In hitting Barack Obama because of his perceived ‘celebrity,’ is John McCain missing something essential about the world we live in? Using the work of famed war reporter Nick Ut, who worked in Vietnam and recently made news by photographing Paris Hilton crying on her way to prison, Joao Pereira Coutinho of Portugal’s Expresso newspaper writes in part:
“I’m stupefied by John McCain’s attitude in comparing Barack Obama to Paris Hilton - a feat that Hilton has already responded to with a video that is as inevitably burlesque and as it is vacuous - and which has proven a great success among the weak-minded masses. In the archaic mind of John McCain, calling his opponent a ‘celebrity’ will bring him disrepute. Poor McCain: in the 21st Century, it is disreputable not to be one.”
…while McCain has given so much to his country, thousands of veterans–past and present–have given as much or more. In this war alone, thousands of troops have lost limbs, been paralyzed, and been burned beyond recognition. So to see McCain resort to playing the POW card when answering legitimate questions, in my mind, cheapens that experience.
This very legitimate comment brings up a related, relevant issue. The issue is McCain’s silence on — and thus his tacit approval of — slurs and smears against his opponent, Barack Obama. Especially the most vile and recent ones brought to your neighborhood bookstore by the co-author of the Republican bestseller “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” Jerome Corsi.
We are talking about Corsi’s latest master piece, “The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality,” a 384-page book jam-packed with unsubstantiated allegations (despite the million “footnotes”), slurs and smears against Barack Obama, and one that promises to be a gold mine of material for innumerable “inspiring and noble” ads by the McCain campaign and its attack dogs.
What does all this have to do with John McCain’s military service, his sacrifices, and the war sacrifices of others? Bear with me.
Think back to the 2000 primary season when John McCain’s sacrifices as a prisoner of war in Vietnam were blasphemed by rumors put out by similar groups as the Swiftboaters; rumors that he had been too-scarred by his experiences and torture as a POW to be able to handle the rigors of the presidency of the United States. By the way, at that time, George W. Bush did the same about the attacks on his Republican opponent as McCain is doing today about the attacks on his Democratic opponent: Nothing!
Now, go forward—just a little bit—to the heinous attacks on triple amputee, Vietnam War hero, Senator Max Cleland. Led by righteous, never-served, Ralph Reed (who compared the hero who left three limbs in Vietnam to Osama and Saddam), these groups ravaged the heroism, and the political career, of this great American.
We all know—know it too well—the infamous swiftboating of John Kerry by the well-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, so aptly assisted by Jerome Corsi.
And so we have come full circle: John McCain who promised a “clean” campaign; who himself “has given so much to his country,” albeit not as much as triple amputee Max Cleland, and thousand of others; who himself was smeared by the likes of the Swiftboaters, now that he has a golden opportunity — no, an obligation — to condemn the slurs and smears by Corsi and his ilk…does and says nothing.
That is what make Brandon Friedman’s comments at Vet Voice on McCain “playing the POW card” related and relevant to his damning silence–a silence that says much more about the man than a thousand scripted “my friends” lines.
Senator McCain, there is still time to distance yourself, to break the silence. You showed you could do it, even in a “Cone of Silence.”
If the title of this post has you befuddled, you are not alone, but please bear with me.
My hometown newspaper this morning carried a story by Eunice Moscoso, on whether Senator John McCain is a natural born U.S. citizen, and whether he is eligible to be U.S. president.
This is not the first time that this issue has been raised and, I am sure, it will not be the last time.
At the heart of this “controversy” lies the fact that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone–not within the 50 United States–and that the Constitution restricts the presidency to “natural born” citizens.
Among other factors, pro and con, playing a role are, according to Moscoso:
1. Whether the Panama Canal Zone was part of the United States at the time (1936) when McCain was born there. Some scholars, such as law professor Jonathan Turley claim that “military installations, such as the one in Panama, were sitting on leased land and were never part of U.S. Soil.” Others, such as Harvard’s Laurence Tribe and former Solicitor General Theodore Olson claim that there is “substantial legal support”–including a 1986 Supreme Court opinion–that the United States “exercised sovereignty” over the Panama Canal Zone.
2. The fact that both of McCain’s parents were American citizens and that, according to Tribe and Olson, the framers never intended to exclude children of military officers serving outside the continental United States from the presidency.
3. The fact that “Federal law defines a natural born citizen in various ways, including one that clearly includes children of military officers overseas.”
Overarching all this, the fact that the framers of the Constitution never defined the term “natural born.”
Personally, I don’t think this needs to be such a big issue. Especially when there are so many other issues–such as qualifications, character, ability, judgment, etc.–that are much more important when assessing candidates for the presidency.
Also, I am somewhat biased on this issue. You see, my daughter was born on an American military installation in Germany. Both her mother and I are, and were, U.S. citizens. And–I know this is a loving father talking and hoping–should she ever want to run for the highest office, I would not want to see her disqualified just because her father was, as we say, serving his country overseas at the time of her birth.
Now, back to the title of this story, “Can Egyptian Born McCain Be President?“
Actually, that is the title eventually given to a translated article that appeared in March of this year at “Watching America.” The article was translated from Russian and from the on-line Pravda, Pravda.ru.
