Vietnam War

House Democratic power broker Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, dies at 77

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (460)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (484)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

From CNN:

(CNN) -- Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a longtime fixture on the House subcommittee that oversees Pentagon spending, has died following complications from gallbladder surgery, according to his office. He was 77.

The veteran Democratic congressman recently underwent scheduled laparoscopic surgery to remove his gallbladder.

Murtha was hospitalized in December and had to postpone a hearing with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the administration's strategy in Afghanistan. The congressman returned to work after a few days in the hospital and helped oversee final passage of the 2010 defense appropriations bill.

Murtha represented Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district in the House since 1974, making him the chamber's eighth most senior member. According to his biography on the House Web site, Murtha was the first Vietnam War combat veteran elected to Congress.

He was considered one of "the kings of pork" on Capitol Hill by taxpayer watchdog groups for requesting tens of millions of dollars in earmarks.

On his House Web site, Murtha strongly defended earmarks, saying, "I believe that elected representatives of the people understand their constituents and districts best." Supporters said his efforts have helped bring thousands of jobs to western Pennsylvania.

Other controversies dogged Murtha's career. Critics alleged he steered Pentagon contracts to businesses that hired his brother as a lobbyist, but Murtha insisted his brother was treated like everyone else.

The Fox anchors were restrained this morning in announcing the news. The right wingers have had Murtha in their sights for a long time. So you can count on the "opinion" crew to be licking its chops over the prospects of a Republican taking Murtha's seat this fall. Start your stopwatches.

(UPDATE: John Amato will be appearing on the Randi Rhodes Show at 1:35 pm PST to talk about this and other topics)



History's Drawing Board - The Russians In Afghanistan

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 37
WMV
PLAYS: 14

_45475285_soviet19894661_c81e4.jpg
(The Soviet Army leaving Afghanistan in 1989 - Pretending a bad idea never happened)

By the time this news report aired (February 15, 1999), the Russian excursion into Afghanistan had been over for 10 years. But ten years was just enough time to start looking for answers to what happened and why it happened in the first place. The answers were slow and painful in coming. Afghanistan was considered the Soviet version of our Vietnam War. The results were pretty much the same.

Charles Dick (Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst): “Afghanistan is the source of experience the Russian Army would like to forget.”

And judging by the events since the beginning of this year, it's happening all over again.

Not learning from history - doomed to repeat it.


Exercising The Cautious Optimism Clause - The Economy In 1964

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 415
WMV
PLAYS: 125

Luther Hodges fishing_34abf.jpg
(Sec. of Commerce Luther Hodges - 1964 was something of a fishing expedition)

Howard K. Smith (ABC News): “If anyone drew up a list of the seven wonders of the modern world, the American economy would certainly be one of them. In the lives of men now at middle age its gross output of wealth has doubled, then doubled again and then doubled again. But one of the most impressive, or depressive aspects about it is, that while it has multiplied our wealth it has not distributed it well. A fifth of our people live in poverty and we have the highest unemployed rate of any modern Western country.”

Cautious optimism, whistling in the dark - 1964 was a year of contrasts. First, we were recovering from the assassination of President Kennedy and were putting our faith in Lyndon Johnson to carry on the JFK legacy. The social programs (the Civil Rights Bill, Medicare) were evolving, the War on Poverty was about to get rolling. But then so too was the Vietnam War with the infamous Gulf Of Tonkin incident in the not-so-distant future of August.

But on January 5, 1964 when this installment of ABC News Issues and Answers was aired, Commerce Secretary Luther Hodges and Labor Secretary Willard Wirtz voiced optimism that all would be well with the world in good time. Sadly, no. But at the moment, America needed some bolstering. It was heading into unknown territory and it wasn't sure what the future would bring.

It came soon enough.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 88
WMV
PLAYS: 7

Z_3db59.jpg
(Zbigniew Brzezinski - exploring the concept of Felt Interests)

I realize I haven't been doing enough of these of late - our Foreign Policy going back to Woodrow Wilson. I promise this year to catch up and make this a regular thing. Today it's Zbigniew Brzezinski on the sidelines in 1969, having left the State Department but still very much a presence in on-going East-West relations in 1969. This interview, via Meet The Press on April 6, 1969 comes at a time when the Paris talks with North Vietnam were at a standstill, Russia had invaded Czechoslovakia the previous August and the Middle East was on simmer. Europe was still under the influence of Charles DeGaulle and, with a few changes in players and circumstances, the same as it is today.

