Monday, 28 July 2008
 

The White Guilt Express has arrived
Contributed by Bill Faith

R J Del Vecchio emails:

Please read this newspaper article and then come back to this.

OK, here we go... yes, it's time for our nation to beat its collective breast, put on sackcloth and ashes, and scream out to ourselves and all the world that our past as a nation contains gross imperfections.  For which we all must accept some responsibility, since the senator says the U.S. government must both acknowledge (as if there's has never been and is none of any of this in any of our history books) and "offer deeds" (possibly including reparations) to somehow make up for our horrid past.

Let's see... the "government" is of the people, by the people, for the people.... and oh yes, paid for by the people.  So whatever "deeds" someone deems necessary will really have to be on the part of all of us, and we'll have to pay (in taxes or subsidies or preferential treatment or some concrete way) for them.

Sorry, count me out, way, way out, on this one.  None of us today can or should be required to pay for the sins of previous generations, especially when many of our families were not here back those decades or centuries ago, and especially when it's impossible/ridiculous to try to "make up" for that history.  How about reparations for slavery?  Great idea... let's see, does the white half of Obama pay a reparation to the black half?  Oops, no, his father was a real African, Obama has no ancestors who were ever slaves in the USA.  So does that mean his white half pays reparations, or actually his entire person pays reparation, regardless of his father's race, since what the hell, he's here now and has benefited as much as anyone from slavery and is as guilty as any of us for slavery?  And the treatment of the native Americans, the exploitation of coal miners, Chinese railroad laborers, Italian workers brought over to work the cotton fields after slavery was abolished, the Irish who were discriminated against, the Nisei who were in the internment camps, the women who couldn't vote, ....... and every other possible group or subgroup who ever experienced some form of discrimination or injustice.

This is one of the most telling things he's said lately, and betrays a very poor mindset, one which all of us have every right to be extremely concerned about.

But even better, the behavior of the "journalists" who gave him one ovation after another is dramatically telling about the massive media bias involved in this campaign.  It's the media who will put Obama in the White House, but it's all the rest of us who will pay more consequences than we can even think of now if he gets there.

Del

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 28, 2008 at 10:37 PM in Obamanation, Politics, R J Del Vecchio | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 15 January 2008
 

R J Del Vecchio: And it's "busted again" for the NYTimes
Contributed by Bill Faith

Del emails:

Sometimes I really wonder, and wonder hard, how in hell supposedly "news professionals" at the Times can look themselves in the mirror in the morning.  They deserve ridicule and condemnation heaped on them like Everest dropped on a slime rat. Pass this far & wide, they've tried to smear all the returning vets as crazed killers and made one hell of a try at it. They really deserve to fry for this one. [Click here.]

Del

Some related links I found on my own; I'm sure I missed some I should have mentioned while I was having computer problems:

• Crazed Veterans Spark Nationwide Crime Wave
• Bruce Kesler: Weekly Standard & Others Miss Point About Vets
• NYT: Our war-crazed veterans are murdering people
  — at a rate not quite equal to the general population
• A letter to the editor of the Times

Contributed by Bill Faith on January 15, 2008 at 05:12 PM in Media Perfidy, R J Del Vecchio | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 02 January 2008
 

R J Del Vecchio: "Setting The Record Straight"
Contributed by Bill Faith

Del emails:

You have already heard from me about this book, but I could only refer in general to it and its value.  But my own copy arrived Monday, and I am about 2/3 through it now.

Well, it's even better than I anticipated.  The authors have dotted every single i and crossed every single t in their presentation of the real events with a degree of meticulousness that most PhD theses in History cannot match.  This book will blow the blood pressure of many radicals and leftists through the ceiling, and they will not want to see it publicized anywhere.

But the book serves not just to help people understand who the Swifties were, what they really did, and why, but it paints a crystal clear and amazingly deep picture of the media bankruptcy and the nefariousness of the Kerry organization and other people that is a major education in itself, and an important one today.  It gives us all good news in showing how the Internet and independent bloggers and others can and have worked very effectively to bring out truth even when the mainstream media act as if in a conscious conspiracy to suppress it.  It also provides, in passing, a wonderful base of pride for all Vietnam vets and others both in the meaning and conduct of the war, and in the willingness of vets 30+ years later to stand up for truth and all the rest of us.

