The Left's Unclear Standards when it comes to Questioning the CiC

[mal]

Barry Talking about why it's Wrong to Question his Ah-thor-ah-tie as POTUS and why he had to Kick the General's Ass today!:

Transcript of President Obama's Remarks on Gen. Stanley McChrystal

But war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or a president. And as difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe that it is the right decision for our national security. - BarryInc in the Rose Garden today.

The Left's War Hero who was in the Naval Reserves until 1978... 7 YEARS after he said these things Under Oath to the US Senate:

https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/johnkerrytestimony.html

REQUEST FOR ACTION BY CONGRESS

We are asking here in Washington for some action, action from the Congress of the United States of America which as the power to raise and maintain armies, and which by the Constitution also has the power to declare war.

We have come here, not to the President, because we believe that this body can be responsive to the will of the people, and we believe that the will of the people says that we should be out of Vietnam now....


WHERE IS THE LEADERSHIP?

We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric, and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded.

The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching begin them in the sun in this country....



Editorial Note: Concluding his formal statement, Kerry commented about administration attempts to disown veterans and looked forward thirty years (to 2001) when the nation could look back proudly to a time when it turned from this war and the hate and fears driving us in Vietnam.

Following his formal testimony, the committee members questioned him during their discussion of some of the legislative proposals under consideration. In the course of this discussion, Kerry spoke with considerable familiarity and understanding about disengagement and withdrawal proposals being considered. In response to a question from Senator Aiken, Kerry endorsed "extensive reparations to the people of Indochina" as a "very definite obligation" of the U.S. (p. 191).
Kerry also commented on growth of American opposition to the war, the actions of Lt. Calley at My Lai, and strategic implications of the war.

...He also cited the "exorbitant" power of the Executive, faulting Congress.
---

Interesting...

Kerry was a Lt. at the Time...

So when is it OK to take the President to Task if you are in the Military?...

Apparently the Left has More than One Standard on this Issue.



peace...

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It was a stupid *beeping* idea when the left encouraged the military to speak out against the CiC, and its a bad *beeping beeping* idea now.

It comes down to this: The Constitution, highest law of the land, puts the President and the civilian authorities at the top of the chain of command. If there are issues, they need to be passed up the chain. Airing your issues with a superior out for the public to see is a no no in the chain of command for a good reason.

Its bad for the Republic as a whole to allow the Military to try to do an end run around the White House. I don't care about your opinion of the man, but if you're in the Armed Forces, respect the Office and respect your Oath.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It was a stupid *beeping* idea when the left encouraged the military to speak out against the CiC, and its a bad *beeping beeping* idea now.

It comes down to this: The Constitution, highest law of the land, puts the President and the civilian authorities at the top of the chain of command. If there are issues, they need to be passed up the chain. Airing your issues with a superior out for the public to see is a no no in the chain of command for a good reason.

Its bad for the Republic as a whole to allow the Military to try to do an end run around the White House. I don't care about your opinion of the man, but if you're in the Armed Forces, respect the Office and respect your Oath.

And what would that oath be? and who or what is the oath made to?

 

[RadiomanATL]

You embarrass the CinC when you are a high ranking officer, you get fired, or resign to "spend more time with your family". This crosses party lines.

Lt. Kerry didn't break into the embarrassment threshold. He was, at most, a nuisance. He was one of many low ranking officers questioning the policy. And he did it "nicely" (aka, followed some sort of etiquette and protocol). Not blindsiding the administration in an interview rife with the writer of the article saying "fuck, fucking, etc.", and being quoted as calling administration officials morons, etc.

You can look at it three ways.

1)Either Kerry truly wanted to be respectful of the administration and wished to do it in a manner in which politicians recognize (boring hearings and speeches)

2) He didn't have the balls to go it alone, grab his crotch and wave his middle finger at Nixon.

3) Both. In that he didn't want to hurt his future as a career politician.

I'm going with 3.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It was a stupid *beeping* idea when the left encouraged the military to speak out against the CiC, and its a bad *beeping beeping* idea now.

It comes down to this: The Constitution, highest law of the land, puts the President and the civilian authorities at the top of the chain of command. If there are issues, they need to be passed up the chain. Airing your issues with a superior out for the public to see is a no no in the chain of command for a good reason.

Its bad for the Republic as a whole to allow the Military to try to do an end run around the White House. I don't care about your opinion of the man, but if you're in the Armed Forces, respect the Office and respect your Oath.

And what would that oath be? and who or what is the oath made to?

This one:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Not being an oath of fealty, it is not made to anyone.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It was a stupid *beeping* idea when the left encouraged the military to speak out against the CiC, and its a bad *beeping beeping* idea now.

It comes down to this: The Constitution, highest law of the land, puts the President and the civilian authorities at the top of the chain of command. If there are issues, they need to be passed up the chain. Airing your issues with a superior out for the public to see is a no no in the chain of command for a good reason.

