully request that you refrain from linking to precinct333. Any site with a “Google bombs” section on every page is advertising a committment to bias and misinformation. Yes, the specific links in that column on that site are pretty much frivolous pranks, but it still reflects poorly on the author and affects your own credibility (as a linker to that site) when you state that bloggers in general are committed to truth.
It’s a plain-to-see fact that these dumbass Google bombs are perpetrated by both sides of the aisle, of course, but I would never knowingly link to to those on either side. Just trying to spread a little awareness.
Comment by Bogey — October 10, 2004 @ 4:15 pm
Didn’t notice Google bombs, as I seldom look at anything resembling ads. Must check!
The entire testimony just reads to me as an indictment of the govenment’s policy towards communism as misguided and overzealous, with often tragic results… not an attempt to shame or slander those who’d served honorably or even those who’d acted otherwise.
That is exactly what Kerry wanted to accomplish in regard to the government. Yet the tools he used were the men he demeaned. Whether he intended to slander them or not, he did. I don’t think Kerry had a clue as he had no sense of kinship with others in the military.
The key statement by Kerry which wiped kerosene in wounds was that he claimed the atrocities were not only commonplace, but pervasive and encouraged by the leadership. Were there atrocities? Yes. But I’ve known quite a few of the men who served multiple tours, and not once did anyone even mention anything on the order of what Kerry described. In fact, most of the men he cited in testimony were not only not combat veterans, but about half never even set foot in Vietnam. I’ve never seen anything showing that he committed any war crimes, although he said he did during that testimony.
Remember My Lai? Who took Calley to trial? I’ll give you a hint…he was court-martialled. Like Abu Ghraib, the military was on top of it before the media and politicians got the information and claimed to “break the story.”
I don’t have first-hand knowledge. But I “grew up” in the military with these men being my mentors. Not one, NOT ONE, would tolerate anything less than full honor and integrity. So I find it difficult to believe they would engage in such activity, or tolerate anyone who did. Such are the Swifties.
Comment by Bunker — October 10, 2004 @ 5:11 pm
Bogey, good for you on reading the actual testimony, based on the “winter-soldier” hearings in Michigan, in 1970. I was too young to serve but I questioned the hell out of why we were in Vietnam, the “domino theory” rationale just did not make any sense to my young mind. I am not a fan of either guy and I may just write in Mays Gilliam as a protest vote.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — October 10, 2004 @ 6:32 pm
Bunker Faranheit 911 has been only a theatrical release, and not aired on our “free” airwaves. Stolen Honor has not to my knowledge been released in theaters. PLease note I have not seen 911, and I also refer to it as “lies”. Geez I am an equal oppurtunity basher here, thought you figgered that out by now.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — October 10, 2004 @ 6:37 pm
And I’m pretty proud of him for reading them, too. I haven’t. And I don’t intend to. I felt the sting of the entire anti-war, anti-military movement quite personally, and have no interest in being a part of the entire issue. It might make me mad, and I don’t want to get to that point. Anger tends to cloud your thought processes.
What I can offer is a personal assessment of the period. Movies such as Full Metal Jacket and Platoon which are placed in the peiod have done a lot to perpetuate the sense Americans have that atrocities were everyday occurrances. I enjoyed both movies, but they are simply that.
Read the post once more. Whether the movie is factual or not is irrelevant to the issue. As I said, I fully expect Moore’s movie to be shown prior to the election, as well.
And that’s what free speech is about–the Government can’t stop it. But market forces can. So, if you believe in a free market economy, you can boycott if you wish.
Just don’t whine when someone boycotts something YOU believe in.
*********
Bubba, you and I were commenting at the same time, so I didn’t see yours until I posted mine.
I generally agree that you don’t go off the deep end. Whether either film was released in theaters or not is irrelevant also. Moore would find an eager network to air it if he chooses, but I think that eliminates him from Oscar contention if he does. Based on his recent comments, I doubt he’ll do it. The other film is to be shown on several stations owned by one company. It won’t be carried on a major network, except on certain affiliates.
I won’t watch. I won’t see Fahrenheit 9/11, either. I doubt either one adds to the discussion.
Comment by Bunker — October 10, 2004 @ 6:43 pm
The Google bombs don’t resemble ads; they’re a list of text links under an explictly labeled Google bombs header. I’m sure you’ll see for yourself.
Well, I’m not quite sure it’d be the first thing they’d want to talk about.
Slander is often in the eye of the beholder. I believe strongly enough in the overall integrity of our armed forces to not take it as a blanket condemnation and let it forever taint my perception. And I’ve also seen enough truly horrible conduct from members of our armed forces with my own eyes to not dismiss it as a completely useless pack of lies… (Though I think you know I have stronger-than-healthy doubts about anything anyone who would ever run for president from any party has to say.)
And no, I don’t remember My Lai and I don’t know who Calley even is. I wasn’t born yet, and I’m not a history or war buff either. If they covered it in school at some point, forgive me for forgetting. Are you trying to show that the military absolutely always court-martials everyone who does anything out of line?
Comment by Bogey — October 10, 2004 @ 6:47 pm
I’m saying the military will take quick action when necessary. Not everyone gets a court-martial. Many will be offered the Article 15 option, which is non-judicial punishment. If they decline, it goes to trial. Depending on the rank of the officer in command, an Article 15 can carry penalties just short of life in prison or execution.
As to stories being told, you would be amazed at things said over beers. But things of the nature Kerry mentions were universally condemned. I have known people in the military I would be wary of in a combat zone. They are the same people I would be wary of in a dark alley in downtown Austin.