Zbigniew Brzezinski: “It seems to me that all major powers reach agreements on the basis of their felt interests at a given time. When that felt interest declines they move away from the agreement. All powers act that way. So do we, incidentally. And I think the point of an agreement is to find an area of common interest which the agreement then crystallizes and expresses. And I think it behooves us to search for these areas of agreement with the Soviet Union, but without exaggerated hopes. Without exaggerated expectations.”

Yes, exaggerated expectations. Something we're all a little too familiar with lately.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 97
WMV
PLAYS: 20

brk00039577b_c_4836d.jpg
(Clearing the hall of demonstrators in 1964 - someone's been watching old newsreels lately)

Watching the teabag protests of late, and the approximated "die ins" - those attempts at echoing the anti-war/civil rights protests of the 60s without any of the conviction or principles, I began to realize how completely unoriginal and uninspired the wingnut segment of our society is compared to the actual protest movements of the 1950s and 60s.

The Berkeley Free Speech Movement has been well examined by way of film documentaries (Berkeley In The 60s is must-viewing), as have many of the other movements of the time. I ran across this radio documentary, produced by Pacifica Radio shortly after the movement unfolded in 1964.

It's interesting to draw comparisons in many areas to what is happening now. The concept of co-opting and hi-jacking a movement became prevalent in the 60s. The Free Speech Movement offered ample proof of that - the core belief of the majority of protesters was supplanted by the influx of malcontents and "shit-stirrers"; people who had no other motive other than to create trouble for troubles sake. And those who actually infiltrated the movement in order to disrupt and fracture its solidarity. It continues to this day, which is why the Teabag movement and all the anti-Health care reform groups seem so transparent in their motives. Scaring people who are not informed. Misinforming people and creating diversion from the real issues. In this case, it's as easy as finding out who is on which payroll and which Insurance company is behind which "patriot group".

But in 1964 it was relatively free of that - for a time anyway.

The Berkeley Free Speech Movement was something of an anomaly. And like all anomalies, it didn't last very long. But it gave people ideas. But as is often the case with our friends in the right wing - they offer approximations without offering any real substance. And that is the biggest problem. Lifelike replicas don't really cut it when you can make something real of your own, if you just worked on it.


Reports: Eight CIA Agents Killed in Afghan Suicide Bombing

Can't find confirmation, but I heard this attack described as the single biggest loss to the the CIA since the Vietnam war:

(CNN) -- An attack by a suicide bomber at a military base in eastern Afghanistan on Wednesday killed eight Americans believed to be CIA employees, a senior U.S. official told CNN.

Also Wednesday, four Canadian soldiers and a Canadian journalist were killed when a roadside bomb hit their armored vehicle in southern Afghanistan, Canada's defense ministry said.

The suicide bombing happened at Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost province, Afghanistan. The senior U.S. official who spoke to CNN said information indicates the bomber walked into a gym facility at the base and detonated a suicide vest. It is believed six Americans were wounded in addition to the eight killed. It's not known how the bomber got past security.

A U.S. military source said that FOB Chapman was originally a base for the Khost Provincial Construction Team, but the team left some time ago.

Authorities believe that perhaps the suicide bomber attacked just after a convoy was ending or beginning, which would account for high number of casualties.


"If You Always Do What You Always Did . . " - Vietnam 1972

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 100
WMV
PLAYS: 16

4c6b3e5b2e637b67_large_05d81.jpg
( . . You'll Always Get What You Always Got.")

Drawing analogies between Vietnam and our current situation in Afghanistan has been difficult - they are two different wars under two different circumstances. The similarities go as far as our insistence on winning a war that we have no logical basis for being in are the same. The similarities are a Foreign Policy that has been a dismal failure since after World War One. Yet, as the definition of insanity goes - we continue to do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. In Afghanistan, as with Vietnam we are stuck in a damnable situation where we are in fact, damned if we do and damned if we don't. It's what happens when you pay the price for arrogance and deceit.

In 1972, with all other seeming avenues failed, the Nixon administration resorted to mining Haiphong Harbor in an attempt to cut off supply lines to the North Vietnamese. Vietnamization was deemed a dismal failure.

Pres. Nixon: “All entrances to North Vietnamese ports will be mined to prevent access to these ports, and North Vietnamese navel operations from these ports. United States forces have been directed to take appropriate measures within the internal and claimed territorial waters of North Vietnam to interdict the delivery of any supplies. Rail, and all other communications will b cut off to the maximum extent possible. Air and navel strikes against military targets in North Vietnam will continue.”

Shortly after this announcement, NBC Radio ran a Special Report entitled "Vietnam: The War That Will Not End".

It echoed a sentiment that a weary nation was feeling. That war, like this one seems destined to have no happy ending.