You will not see it reviewed in the NYTimes or probably any of the big papers or magazines.  They will try to do to this book what they tried to do to Unfit For Command, which is to bury it under a blanket of silence. But anyone who wants to understand the real history of the Swift Boat vets, and the awful failings of the media, and behind that, the phoniness of the antiwar activities going back to 1971, will find this a fascinating and very useful read.

Did I mention I like and recommend it?

The website below has more about it, and where you can buy a copy and maybe some extras for friends or the library.  I hope you decide to check it out for yourself.

Del

http://www.tosettherecordstraight.com/

Contributed by Bill Faith on January 2, 2008 at 09:46 PM in Jean Fraud Kerry, R J Del Vecchio, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 12 November 2007
 

Journey From The Fall
Contributed by Bill Faith

R J Del Vecchio emails:

Movies can be many things.  Some are funny and/or entertaining.  But the more important ones are dramatic, educational, or historically significant and profoundly moving.  Rarely, very rarely, are we gifted with a movie that combines all the characteristics of that second description into a marvelous whole, and provides an experience that is truly meaningful on several levels.

Journey From The Fall is such a film, combining acting, artistry, a neglected but important bit of history, and a portrayal of the human condition under the most brutal and tragic conditions into a magnificent work that leaves the viewer unsettled, sad, and yet inspired.  Made by people who themselves lived that part of history, with painstaking attention to detail that will pull you into a world you have not known, like a walk through Dachau that sears heart and mind.

It reveals in part the cost of abandoning South Viet Nam to conquest by the forces of the communist North, and paints a terribly vivid picture of the heartless cruelty of the "re-education" camps, and the desperate and often traumatic flights of the Boat People.  Many scenes in it are not for the fainthearted or delicate, but they are, sadly, only too historically accurate.  It follows the often painful readjustment process of those who made it to US shores, and gives the Western viewer some idea of the truly heart-tearing dilemma of people forced to decide whether to stay in the oppressive land of their revered ancestors, or flee to freedom in an alien land.

This is a story which needed to be told, to shine a light on the agony and travail of those victims of the war's end, and the incredible courage of those who tried, sometimes more than once, to escape the awful existence imposed on them by the "liberators" of the South.  It serves to honor those who suffered, and help their children growing up in freedom to understand what their parents experienced to bring them to a better life.  And it serves to educate the rest of us, and allow us to both understand and respect their experiences, and be inspired by them, and grateful that they have come to add their energy and their spirit to this land.

But perhaps I am too subtle- let me put in another way.  Go See This Film!  (Or purchase the DVD when it's available.)  And encourage others, particularly younger people, to come with you.  It will be time very well spent.

Del

Contributed by Bill Faith on November 12, 2007 at 12:04 AM in R J Del Vecchio, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sunday, 28 October 2007
 

R J Del Vecchio: "Dear Jeremy"
Contributed by Bill Faith

Del emails:

I get asked to give lectures on the war at high schools and sometimes colleges.  The discussion always drifts into our national history, our founding principles, changes in our society, and many current events.  (The teachers always tell me this is unusual, but somehow I get the kids actually thinking about such things, and that's where real education starts.)  One kid wrote me recently and asked a question of some significance.  Below is my reply to him.  Several teachers have said they want to use it for their classes, and that maybe others would like to see it.  So here it is, for any of you who might be interested.

Del

Dear Jeremy,

You ask a very serious question, which is how American patriotism has changed in the last 40 years or so.  That’s a long topic, but I’ll try to hit just some major points about it.

First, patriotism, like anything else, can be overdone.  And in the past, it has been overdone by some people, who got to the point of saying America is perfect, beyond any criticism, all its heroes were perfect, all its history is wonderful with no bad things anywhere in it, and anyone who disagreed with any of that was a fool or a traitor or both.  This, of course, is silly, and to say any dissent makes you a traitor is actually directly against our national ideals.

During WW2, when the world was truly aflame with war and the danger to freedom was extreme, fear and defensiveness and anger promoted strong patriotism, which was natural and not altogether a bad thing.  There were flaws in how things were handled, the most famous example of which was the internment of the Japanese-Americans from California.  (Some German-Americans and Italian-Americans were also interned, but on a much more selective basis.)