Its bad for the Republic as a whole to allow the Military to try to do an end run around the White House. I don't care about your opinion of the man, but if you're in the Armed Forces, respect the Office and respect your Oath.

And what would that oath be? and who or what is the oath made to?

You swear to uphold the Constitution, which put the President, no matter who that currently is, at the head of the Armed Forces making him your higher up in the Chain of Command.

There's a good reason the Constitution did that, or would you rather the Military ran the Government?

 

[bucs90]

The left's standards for questioning a president are extremely clear:

Conservative President? Attack, attack, attack.

Liberal President? Make excuses, then blame Bush.


Pretty clear about their idea on presidential questioning.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The left's standards for questioning a president are extremely clear:

Conservative President? Attack, attack, attack.

Liberal President? Make excuses, then blame Bush.


Pretty clear about their idea on presidential questioning.

Swap left with Right and the same thing is true about the other side of the spectrum.

What's pretty sad is that anyone with a knowledge of history and a functioning brain knows that regardless of party of President, what McChrystal did was a bad idea. Encouraging it is worse.

Blasted partisans will be the end of all of us.

 

[FA_Q2]

But it does mention the president AND the UCMJ, which makes statements like his illegal.

 

[FA_Q2]

By and by, what random said is true. Kerry, as much as I dispise the man, was in front of CONGRESS. A path that is left open to the military to resolve disputes with your chain of command if the chain fails you. That is why he would be within his rights. Not to mention it was policy he was asking congress to change, not going in there and calling anyone a buffoon.

 

[uscitizen]

The left's standards for questioning a president are extremely clear:

Conservative President? Attack, attack, attack.

Liberal President? Make excuses, then blame Bush.


Pretty clear about their idea on presidential questioning.

Just swap conservative and liberal around in that statement and you have the partisan parrots on both sides covered.

I don't recall the cons ragging on Bush when he was having military leadership problems in Iraq?

 

[Greenbeard]

Lt. Kerry didn't break into the embarrassment threshold.

I'd have to concur. A comparison is being drawn here between disparaging personal remarks from a general and his top aides appearing in Rolling Stone and critical but measured testimony given to the U.S. Senate by a young lieutenant. That's a tough comparison to make.

 

[mal]

Lt. Kerry didn't break into the embarrassment threshold.

I'd have to concur. A comparison is being drawn here between disparaging personal remarks from a general and his top aides appearing in Rolling Stone and critical but measured testimony given to the U.S. Senate by a young lieutenant. That's a tough comparison to make.

Well, unless Lying to the US Senate about what you Witnessed and your Testimony being Used by the Enemy to Torture our POW's isn't "Embarrassing"...



peace...

 

[Wolpertinger]

Lt. Kerry didn't break into the embarrassment threshold.

I'd have to concur. A comparison is being drawn here between disparaging personal remarks from a general and his top aides appearing in Rolling Stone and critical but measured testimony given to the U.S. Senate by a young lieutenant. That's a tough comparison to make.

Well, unless Lying to the US Senate about what you Witnessed and your Testimony being Used by the Enemy to Torture our POW's isn't "Embarrassing"...



peace...

I signed up just to post this, because it shows a serious distortion of the truth - It's pretty 'embarassing' to spread falsehoods merely to smear the name of someone disliked. John Kerry never actually lied in congress, and anyone who actually read the transcript of his testimony can clearly see so.

factcheck.org/article244.html shows most of the accusation pretty clearly.

And I quote:
"Kerry Senate Testimony (1971): I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Note how he's referring to speeches given by other veterans at a meeting he went to. In fact, he states several times that he did not witness them himself. Whatever you might say about the truthfulness of the accusations given by the veterans, all he did was believe the words of other, fellow veterans. Not exactly a hanging offense.

 

[mal]

I'd have to concur. A comparison is being drawn here between disparaging personal remarks from a general and his top aides appearing in Rolling Stone and critical but measured testimony given to the U.S. Senate by a young lieutenant. That's a tough comparison to make.

Well, unless Lying to the US Senate about what you Witnessed and your Testimony being Used by the Enemy to Torture our POW's isn't "Embarrassing"...



peace...

I signed up just to post this, because it shows a serious distortion of the truth - It's pretty 'embarassing' to spread falsehoods merely to smear the name of someone disliked. John Kerry never actually lied in congress, and anyone who actually read the transcript of his testimony can clearly see so.

factcheck.org/article244.html shows most of it pretty clearly.

And I quote:
"Kerry Senate Testimony (1971): I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Note how he's referring to speeches given by other veterans at a meeting he went to. In fact, he states several times that he did not witness them himself. Whatever you might say about the truthfulness of the accusations given by the veterans, all he did was believe the words of other, fellow veterans. Not exactly a hanging offense.