The literal translation, according to Watching America translators is: “The McCain Incident–An Egyptian May Be the President of the U.S.”
Now, I don’t speak Russian, but I know the “Watching America” Russian translators are very good at what they do, so I don’t doubt the accuracy of their translation. Furthermore, when one “googles” the Russian article and requests “translate this article,” one gets this translation for the title, “Kazus McCain: President of the United States could become ‘Egyptian‘” While some of the Google foreign language translations are fair, they are by no means perfect. But one can readily tell that there is something “funny” about the title–and perhaps the story.
And lo and behold, once we get into the translated text (the article discusses the presidential primaries battles between McCain, Clinton and Obama), we read the following:
A new issue has arisen. The issue is that John McCain was born in Egypt. To run for the presidency of the US, one must be born in the United States, but both the father and mother of the senator were citizens of the United States. Therefore it is unlikely that the circumstances mentioned above will hinder McCain in any way.
And, in a question and answer session between Pravda and “the president of the Institute of Strategic Rankings and Analysis, professor of the Department of the Applied Political Sciences of the Higher School of Economics, professor MGIMO Alexander Konovalov.”:
Q: There is some news coming from the press that McCain, as a candidate, may be hurt by the fact that he was not born in the US, but in Egypt. Is it true that this fact could be a hindrance to his campaign or is it simply gossip that is a part of all campaigns?
A: In principle Obama may have a bigger problem because he is a son of a Kenyan student and a white American woman. Then the Kenyan student left for Kenya and abandoned his girlfriend (sic) with little Obama. After that she married an Indonesian and they left for Indonesia for a prolonged period of time.
I don’t remember how the Constitution stipulates this, but I do know that a child born into a military family becomes an American citizen. McCain has a “winning” biography. He spent five years as a POW in Vietnam; he was tortured; he spent five years in a hole. Actually, as he was tortured by the Vietnamese, he heard Russian speech in the next room. And in his words, these people periodically recommended to the Vietnamese how best to torture McCain.
He’s twice married; his second wife is Miss Arizona. He has seven children; three of which are adopted. Therefore, I find it unlikely that with such an excellent resume, the fact that McCain was born in Egypt will play any role in the election.
I have no reason to think that the Russian article is a hoax. I have suggested to both my hometown newspaper and to the New York Times that they may want to look into how prestigious Pravda could make such a monumental mistake (and some other smaller ones), but they have not.
I have come up with my own explanation for the mystery surrounding McCain’s birth place, Egypt or Panama.
As many remember, the British controlled zone of the Suez Canal was also known as the “Canal Zone,” just like the Panama “Canal Zone.“ Perhaps the writers of the “McCain an Egyptian” article, and others, had read that McCain was born in the “Canal Zone” and automatically assumed that it was the Suez “Canal Zone.” Coincidentally, the year that McCain was born (1936) is the same year that Britain, after having “protected” the “neutral canal zone” since 1888, signed a treaty with Egypt retaining control over the canal.
As a footnote, had McCain been born in the Suez Canal Zone, it might have been an even stickier case to prove that he is a “natural born” U.S. citizen. Furthermore, the present “anti-anything remotely resembling/associated with Muslims” climate might not have helped him either–as is sadly the case with the other presidential candidate.
I actually got a head-start on the holiday because I read the July 4 issue of that great military newspaper, the Stars and Stripes, on July 3. You see, because of the time difference, the Middle East edition of the Stars and Stripes is published around 2 PM Central Standard Time, in effect “the day before.“
In the July 4 issue there is an opinion piece, “In foot-in-mouth contest, Clark is swiftest,” by Jay Ambrose, in which Ambrose takes retired Gen. Wesley Clark to task for remarks he made about John McCain. Ambrose quotes Clark saying, “riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down” is no qualification to be president. Ambrose continues, “ and the immediate accusation was that he was guilty of “swift boating.”
First, let’s put Clark’s remarks in context.
In a question-and answer session with Bob Schieffer on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Clark praised McCain‘s service and sacrifice as a prisoner of war: “I certainly honor [McCain’s] service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war,” and on his service in the Senate: “He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world,” but, Clark continued, “he hasn’t held executive responsibility” “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”
Actually, back in March, in a conference call with reporters, Clark did a much better job of articulating his criticism of McCain and of putting his views in context. He then said: “Everybody admires John McCain’s service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There’s no issue there. He’s a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn’t prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn’t give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues.”
Second, as to the accusation that Clark “was guilty of ‘swift boating.’ I say “hogwash,“ because that is patently ridiculous and because I am not aware of any “immediate accusation that [Clark] was guilty of ‘swift boating’” in any serious media.
I say it is a patently ridiculous accusation–and I will add disingenuous and manufactured–for the following reasons:
1. General Clark’s remarks by no stretch of the (objective) imagination rise to the level of the despicable tactics used by those who conducted the defamatory media blitz against John Kerry four years ago and, as a result, gave the term “swift boating” such an odious connotation.
2. Democrats would not use such a term to characterize the remarks of a fellow Democrat, especially those of a distiguished retired General.