Exersizing The Sound And Fury Clause - Whip Inflation Now - 1974

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 177
WMV
PLAYS: 11

pol-win_759b9.jpg
(Turned upside down read: No Immediate Miracles)

I'm often reminded that, when a crisis erupts and the Republicans are in charge, the solutions often fall into the category of Bonehead Misfires.

True to form, in 1974 when the country was in the midst of inflation, recession, mass unemployment and a crisis of faith (owing to the recent resignation of Richard Nixon and the quickly ending Vietnam War), Gerald Ford announced a new package, complete with slogan and buttons - Whip Inflation Now. Rather than use the dreaded Tax-Word, Ford proposed a "surcharge" on individuals making over $7500 a year and families making over $15,000 a year (remember, this is 1974 when money was a little different and less funny then). The immediate effect was to squeeze the middle class and create more loopholes for those who could most afford it.

Ford envisioned a kind of World War 2 gung-ho attitude on the part of the American people, willing to sacrifice at the drop of a hat. The resulting effect was dramatically less so.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (345)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2998)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

(h/ Heather)

Tom Tancredo stormed off the set of the Ed Show when he was debating health care with Markos Moulitsas. Poor baby.

It all started when Tancredo started trash-talking the Veterans Administration, at which point Markos brought up his chickenhawk past. He got angry and tried the standard conservative whine, realized he was better quitting while he was behind, and then stormed off. The truth hurts, right Tom?

As a Republican student activist, Tancredo spoke out in favor of the Vietnam War. After graduating from the University of Northern Colorado in June 1969, he became eligible to serve in Vietnam. Tancredo said he went for his physical, telling doctors he'd been treated for depression, and eventually got a "1-Y" deferment.

Too many of these cowards discuss our troops when they themselves refused to serve when they had the chance. Here's Jed Lewison:

A few minutes ago on The Ed Show, Tom Tancredo tried to make the case against government health care by claiming that the Veterans Administration is unpopular with U.S. military veterans. The only problem for him was that he was up against Markos...who is one of those veterans, unlike Tancredo, a pro-Vietnam War chickenhawk who got a 1-Y deferment.

When Markos pointed out that Tancredo was (a) wrong about the Veterans Administration and (b) not qualified to speak for veterans, Tancredo exploded in anger, demanding an apology. Markos did not oblige, and Tancredo stormed off the set.

Funny, too, how the most thin-skinned of the wingnuts are the same people most prone to making vicious, uncivil, frequently racist and xenophobic remarks. Tancredo, after all, is a guy who claimed the National Council of La Raza was just like the Ku Klux Klan, and called Sonia Sotomayor a racist, and told the people of Brownsville, Texas, that they should build the border fence on the northern side of their city.

And then goes whimpering and whining off the stage when he gets a clean shot to the gut with hard facts. There's a street name for that, but this is a family blog.


Bill Moyers: Bring Back the Draft

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1355)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (3229)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Bill Moyers ended his show this week with an editorial comment on what he thinks we should do if President Obama chooses to escalate the war in Afghanistan by sending more troops--bring back the draft.

I would agree with him if the end result wouldn't be what always happens when this country has had a draft. The poor go fight and the rich find a way out of it. If we could make sure every neocon war monger had to go first, I'd say hell yes, but that's not going to happen.

BILL MOYERS: Watching the CBS Evening News on Afghanistan this week I thought for a moment that I might be watching my grandson playing one of those video war games that are so popular these days.

REPORTER: An American military convoy traveling northwest--

BILL MOYERS: Reporting on the attacks that killed eight Americans, CBS turned to animation to depict what no journalists were around to witness. This is about as close to real war as most of us ever get, safely removed from the blood, the mangled bodies, the screams and shouts.

October, as you know, was the bloodiest month for our troops in all eight years of the war. And beyond the human loss, the United States has spent more than 223 billion dollars there. In 2010 we will be spending roughly 65 billion dollars every year. 65 billion dollars a year.

The President is just about ready to send more troops. Maybe 44 thousand, that's the number General McChrystal wants, bringing the total to over 100 thousand. When I read speculation last weekend that the actual number needed might be 600 thousand, I winced.

I can still see President Lyndon Johnson's face when he asked his generals how many years and how many troops it would take to win in Vietnam. One of them answered, "Ten years and one million." He was right on the time and wrong on the number-- two and a half million American soldiers would serve in Vietnam, and we still lost.