After the war patriotism stayed strong, and its teaching in schools stayed strong.  We could say a prayer every day at the beginning of school, and also the Pledge of Allegiance, and we had classes for singing, where we learned patriotic songs.  When we studied American history, there was a lot of emphasis on colonial times and the American Revolution.  We learned about heroes like George Washington, the Minutemen, the battle of Bunker Hill, and our Founders like Jefferson and Franklin.  We heard a lot about what freedom meant and how it had been fought for so hard and so long.

Some of that history was not totally accurate, we didn’t hear that the War of 1812 was actually a disaster for the new country, we heard about fighting the Barbary Pirates but not about how in the end we in part bought them off, we only heard a little about the bad treatment American Indians received as the colonists and then the free Americans spread across the continent.  And there was not too much talk about just how awful slavery was.

At the same time, we had coming into this country refugees from communism in countries like Hungary and Cuba, and also previous immigrants from countries like Poland who had family still back in the old country.  The refugees had many horrible stories about life without freedom, the people with families still under communism also had plenty to tell about how their relatives suffered.  There were plenty of stories in papers and magazines about these things, and I even knew some refugees personally.  When you talk to people who have been really oppressed, you understand more about what freedom is, and then the teaching you got in school about patriotism makes more sense.

But in the early 1960s there was a movement against rabid patriotism, which grew because of excesses like something called the House Unamerican Activities Commission, which hunted for communist spies and sympathizers (of which there really were some) in such nasty ways that it was clear that this was as much witch-hunting and persecution as anything else.

Some historians rebelled against the over-the-top historical stories, like Washington and the cherry tree, etc, and pointed out that he and everyone else was human, with flaws and foibles, and not a super-perfect saint in every way.  More stories about the bad things done in the society, such as the treatment of Indians, the violation of treaties made with them, the exploitation of minorities (like Chinese and others who died building railroads, Scots and Irish coal miners who worked like slaves, etc.) started getting more and more publicity.

The fact that eventually our society’s rules allow minorities to overcome barriers and achieve the fabled “American dream” (as my grandparents did, like millions of other immigrants who came here and worked their way up to a better life for themselves and especially for their children) somehow gets unnoticed by those who see only what has been wrong or unjust in our history.

The accurate history of the US contains plenty of injustice, stupidity, greed, exploitation, intolerance, etc.  (No more than any other country, in fact, much less than very many, but that’s not the point for some people.)  But what happened in part was that really idealistic people became so upset with the flaws in America that they felt it was all a betrayal, and they became very cynical about everything.  And they started working hard to “fix” things, by getting rid of what they considered excessive brainwashing of students about patriotism.  They were joined by other people who simply reject the whole idea of capitalism and the American system, who believe in at least socialism if not actual communism.  (And we know now from actual records in Russia that there were in fact Soviet spies and communist sympathizers/agents working in the US from back in the 1940s, that they managed to steal really important secrets and encouraged anti-American thinking.)

When Viet Nam came along, it became a focal point for criticism of America.  At the same time the Civil Rights Movement and the Women’s Rights Movement were in full swing, so the society was in the throes of much conflict, and a storm of criticism of the racism and chauvinism that had existed for so long.  Many intellectuals came to despise the society in that time, and the discontent radical fringe that exists in any free society grew larger and larger as well.  It became very fashionable to strongly criticize or even condemn America’s past and its institutions and policies, and this movement soaked into the educational system over time.

We certainly cannot say prayers in school anymore, nor is there much singing of patriotic songs.  Many modern history books teach versions of US history that range from a little slanted to very slanted.  (One example- some books imply that the internment camps for the Japanese-Americans in WW2 were just as morally objectionable as the Nazi death camps, so the US really had no moral superiority in that war.  Anyone who can’t see the difference between camps where everyone left alive and healthy, if unfairly treated, and camps where people left only in the form of smoke and ashes, has such a different way of looking at things that there’s no point in any discussion.  But they should not be teaching history!)

For the past 10-15 years we have had the rise of a way of thinking called Political Correctness.  This starts off with good American principles, such as the intrinsic equality of all human beings.  But then it goes to things like that equality means not just in human rights and dignity, but in abilities and capacities.  This is irrational, people have different abilities and capacities and motivations, blind people can’t be pilots, men can’t do women’s gymnastic routines, and right now, 70% of the people in veterinary school are women, while 75% of the people studying mechanical engineering are men.  More men like to watch football, while more women will watch gymnastics or even dancing programs.