3. Republicans and Conservatives are trying to put that heinous episode behind them, and–as Ambrose himself would agree–attempting to reclaim the good name “Swift Boat,“ and would not themselves continue to perpetuate its odious connotation by using it to characterize Clark’s remarks.
Finally, a reason for Ambrose to use such a term to describe Clark’s remarks, might have been to be able to launch into a discourse against what he calls “Disgrace Number Two” which, according to him is “the use of the word ‘swift boating‘ to describe mendacious slurs on a political candidate.”
After first–pardon the expression–swift boating General Clark’s military record, Ambrose quotes from a June 30 New York Times article (“Veterans Long to Reclaim the Name ‘Swift Boat’”): “’Swift boat’ has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears.” He then says, “But the real smear is against the honorable Vietnam veterans of swift boat service who raised serious, responsible allegations against Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.”
Ambrose then goes on to rehash, and to try to justify, many of the same accusations that made “Swift Boat “ “the “synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears“ to begin with.
Glaringly absent from Ambrose‘s primer on “Swift boating” is the following, still from the same New York Times article:
By the association’s count, about 3,600 men served aboard Swift boats in Vietnam, 600 officers and 3,000 enlisted. About 200 signed the letter that became the basis of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign in 2004. In advertisements, a best-selling book and extensive news media appearances, they accused Mr. Kerry of fabricating exploits to win his military decorations and a discharge just four months into a yearlong tour.
And,
Navy documents contradicted many of their accusations, but the claims undermined what Democrats had hoped would be Mr. Kerry’s strength. Regardless of what they thought of Mr. Kerry, many Swift boat veterans objected to the attacks. “It was unconscionable,” said Stan Collier, who served as an officer in charge on a boat based in Qui Nhon. “I thought those boys struck a new low.”
And, continuing with Stan Collier:
Mr. Collier considers himself a conservative and did not agree with Mr. Kerry’s politics, but he voted for him to protest the Swift boat campaign. “We’ve all been attributed to the sleaziness that those guys assigned to Kerry,” he said. “I think we’ve all been demeaned.”
I do agree with Ambrose on one thing. It is a shame that a name associated with so many brave veterans–especially the ones who had nothing to do with the attack on Senator Kerry–has become a political pejorative, and that these heroes should get their good name back. Especially, as the Times says, “the good names of the men not lucky enough to come home alive.”
It is hoped that more and more of these heroes will come forward to disassociate themselves from the group that has brought them so much grief. Harlan Ullman, a Swift boat driver in Vietnam and a Pentagon consultant has written: “It is time to ban a word that is at once offensive, demeaning and obscene both to and for anyone serving in the naval profession. That word is ‘Swiftboating.’”
And,
…as Americans get to know more and more about those 3,400 brave people who did not participate in the besmirching of good men and women for purely political reasons, the quicker the original shine will be returned to the name Swift boaters.
In a USA Today story, “Price of Power: McCain accepts ex-Swift Boaters’ donations,” we learn that Senator John McCain, who four years ago condemned the “Swift Boat’s” attacks on Vietnam veteran John Kerry as “dishonest and dishonorable,” has now accepted nearly $70,000 from the top donors of this group.
According to USA Today,
That’s nearly four times the amount McCain received from those donors in the 14 years before launching his current campaign at the end of 2006, campaign finance records show. In 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (later called SwiftVets and POWS for Truth) bankrolled ads charging that Kerry had lied about the incidents in Vietnam that led to his military decorations. The group included former members of the Navy who served in the same kind of river patrol boats as Kerry.
And,
McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said in an e-mail that McCain accepted the money because the donors are “interested in supporting (his) agenda of reform, prosperity and peace.”
Just a couple of observations.
First, is it morally and ethically correct for a presidential candidate to accept campaign contributions from, say, the most heinous organizations or people, just because they support his or her agenda?
Second: Of course, John McCain has every right to accept such contributions from the group that he condemned four years ago for smearing his fellow Vietnam War veteran, John Kerry. Just like he will have every right to –after having pocketed their contributions–once again condemn the group when and if its Swiftboating of Barack Obama begins.
On a related note, The New York Times in an article yesterday (June 30), “Veterans Long to Reclaim the Name ‘Swift Boat’,” describes how “Swift boat” “has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears, a shadow that hangs over the presidential race as pundits wait to proclaim that the Swiftboating has begun and candidates declare that they will not be Swiftboated,” and how the true “Swift boat veterans — especially those who had nothing to do with the group that attacked Senator John Kerry’s military record in the 2004 election — want their good name back, and the good names of the men not lucky enough to come home alive.”
Again, just two observations.
First, it is good to hear from those Swift boat veterans who had nothing to do with one of the most vicious and shameful smear campaigns in recent political history. By their Association’s count, only about 200 of the approximately 3,600 men who served aboard Swift boats in Vietnam, signed the letter that became the basis of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign in 2004. It is truly a shame that the actions of a relatively few have so gravely damaged the reputation of so many brave men.
As one of their own–Stan Collier, who according to the Times, served as an officer in charge on a boat based in Qui Nhon–says, “It was unconscionable,” “I thought those boys struck a new low.” And, “We’ve all been attributed to the sleaziness that those guys assigned to Kerry,”. “I think we’ve all been demeaned.”