The My Lai trial made F. Lee Baily famous. He represented Major Earnest Medina, who was Lt Calley’s superior. Calley and his team destroyed a Vietnamese village and killed everyone. Calley was convicted, Medina found innocent. It was quite the trial.
Comment by Bunker — October 10, 2004 @ 7:00 pm
When you consider that many of the men in the film are POWs who spent years suffering torture at the hand of the folks Kerry gave aid and comfort to after his return to the US, I think there is a special reason to give them a hearing on what they suffered at the hands of their captors. Those captors used Kerry and his testimony as a psychological tool to attempt to get them to betray their country. And before you ask, having grown up in a military family during Vietnam, I am very familiar with the events and times, and even have heard such testimony from the mouth of a former POW with my own two ears.
And to Bogey, a hearty Kiss My *. If you find that littele section at the bottom of the page to be too confusing, I suggest that you DON”T CLICK THE LINKS UNDER THE GOOGLE BOMB BANNER!
Comment by ThePrecinctChair — October 10, 2004 @ 7:19 pm
PrecinctChair, I don’t find that section of your site “confusing” in the least. From your comment (and you really don’t have to yell here, Bunker runs a respectable house), it sounds kind of like you’re the one who’s a little confused, because it really doesn’t mean anything to Google whether anyone clicks on the links or not. (Google bombs overview)
I read posts of yours whenever Bunker links to them, and I’ve actually read some very good ones. I also think you can boost your credibility, and make your site better, by getting rid of the Google bombs section. So you offer me, someone you’ve never had an exchange with before, a “hearty kiss my asterisk” just for mentioning that. Yet one of your current homepage posts is all about toning down the rhetoric… Whatever, Mr. Chairperson.
Comment by Bogey — October 10, 2004 @ 8:28 pm
All I did was respond to you on the level that seemed appropriate to the level of class you had displayed.
Let’s see — you launch an attack on me and my credibility based upon one tiny item at the bottom of my page, and request that there be no future links to me because of it, despite having never made any prior contact with ME. But in your mind I am the bad guy for making the suggestion in question? You have a lot of gall, Bogey, to act like the wounded party — I’m not the guy who launced a behind the back attack on someone over trivia.
By the way — the post about toning down the rhetoric was about avoiding broad-brush statements attacking everyone who holds a dissenting opinion or who disagrees with my position. It does not apply to individuals who show themselves to be worthy of contempt. Just so you know, I was actually coming back to request that Bunker edit my earlier suggestion out of the post — but now wish I had a way to go back and put it in bold-face instead.
Comment by ThePrecinctChair — October 10, 2004 @ 9:34 pm
Bear in mind, Chair, that I make any request to Bunker knowing full well that he’ll most likely exercise his right to ignore it completely!
Seriously, if you took it that personally, I apologize for singling you out — it was an intended tirade on Google bombs in general, and so it was a poor choice by me to get onto the topic by pointing someone out and requesting no more links to that person.
I sincerely ask your forgiveness and grant you all benefit of the doubt — I know you’re a teacher, and I’ve been one myself, and the job requires enough patience that I suppose you can’t have much left over for online squabbles.
I just as sincerely ask you to seriously think about my point on what having a “Google bombs” section on your blog says about you. You called it “one tiny item at the bottom of my page” but a decent set of principles is composed of a lot of tiny items. I still think this is one of them.
Or you can just tell me to just *&^%$ off and that’ll be that.
Comment by Bogey — October 10, 2004 @ 11:28 pm
Apparently someone has not learned HTML tags, whereby you can make your posts stand out like this 😉
Sorry Bunker, I just had to go into wiseass mode.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — October 11, 2004 @ 1:00 am
Bogey — fair enough. I’d prefer nt to contiue the sniping, and find what you wrote in your last post to be reasonable. Your first post DID come across as a personal attack, hence a somewhat cranky response. After all, it was directed at me and my site. But I accept your explanation, because I’ve been less than artful in some of my posts, too.
And yes, I will give your comments on the googlebombing isue some consideration. Since my email address is on my page, I wish you had contacted me rather than making the comment you did in this forum. I would have been significantly more receptive.
Comment by ThePrecinctChair — October 11, 2004 @ 5:52 am
Bubba — I meant RETROACTIVELY boldface an earlier post. 😉
Comment by ThePrecinctChair — October 11, 2004 @ 5:53 am
Ahhh ok Precinct, I read a few of your opinions and I think I’ll be visiting your site on a regular basis.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — October 11, 2004 @ 8:29 pm
Bubba, don’t be too hard on him!
Comment by Bunker — October 12, 2004 @ 11:40 am
Glad to have you, Bubba — and Bunker, sorry for my tiff with Bogey on your bandwidth.
Comment by ThePrecinctChair — October 12, 2004 @ 2:39 pm
I did the math — the POWs in this documentary collectively served over 108 YEARS of captivity in N. Vietnamese hell-holes. But Kerry and his supporters find it unacceptable that they have their say on television before the election.
Ditto Sherwood, the producer, who has a combat record that meets or exceeds Kerry’s — and his three combat wounds seem to have required more than band-aids.
The ONLY Vietnam vet who the Kerry supporters want on television talking about Kerry’s service seems to be John Kerry — or perhaps those former crewmates who support him. THAT is the scandalously unAmerican part about this controversy, not the decision by Sinclair to broadcast Stolen Honor.
Comment by ThePrecinctChair — October 13, 2004 @ 2:00 pm