Um... That's not all of his Testimony... There's Heaps.



peace...

 

[Wolpertinger]

then post some specific perjury.. that was the main one about lying to the senate people brought out during the election, and the main one used with the 'aided the enemy' argument (I guess we should ignore crime, because attempting to investigate it 'aids the enemy' and tortures soldiers).

The main other accusation involving him lying, though I don't think it had anything to do with 'torturing POWs', was the deal with the medals, which also was warped :

factcheck.org/article231.html

The Silver Star accusations mostly involved not understanding what specifically he was awarded the award for, while the bronze star is supported by the testimony of everyone who was actually in combat with him, as well as piles of paperwork. Medical reports as well as testimony also show the purple hearts were valid.

A lot of people were caught up in the hearsay here, and what started off as nasty rumors and misunderstandings somehow gained a lot of momentum.

 

[daveman]

I'd have to concur. A comparison is being drawn here between disparaging personal remarks from a general and his top aides appearing in Rolling Stone and critical but measured testimony given to the U.S. Senate by a young lieutenant. That's a tough comparison to make.

Well, unless Lying to the US Senate about what you Witnessed and your Testimony being Used by the Enemy to Torture our POW's isn't "Embarrassing"...



peace...

I signed up just to post this, because it shows a serious distortion of the truth - It's pretty 'embarassing' to spread falsehoods merely to smear the name of someone disliked. John Kerry never actually lied in congress, and anyone who actually read the transcript of his testimony can clearly see so.

factcheck.org/article244.html shows most of the accusation pretty clearly.

And I quote:
"Kerry Senate Testimony (1971): I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Note how he's referring to speeches given by other veterans at a meeting he went to. In fact, he states several times that he did not witness them himself. Whatever you might say about the truthfulness of the accusations given by the veterans, all he did was believe the words of other, fellow veterans. Not exactly a hanging offense.

The Winter Soldier "investigations" were a sham.

Many of the veterans, though assured that they would not be questioned about atrocities they might have committed personally, refused to be interviewed. One of the active members of the VVAW told investigators that the leadership had directed the entire membership not to cooperate with military authorities. A black Marine who agreed to be interviewed was unable to provide details of the outrages he had described at the hearing, but he called the Vietnam War "one huge atrocity" and "a racist plot." He admitted that the question of atrocities had not occurred to him while he was in Vietnam, and that he had been assisted in the preparation of his testimony by a member of the Nation of Islam. But the most damaging finding consisted of the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit. One of them had never been to Detroit in all his life. He did not know, he stated, who might have used his name. Incidents similar to some of those described at the VVAW hearing undoubtedly did occur. We know that hamlets were destroyed, prisoners tortured, and corpses mutilated. Yet these incidents either (as in the destruction of hamlets) did not violate the law of war or took place in breach of existing regulations. In either case, they were not, as alleged, part of a "criminal policy." The VVAW's use of fake witnesses and the failure to cooperate with military authorities and to provide crucial details of the incidents further cast serious doubt on the professed desire to serve the causes of justice and humanity. It is more likely that this inquiry, like others earlier and later, had primarily political motives and goals.

-----

A certain amount of this guilt feeling was probably encouraged by the leaders of these groups, all staunch opponents of the war, and there is reason to think that at least some of the atrocities confessed at these rap sessions (and perhaps later repeated in public) were induced by group expectations and pressures. Some were the product of fantasy on the part of emotionally disturbed individuals. Robert Lifton, another psychiatrist involved in these sessions who believes in the frequent occurrence of atrocities, recalls the case of one veteran who after a year's attendance in the rap group could "confess that he had been much less violent in Vietnam than he had implied. He had previously given the impression that he had killed many people there, whereas in actuality, despite extensive combat experience, he could not be certain he had killed anyone. After overcoming a certain amount of death anxiety and death guilt, that is, he had much less need to call forth his inner beast to lash out at others or himself."

 

[Wolpertinger]

Yeah, the validity of them wasn't what was in question here - I was responding to the accusation that Kerry lied in his testimony to congress - All he did was believe the testimony of veterans in these investigations, which was reasonable enough.

 

[daveman]

Yeah, the validity of them wasn't what was in question here - I was responding to the accusation that Kerry lied in his testimony to congress - All he did was believe the testimony of veterans in these investigations, which was reasonable enough.

No, it wasn't reasonable. I expect he was in on pressuring the veterans to come up with something damning. Plus, he just plain looked stupid when he invoked "Jenjis Khan".

 

[Wolpertinger]

How would he be 'pressuring' an entire meeting of 150+ veterans on the spot, when all he was was a relatively nameless lieutenant in the audience? Random guessing about what he might have done without anything to back it up does not make him guilty of perjury.

I guess you're saying it's unreasonable to trust the word of a veteran because you disagree with him politically?