Second, it is hoped that more and more of these heroes will come forward to disassociate themselves from the group that has brought them so much grief. Harlan Ullman, a Swift boat driver in Vietnam and a Pentagon consultant has written: “It is time to ban a word that is at once offensive, demeaning and obscene both to and for anyone serving in the naval profession. That word is ‘Swiftboating.’ ”
While it is unlikely that the word “Swiftboating” can or will ever be banned, one way for such an “offensive, demeaning and obscene” connotation to gradually diminish may be when and if those who initially brought about such an association discontinue such activities.
But, as Americans get to know more and more about those 3,400 brave people who did not participate in the besmirching of good men and women for purely political reasons, the quicker the original shine will be returned to the name Swift boaters.
Yesterday, I wrote a column comparing–contrasting–the Vietnamese refugee crisis with the present and ongoing Iraqi refugee crisis. My comments were based mostly on personal experiences and on personal views on the issue. Most of the experiences came from a stint of military duty in 1975 at one of the Vietnamese refugee camps as a Senior Refugee Liaison Officer–a tour of duty that turned out to be one of the most fascinating and rewarding aspects of my entire Air Force career.
Coincidentally, and fortunately, today’s Los Angeles Times carried a column, “The shortchanging of Iraqi refugees,” written by Morton Abramowitz, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and a board member of the International Rescue Committee. He also was the U.S. ambassador to Thailand (1978-81) and Turkey (1989-91). I say “fortunately” because while, as I said, my piece was based mostly on personal experience, Abramowitz column is steeped in professional knowledge and experience at the highest multinational levels in the areas of human rights, international rescue, refugees and crisis prevention missions and activities. Where else to go to both fact-check and complement my original article in such rapid succession?
Ambassador Abramowitz first provides a historic perspective on present and past refugee crises by pointing out that, “Since World War II, American actions have unintentionally created three huge refugee crises: the Indochinese in Southeast Asia, the Kurds of northern Iraq and now a third: the Iraqis displaced by today’s war.”
He then describes the professional, humanitarian and compassionate way in which the U.S. handled the Indochinese refugee crisis–“an extraordinary act“– and how the Kurdish refugee crisis was resolved.
With respect to the present Iraqi refugee crisis, the Ambassador has this to say:
Our war has displaced 4 million Iraqis since 2003, including 2 million now living beyond its borders in tough conditions. Yet we have allowed this vast, potentially destabilizing refugee burden to be borne mostly by Syria and Jordan. We have provided some aid to host countries but none to Syria, and we have allowed only a trickle of Iraqis (fewer than 10,000 so far) to resettle in the U.S. — far fewer than have been taken in by Sweden.
And,
For five years, the U.S. has failed to make Iraq’s refugee exodus a focus of national or international attention. The U.S. has allowed the crisis to be managed by concerned but second-tier American officials, and it has been slow to provide financial assistance. This year’s aid, the most generous so far, will surpass $200 million — but it is still only a quarter of what is needed, relief agencies say. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees complained last month that he would run out of funds in August.
Abramowitz then goes on to explain the differing responses to the three crises and offers some reflections. Included in the explanations are:
* The fact that White House leadership provided by Presidents Carter and George H.W. Bush was good and the fact that “This time around, there has been little presidential involvement.”
* The facts that “guilt was an underlying factor in previous crises,” and that “The current Bush White House, by contrast, appears to be without guilt or remorse.”
* The fact that the media have been generally uninterested in the story of the refugees this time. “Partly because, unlike, say, Darfur, where overcrowded, grim refugee camps can be graphically portrayed, Iraqi refugees generally live in crowded quarters in the cities of Syria and Jordan, surviving on inadequate international handouts, illegal labor or declining savings — but without much visual squalor to stir sympathy.”
* The fact–as I mentioned in my story–that “9/11 changed our national consciousness as well. We became less welcoming of outsiders in general and more suspicious of Arabs and Muslims in particular.”
In his conclusion, the Ambassador addresses a couple of my rhetorical questions and issues:
The stark reality is that no U.S. government, Republican or Democrat, is going to resettle hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees in the U.S. Nor is that the best solution. The best solution — as is almost always the case — is for most of the refugees to return home. They need to rebuild their lives and their country. After five years of war, violence is down and the situation offers hope for mass return, but that day has not yet come (despite the Iraq government’s recent promise to provide $195 million for returnees).
Until that time comes, they need plenty of help. In its waning days, the administration can at least provide the refugees greater financial assistance and can pressure Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to provide more than a pittance to them and to the states sheltering them.
Finally, I am pleased that the Ambassador agrees with me that “the U.S. should take in more refugees — particularly those who will simply never return to Iraq or whose savings have run out. Our values and our interests in the Middle East demand a better response.”
If I might quote myself, “Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children anxiously await our answers–answers that will reflect and perhaps redefine ‘the character of a nation.’”