Whatever the total for Afghanistan, every additional thousand troops will cost us about a billion dollars a year. At a time when foreclosures are rising, benefits for the unemployed are running out, cities are firing teachers, closing libraries and cutting essential maintenance and services. That sound you hear is the ripping of our social fabric.

Which makes even more perplexing an editorial in THE WASHINGTON POST last week. You'll remember the "Post" was a cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq, often sounding like a megaphone for the Bush-Cheney propaganda machine. Now it's calling for escalating the war in Afghanistan. In a time of historic budget deficits, the paper said, Afghanistan has to take priority over universal health care for Americans. Fixing Afghanistan, it seems, is "a 'necessity'"; fixing America's social contract is not.

But listen to what an Afghan villager recently told a correspondent for the "Economist:" "We need security. But the Americans are just making trouble for us. They cannot bring peace, not if they stay for 50 years."

Listen, too, to Andrew Bacevich, the long-time professional soldier, graduate of West Point, veteran of Vietnam, and now a respected scholar of military and foreign affairs, who was on this program a year ago. He recently told "The Christian Science Monitor," "The notion that fixing Afghanistan will somehow drive a stake through the heart of jihadism is wrong. …If we give General McChrystal everything he wants, the jihadist threat will still exist."

This from a warrior who lost his own soldier son in Iraq, and who doesn't need animated graphics to know what the rest of us never see.

So here's a suggestion. In a week or so, when the president announces he is escalating the war, let's not hide the reality behind eloquence or animation. No more soaring rhetoric, please. No more video games. If our governing class wants more war, let's not allow them to fight it with young men and women who sign up because they don't have jobs here at home, or can't afford college or health care for their families.

Let's share the sacrifice. Spread the suffering. Let's bring back the draft.

Yes, bring back the draft -- for as long as it takes our politicians and pundits to "fix" Afghanistan to their satisfaction.

Bring back the draft, and then watch them dive for cover on Capitol Hill, in the watering holes and think tanks of the Beltway, and in the quiet little offices where editorial writers spin clever phrases justifying other people's sacrifice. Let's insist our governing class show the courage to make this long and dirty war our war, or the guts to end it.


Rush Limbaugh, Master of Eliminationism

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show yesterday, via Media Matters:

You -- In 2008, in our presidential election, we had a, a, a war veteran, Vietnam War veteran, John McCain, against an elitist, five-minute career senator of a hundred and fifty days. That senator was running as a Democrat, and had actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military in Iraq -- had actively sought to undermine General Petraeus, who was the author of the surge that led to a turnaround in Iraq and a victory. And now that same man is dithering in Afghanistan while American soldiers -- not Bush soldiers, not Obama soldiers, American soldiers -- are dying. At record numbers.

The threat that people in this country who want to be free face is now within our own borders. That's the stark reality. We'll be back.

Obama and the liberals are, in the land of the Limbaughst, the True Enemies of America.

If only Limbaugh really were "just an entertainer." Then we could dismiss him as a clown. But "entertainers" don't have audiences of "dittohead" acolytes who absorb their every word as gospel truth. "Entertainers" don't make condemnations of half the country as being the "enemy within" and actually stand -- and actually stand a chance of the other half nodding its head in agreement.

This, of course, is how you whip up violence: You scapegoat, you demonize, you dehumanize, and most of all, you paint a target on people's backs and say they're they Enemy. And you can't help but suspect Limbaugh is perfectly aware of this.

I devote a fair amount of space in The Eliminationists to Limbaugh. For a lot of reasons. Obviously, he's been doing this for awhile. But he's also stepping it up quite bit.

PROMOTIONAL NOTE: I'll be speaking tonight in Mount Vernon, Wash., at the Lincoln Theater at 7 pm. I'll be discussing my book as well as the recent visit to the city by Glenn Beck.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (64)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (258)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

October 27, 2009 C-SPAN

Congressman Walter Jones lays out an impassioned plea for his colleagues to "please move very carefully with a fully defined plan on what the military is supposed to accomplish in Afghanistan"--a great speech.


Sy Hersh: Military 'In War Against The White House'

thumb_mediumsyhersh_9d8cd.jpg

So many of the saner people were driven out of the military during the Bush administration, it doesn't surprise me that the people left include a lot of the right-wing, racist fringe elements. Still, it's shocking to hear this:

DURHAM — The U.S. military is not just fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, America’s most renowned investigative journalist says.

The army is also “in a war against the White House — and they feel they have Obama boxed in,” Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Seymour Hersh told several hundred people in Duke University’s Page Auditorium on Tuesday night. “They think he’s weak and the wrong color. Yes, there’s racism in the Pentagon. We may not like to think that, but it’s true and we all know it.”