Author’s wife (center) with a family of South Vietnamese refugees at the Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, refugee camp in 1975
The New York Times periodically publishes an “Op-Chart” that graphically depicts the progress, or lack thereof, that we are making in Iraq. The latest Op-Chart published today (Sunday, June 22), (”The State of Iraq: An Update”) does indeed reflect progress on several fronts, including the all-important political and military fronts.
The Op-Chart analysts, however, do offer some words of caution: “Iraq remains a violent country plagued by high unemployment, raw wounds from sectarian conflict, extremist militias aided by Iran, more than four million people still displaced by violence, and very limited government capacity to meet the country’s core needs.“
It is the “more than four million people still displaced by violence” that I would like to address. These “more than four million people” include approximately 2.7 million Iraqis who have been “internally“ displaced by the raging sectarian fighting since the war began, and who now live in squalid conditions and in virtual imprisonment in their own country. The number also includes approximately two million Iraqis who have fled the carnage in Iraq, mostly to Syria and Jordan and whose plight is not much better. Up to very recently, thousands of Iraqis were fleeing their war-ravaged country every month, making this the largest diaspora in the Middle East since 1948.
While the plight of all of these human beings is horrific and needs to be addressed, it is the situation–I call it a crisis–of the Iraqi refugees abroad that affects me most deeply, because it evokes poignant memories of a muggy May morning 33 years ago at a makeshift refugee camp at a sprawling military base in Florida.
Military personnel like me and others were there to welcome South Vietnamese refugees to the United States. An article I wrote at the time describing my experience said: “The character of a nation is reflected in the faces of these volunteers. Some have flowers in their hands, some have tears in their eyes, and all have compassion in their hearts”
The “volunteers” (social workers, housewives, college students, etc.) were watching a small, fragile old woman break down in tears as she stepped off the bus that brought her and the others to the camp. Next, an exhausted young mother holding a tiny baby was followed off the bus by six more small children–the father conspicuously missing. And so it went on. Last, a young helicopter pilot stepped off with just the clothes on his back, happy to be alive. These refugees and hundreds of others like them would be placed in our care for the next six months.
That morning in 1975 was only a few weeks after the fall of Saigon, an event that precipitated a chaotic helicopter evacuation out of Vietnam. The U.S. military airlifted 6,000 desperate South Vietnamese along with about 1,000 Americans to aircraft carriers offshore. The images of crying Vietnamese women, babies in their arms, desperately reaching out to dangerously overloaded helicopters are still with us. Over the next eight months, more than 125,000 Vietnamese were warmly greeted at several “Operation New Arrivals” camps like the one in Florida.
America and Americans opened up their hearts and arms to this “first wave” of Vietnamese refugees. (Hundreds of thousands of additional Vietnamese would be given refuge in our country during the next 10 years.) Within a few months the refugees were resettled in communities throughout the U.S. Thousands were graciously welcomed by Americans into their own homes; thousands more were “sponsored” by social and welfare organizations and provided with jobs. The vast majority would become hard-working, productive, loyal and grateful residents of our country.
What does Vietnam have to do with the ongoing Iraqi refugee crisis? A great deal, I believe. But, sadly, only by way of contrast.
While our government and our nation acted so nobly at the end of the Vietnam War, our government has been singularly blasé, ambivalent and slow in responding to the Iraqi refugee crisis. While many believe that the U.S. has the moral responsibility to seriously and meaningfully tackle the Iraqi humanitarian crisis, President Bush lacks the political will and does little more than make promises and provide money for refugee assistance–a “whopping” $208 million, according to USA Today “barely one-tenth of the $2 billion that members of the International Rescue Committee‘s board believe is needed annually for up to four years.”.
Since the war in Iraq started more than five years ago, the United States has admitted fewer than 6,000 Iraqi refugees. (Small Sweden has taken in more than 9,000 Iraqi refugees since the war began.) Last year, under pressure from the United Nations and other organizations, the U.S. State Department promised to allow 7,000 Iraqi refugees to enter the United States. Only 1608 were resettled. Since October 2007, only about 4,700 Iraqi refugees have been allowed to enter the United States.
Murtaja Kamal Aldeen is one of those 4,700 fortunate Iraqis. This Sunday’s New York Times tells how the 26-year-old Baghdad University dentistry graduate left everything back home to “escape a nightmare” that included death threats because he had worked for an American organization.
As in Vietnam, there are thousands of other not-as-fortunate Iraqi men and women who risked their lives by working with U.S. military and government officials, who believed our promises, and who now find themselves the targets of terrorists, insurgents and militia groups.
At least, there are small quotas for these Iraqis–whether they will be filled is another matter. The administration has allocated 12,000 slots for such Iraqi refugees this year–and is very slow in filling them.
But how about the two-million-plus Iraqis who are languishing in Syria, Jordan and elsewhere? Will we welcome hundreds of thousands of them as we welcomed the South Vietnamese? Doesn’t the U.S. as an invading and occupying nation bear some responsibility for the crisis? Or, do we agree with former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton’s position that “our obligation was to give [Iraqis] new institutions and provide security…” and that we don’t “have an obligation to compensate [Iraqis] for the hardships of war.”?
How have Sept. 11 and the war on terror changed our attitudes towards Arabs and Muslims? What are our security concerns when it comes to such refugees? The administration claims, and perhaps rightly so, that it has to be careful to weed out potential terrorists when processing the refugees. They also claim that admitting large numbers of Iraqis would just make their return to Iraq more difficult when Iraq is finally “liberated.”
More than 4,100 of our troops have sacrificed their lives to, as we are told, give Iraqis some measure of security, liberty and democracy. But, are these very same Iraqis not “good enough” to be let into our country?
Americans must address these questions and issues soberly and pragmatically, but hopefully also with some compassion. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children anxiously await our answers–answers that will reflect and perhaps redefine “the character of a nation.”
(The author served as a Senior Refugee Liaison Officer at the Eglin Air Force Base Vietnamese Refugee Center during “Operation New Arrivals” in 1975, and was responsible for the reception, processing, housing, health and welfare and assistance with the resettlement of over 600 South Vietnamese refugees)
“Obama plays on his age - 46 - and his origins - from Kenya, Kansas, Hawaii, Indonesia and Harvard, from a Black father and a White mother, to portray himself as a candidate capable of unifying and embodying change. But if his colorful origins have seduced many Americans, they have also engendered suspicion on the part of some voters, and not necessarily Republicans … Read the rest of this entry »
Forty years ago tonight, hours before Robert Kennedy was killed, I was campaigning as a Eugene McCarthy delegate to the 1968 Democratic convention. When a man rose to spew out Kennedy hatred, I cut him off and said, “I’m running to stop the war. If McCarthy drops out, I’ll vote for Kennedy.”
Two days later, from an office window, I was looking down at a line of people more than a mile long inching toward St. Patrick’s Cathedral on a brutally hot day to view RFK’s body lying there.
Watching became unbearable, and I went down with others to wheel a plastic barrel on a dolly and hand out paper cups of water. The air was heavy with heat and tears. Without words, there was an occasional meeting of eyes in shared sadness. In that year of political murder and chaos, we were mourning the loss of more than one man.
Robert Kennedy had been his brother’s fierce protector, enforcer, campaign manager, Attorney General and, after the assassination, keeper of the flame. But like JFK before him, in the last days of his life, he became something more.
Whatever the blemishes of the United States - it’s democracy is alive and kicking. Such is the verdict of Daniel Vernet of the French newspaper Le Monde.
“Out of the interminable campaign of primaries has emerged an undeniable surge of American democracy. To find a successor to the most unpopular president since polling began, Americans are mobilizing more than since after the election of John Kennedy in 1960. … Of course there are dirty tricks, negative ads on television, catch-phrases distilled by the candidates’ entourages and the massive machinery of the parties, all of which sheds a less-than-idyllic light on the election. But the fact remains that this year, three atypical and in many ways unexpected candidates have emerged: on the Republican side, a veteran of the Vietnam War who already tried his luck in 2000 and was not the choice of the establishment; on the Democratic side, a woman who certainly considered herself the “inevitable” candidate but who herself sliced into the ambient machismo; and an African American whose chances are not negligible.”
“Beware! Don’t tell the Americans that Europe’s voting for Obama - it could cost him his victory.”
By Daniel Vernet
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
May 27, 2008
France - Le Monde - Original Article (French)
Out of the interminable campaign of primaries has emerged an undeniable surge of American democracy. To find a successor to the most unpopular president since polling began, Americans are mobilizing more than since after the election of John Kennedy in 1960. Read the rest of this entry »
John McCain has showed himself to be a welter of contradictions, but nowhere is this more apparent – and troubling – in how he repeatedly invokes his prisoner of war past to validate his righteousness while at the same time selling out today’s veterans.
This sell-out has taken several forms: Voting against increased funding for health care and education benefits, being absent for key votes on veterans’ issues, and working to undercut the progress the Veterans Administration has made in meeting veterans’ needs by pushing to privatizing its services.
McCain’s rationalizations are very much like the Bush administration’s own: Giving soldiers their due by enhancing educational and other benefits under a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate last week will encourage them to leave a military it has done so much to break, so lets force them to remain enlisted as long as possible if they can’t afford to attend an expensive four-year college until they have “earned” the right to do so on the government’s dime. (Ten Republican senators broke with Bush and McCain to give the bill a veto-proof margin.)
As if that isn’t coldly calculating enough, let’s treat the men and women who return home from Iraq and Afghanistan with problems not as humans who have sacrificed but like so many cost centers whose care should be downsized and outsourced to the lowest bidder, very often politically-connected administration cronies.
McCain’s contradiction is rather delicious insofar that it is another test of his fealty to Mr. Twenty Three Percent, who is both his albatross and link to the withered right-wing Republican base. In this instance he’s going with the prez and ruined an otherwise perfectly good Memorial Day (Observed) speech to rationalize why he is again selling out veterans who must fight anew to get decent physical and mental health care and educational and job opportunities.
May 23rd, 2008 By DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Assistant Editor, TMV Columnist
THE PRICE OF FREEDOM is an award-winning film to be shown on PBS over the Memorial Day week.
It tells the story of seven WWII veterans who fought together and were captured together; their “bonds go far beyond surviving combat. The men have joined forces 50 years after the war to conquer a final foe.”