In a speech on Obama’s foreign policy, Hersh, who uncovered the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War and torture at Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraqi war, said many military leaders want Obama to fail.

“A lot of people in the Pentagon would like to see him get into trouble,” he said. By leaking information that the commanding officer in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the war would be lost without an additional 40,000 American troops, top brass have put Obama in a no-win situation, Hersh contended.
“If he gives them the extra troops they’re asking for, he loses politically,” Hersh said. “And if he doesn’t give them the troops, he also loses politically.”

The journalist criticized the president for “letting the military do that,” and suggested the only way out was for Obama to stand up to them.
“He’s either going to let the Pentagon run him or he has to run the Pentagon,” Hersh said. If he doesn’t, “this stuff is going to be the ruin of his presidency.”

Hersh called the “Af-Pak” situation — the spreading conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan — Obama’s main challenge.

The only way for the U.S. to extricate itself from the conflict, Hersh said, is to negotiate with the Taliban.

“It’s the only way out,” he said. “I know that there’s a lot of discussion in the White House about this now.


History's Little Echo Chamber - French Indochina - 1954

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 54
WMV
PLAYS: 17

Dienbienphu-full_f3ce6.jpg
(French Army commanders - Dien Bien Phu - 1954 - Reality came as a shock)

Sometimes you wonder how we get into seemingly impossible situations that appear to have no ending in sight.

While running through my archive looking for tapes associated with our involvement in the Vietnam war, I ran across an earlier broadcast, from May 1954 - the occasion was the recent fall of the French garrison at Dien Bien Phu, which effectively ended the French involvement in that former colony. Edward R. Murrow, as part of his See It Now program put together a panel consisting of Senate Majority Leader William F. Knowland (R-California), Sir Robert Boothby, a conservative member of Parliament in Britain and a member of the De Gaulle cabinet in France. Togther they discussed, as a sort of postmortem examination of what went wrong and what was next.

Sir Robert Boothby: “When the French the other day implied and our French colleague implied just now that we’d rather left them out on a limb, left them to do this thing alone, they are I think to some extent to blame themselves. We’re speaking quite frankly, but they have made it plain for five years that they regarded this Indo-China as a domestic concern, this Indo-China business. They didn’t want intervention by anybody else, that they didn’t want to make it an international issue. They didn’t want our help or the help of the United States. And it was only three or four weeks that they made the request for help which was really too late.”

French Representative: “Maybe it was too late, but if I may interrupt here, as you have really put my country in question here. Yes, for five years we have asked for nothing. In five years we have lost 400,000 men. If China had not come into the picture we might not be where we are today. And after all, I think that . . well if I may say so, it wasn’t very kind of you to say what you just said. We have done our best as I told you. And . . well, if we had found all the help that we could have expected, perhaps we would not be here today, at least saying alas what we have to say”.

Maybe it's hindsight, but judging from Knowland's reaction to the situation, it almost feels prophetic that the U.S. was destined to get involved sooner rather than later - as was the case.

As I am hearing now about the potential domino effect of an U.S. pullout in the region, with the potential repercussions being an overthrow of the Pakistani government, a return to power of the Taliban in Afghanistan and, as Chris Matthews pointed out "all hell breaking loose" with nuclear weapons hanging in the balance - it's almost identical language to that being said some 55 years ago.

The stakes are different this time - but not by much.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 70
WMV
PLAYS: 12

57b9e39e30b81cf9_large_f148e.jpg
(Secretary of State Dean Rusk, 1968 - Up to his eyeballs in it)

With the current situation in Afghanistan getting to the confrontation point, I was reminded of another situation the U.S. got into with Vietnam. Some four years after the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, questions were started to be raised over what was our plan there and how long was it going to take before we got out of there.

When an Aid request came along with a rumored increase of troop strength by 100,000-200,000, the Senate was starting to wane in their support, with J. William Fulbright being the most vocal during his questioning of Secretary of State Dean Rusk.

J. William Fulbright: “I do not mean to suggest of course, that I now agree with the course of action we are following in Vietnam. On the contrary, my doubts about the wisdom of this course of action have grown, and I am more than ever convinced that it is wrong, and that our present policies in Vietnam have had, and will have effects both abroad and at home that are nothing short of disastrous. Some members of this committee share my opinion. Others do not. But as I have said Mister Secretary, that while those of us who do not agree with our present policies in Vietnam, believe that it is our duty as United States Senators to give voice to the objections we feel in our minds and in our hearts.”

Unfortunately, it would grind on for another seven years before it came to an end.

Do the words deja-vu come to mind?