“Despite the brutal ordeals of being a prisoner, many POWs saw their capture as a personal failure, and carried their silent burden for decades.”
Now for the first time, seven of these men who lived it, tell their unique stories and reveal how they have come together to restore their senses of manhood, of selfhood
PBS goes on to say:
Intelligent and heartfelt, this is an emotional and inspiring …[film] sure to resonate with viewers across America, especially soldiers and veterans of all conflicts. Especially now.
What some have well-meaningly named “The Greatest Generation,” could also, in a far clearer reality… have been righteously called “The Silenced Generation.” This includes the soldiers and nursing corps and families and civilians who suffered so deeply in war…
‘Observers’ with few observation skills or little experience with the night thoughts and terrors of veterans, have said in the long ago past, that those who have been to war were ‘brave’ for not speaking about their ordeals afterward. There was little timely intervention for people traumatized by war. And, if there was therapy, it was kept nearly secret from most everyone, further isolating the person ’til they could be ‘rehabilitated’ back into society again.
“Rehabilitated,” as one of my patients who is a veteran and former POW said, “rehabilitated, that’s what the enemy wanted us to be too.”
Something about ’stiff upper lip’ once back home, being some kind of badge of manhood/ honor. Silence often touted as a superior behavior by those very ones who were not POWs, those who have rarely or never been in hand to hand combat, never tried to operate in a field of blood, never tried but failed to save a life, no matter their rank, or lack of it.
One of my dear friends, John, an ace WWII pilot, now white-haired and one of the last of the truly gallant men on earth, says, “We never suffered in flying, no matter how or what we engaged, like the boys did on the ground. We were the lucky ones.”
Back then, observers and self-appointed behavior-setters, were not skilled and were not paying attention to how the psyche, if sealed off from leaching expressions of trauma will, like a radial tire, develop a bubble in the sidewall and blow out in a different way. Alcohol, anger fits, drugs, isolation, inability to bear social interaction, controlling others, instability, violence, abuse, uncommunicativeness, and other addictions gradually build up to ease the pressure from deep trauma.
Those who say it is somehow superior not to speak of grave matters as they affect the human soul and psyche, are wrong in most cases. What is brave is to speak of what one did/ saw/ thought/ felt… as each person chooses, and without fear of being exiled for being somehow less a person. How could a solider, nurse, family member, civilian who was in the midst of blood witness and war, ever be thought ‘less’?
Perhaps for those who remain silent because they have no demons riding nightly through their skulls, that is the right way for them. But that should never be confused with those who have remained silent and done their damnedest all these years, remaining silent, because they felt that if they spoke even a few sentences about these matters, it might throw them to their knees weeping to the sky.
It is brave to say out loud what a culture ought hear when done with war… all of it—rather than enjoining the most superficial aspects of culture which are giddy to wash their hands of it all, wanting only to feast now and be happy and return to ‘your regular programmed episodes,’… leaving out of their ‘happiness equation’ the depth quotient of those who went away to war mostly whole, but came back not weak, but also no longer all of a piece… or peace.
If the culture can stand to go to war, it has to be able to stand to stay near to hear the stories of war afterward, the real ones that live on in people’s very cells, the ones that would make most of us want to fall to our knees and weep to the sky.
It makes no sense to allow those who suffered for us once, to suffer for us twice, and ad infinitum…because we let them suffer in silence, alone.
THE PRICE OF FREEDOM, seven POWs break their silence and tell their stories: showing May 26, Monday KBDI TV in the Rocky Mountain market. Check your local listings
Is the anti-American zeal of Hugo Chavez causing him to lose allies?
It’s a debate taking place in a few Latin American countries: Should Ecuador follow the lead of Hugo Chavez and Venezuela in demonizing Washington and obsessing over “oil-feuled fantasies” about U.S. intervention?
“Ambition and power create delirious visions. Hugo Chávez goes off half-cocked and announces an armed intervention in Bolivia and, if necessary, his intent to create an ‘American Vietnam.’ With the same oil-addled reasoning, Chavez spoke recently of creating a ‘Bolivarian’ military force.” Read the rest of this entry »
As the Bush era draws to a close, Europeans are anxious to know what about American policy will change when he’s gone - particularly if a Democratic victory occurs as planned.
“In view of the ongoing presidential campaign, the American exception seems as strong as ever. Where else but in America would a primary race go on for more than a year? Where else would candidates obtain tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? Where else would party foot soldiers have the chance to select the candidate for the highest post? … All three candidates take lyrical flight in discussing the American dream. Above all, none will hesitate to resort to force.”
“Clearly, a Democratic victory in November would undoubtedly open the door to a more left-wing America. But it would be a kind of American left, certainly not modeled on Europe. Both candidates have rejected a “single payer” system for health insurance, like the Canadian and European models. The change ahead will not mean the end of the American exception, but the end of American triumphalism.”
LEADING ARTICLE
Translated By Kate Davis
May 8, 2008
France - Challenges - Original Article (French)
All countries are exceptional. But the United States gladly considers itself exceptionally exceptional, different from all other developed countries in its social organization and its fundamental values. The State is less extensive and the distribution of wealth more unequal. The United States is also more strongly committed to what Margaret Thatcher called the “Victorian values:” individualism, voluntarism, patriotism.
Thus the Bush government, which supports conservative values domestically and demonstrates an unlimited self confidence externally, is the most “exceptional” known in recent years. But at the end of Bush’s mandate, isn’t the United States entering a new cycle, characterized by the rejection of conservatism and a convergence with Europe’s standards?
In reality, three quarters of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction and for example, vigorously support a system of universal health care. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have promised to address that. They also want to improve their image in the world. The next government will certainly initiate significant reforms, such as closing Guantanamo or adopting a more rigorous environmental policy in order to address some of the country’s more aberrant characteristics.
Yet in view of the ongoing presidential campaign, the American exception seems as strong as ever. Where else but in America would a primary race go on for more than a year? Where else would candidates obtain tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? Where else would party foot soldiers have the chance to select the candidate for the highest post? John McCain won the nomination of his party despite strong internal opposition. Barack Obama is the leader of an uprising against the Democratic old guard.
All three preach a patriotism specific to the United States. John McCain boasts of his service in Vietnam. Barack Obama claims that there is no red or blue, but only one America united by common values. The three candidates take lyrical flight in discussing the American dream. Above all, none will hesitate to resort to force. John McCain sings, “Bomb, bomb [bomb, bomb bomb] Iran.”
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections.
Hackworth (right) with S.L.A. Marshall in Vietnam (1966)
There’s a guy in virtually every organization who is a pop-off, and David Hackworth fit that description perfectly.
But unlike most pop-offs, this man – the most highly decorated soldier in American military history – was reliably on target. So much so that his career ended with the threat of a court martial because of his scathing criticism of the Vietnam War, but his legacy as an eccentric but fearless and brilliant officer and motivator of soldiers has lived on.
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House, here for a contrarian view of Hackworth by James Joyner at Outside the Beltway, and here for A Baker’s Dozen of Best Books on Vietnam.
One of the ongoing tragedies of the Iraq war is Washington’s refusal to allow Iraqis who have actively helped the American effort into the U.S. in all but the smallest numbers, exposing them to possible persecution and death.
The fate of many of the Hmong mountain people who fought against the communist-nationalist Pathet Lao in Laos at the behest of the CIA on one of the more obscure fronts in the Vietnam War was somewhat better. After the Pathet Lao victory in 1975, thousands fled to Thailand and many were resettled in Western countries, including the U.S.
But now those Hmong allies who remain in Laos are being hunted down and exterminated by Laotian and Vietnamese military units, according to a Center for Public Policy analysis.
Richard Fernandez, better known as Wretchard the Cat at the Belmont Club blog, writes at Pajamas Media that:
“The Lao Peoples Democratic Republic (LPDR) regime, in cooperation with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV), has issued a new order and drafted a comprehensive strategy to mount a major military offensive to exterminate thousands of Hmong in hiding in the jungles and mountains of Laos. The offensive will involve special battalions of troops and special operations commandos from Vietnam who are now being deployed to the closed military zones of operation. The reported object is to eliminate and exterminate some 15,000 Lao Hmong in hiding in key areas of Laos by the end of April 2008. Hmong in Laos are bracing for these new anticipated attacks by Laos and Vietnam, which are expected to be massive and ruthless.”
The Laotian government views the Hmong as “bandits,” denies that there is a campaign of persecution against them and predictably rejects calls for independent international monitors as “interference from the outside.”
It’s hard to see the Bush administration leaning on the Laotian and Vietnamese governments considering the attitude that it has copped regarding Iraqi civilians and its lousy human rights record overall.
Complicating the situation is that the use of the Hmong mercenaries was secret.
Unlike in Vietnam, the U.S.’s involvement in Laos was covert (and highly illegal) and no American troops were sent to try to prevent a Communist takeover. But while the war is a sad chapter in American history that many people would sooner forget, Americans have an obligation to not forget the Hmong.
How frustrating is it for Iraqis, caught militarily and diplomatically between America and Iran?
For Iraq’s Azzaman newspaper, Fateh Abdusalam laments, “For the past few months, U.S. officials and candidates for the presidency have done all they can to avoid linking progress in the Iraq War to the possibility of talks with Iran. Instead, Republican candidate John McCain, a foreign policy hardliner and a warmonger since the Vietnam War when he spent four years in captivity, tried to give a ‘a new lease on life’ to the issue of the Iranian danger by discussing the threat Iran poses over the next five years - roughly the next President’s term of office.”
“Whenever it detects the slightest softening from Washington, Tehran goes one step further and discloses the completion of yet another “nuclear” milestone, reassured that the danger has passed and that it holds more winning cards than America does.”
“Iraq today finds itself stuck in a purgatory of no-war and no-peace between Iran and United States. Until it extricates itself from this state of affairs, Iraq will fail to establish its new status as a free nation..”
This sell-out has taken several forms: Voting against increased funding for health care and education benefits, being absent for key votes on veterans’ issues, and working to undercut the progress the Veterans Administration has made in meeting veterans’ needs by pushing to privatizing its services.
![[Al-Ahram, Egypt]](http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/889/fathi2.png)