Yet PC thought says that colleges have to spend exactly as much money on men’s sport as on women’s sports, regardless of whether or not as many women want to be in sport or if their sports cost the same as men’s.  That’s just one example of PC excesses.

PC also emphasizes the respect we must have for other cultures and ways of life to the point where it automatically de-emphasizes our value of our own way of culture and way of life.  Which is another way of weakening patriotism.  PC thought says we Americans should not consider our society or way of life better than anyone else’s.  Yet that’s not really a logical point of view, you can respect some other family where maybe the kids never get to talk back at all to adults, that’s their culture, but you can sure feel your family where you can express yourself to adults is a better way.  Believing you have a better system doesn’t necessarily mean you are unfair or arrogant, and putting value on that system and being happy with it and willing to defend it doesn’t make you foolish.

We still have patriotism in this country, even some over-the-top patriot extremists.  But it’s a bit more dilute than it used to be, and the minority of people who are either not patriotic at all, or even worse, are to some extent anti-American in their thinking is now much larger than it ever was in the past.

Until the educational system returns to at least a bit more teaching of patriotism (not as brainwashing, but as explaining what we have and how good it really is and what it took to get it, and will take to keep it), the country will still not have as much in the way of the commitment of its citizens to its improvement and security as I think it should have.  And perhaps needs more than ever in the dangerous world we face today.

I hope this helps a little in your understanding.  If you have any questions, please let me know.

Mr. D.

Contributed by Bill Faith on October 28, 2007 at 12:13 AM in R J Del Vecchio | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 25 April 2007
 

R J Del Vecchio: Losing Friends
Contributed by Bill Faith

[Via email from Del]

I really like this article, it says a lot that really strikes a chord with me.  Especially the part about losing friends, because that has happened to me in the past 3 years much more than I would have thought possible.  It really started in the lead up to the 2004 election, when I told a lot of friends that if they liked John Kerry's record as a Senator and thought his speeches and promises really held value for them, they should vote for him; but that to vote for him because of his campaigning as a war hero would not be the thing to do.  That cost me a couple of friends right there, who argued briefly with me.  When I, as politely and carefully as possible, made some points about refuting the exaggerations of his war service while bringing up the extremism of his antiwar activities, they no longer argued.  They just stopped talking to me, and have not responded to any e-mails or phone calls since.

They were the first, but not the only people who moved away from me in varying degrees because of my occasionally sending them conservative articles or my own thoughts on issues.  I now have several old friends with whom I have very guarded (on my part) communications, wherein I limit topics to the weather, TV shows, general family updates, and the very occasional mention of sadness or disappointment with some political matter which reflects as much or more on the Right side of the aisle as the Left.

The term "intolerant liberal" is supposed to be an oxymoron, an inherent contradiction in terms.  And for me, it still is, because I reject the broad use of "liberal".  There are liberals, ultraliberals, and leftists.  As I see it, a liberal holds ideals about freedom and justice, equality of persons, maximizing human potential, doing as much charitable work as possible for demonstrated need, etc.

An ultraliberal takes that a step further, with innate biases that say any identified minority group must be given special consideration (smokers being the exception), any majority group is always suspect, government and its agencies are often guilty of deliberate abuses, many politicians are dishonest and act as tools for special interest groups, etc.  This is often idealism carried far, far out.

Leftists are all the way into the government is not only corrupt but oppressive, the large corporations run everything, injustice is regularly and very deliberately visited on the lower strata of society by those in power, the only way to be a racist is to be white, all religions (with the exception of Islam) are false and harmful, and communism didn't really fail in all those years, it just never got implemented properly due to the undercutting by the rest of the world.

The ultraliberals and leftists are anything but tolerant.  If you oppose them in any way, you are wrong, stupid, a conscious or unconscious tool of somebody/something, and perhaps just flawed to the point of being at least nasty if not evil.  They are in a sense addicted to their fantasies of how the world is and should be, and your opposition is taken as an attack on those cherished fantasies, which attack must and will be vehemently rejected.  Coming up with facts and logic that chip away at those fantasies only precipitates anger and barbed dismissal of your arguments.  For them, the baseline is not logic or objective facts, it's strong emotion that overrides everything else, and leads to accepting all "facts" that support their chosen beliefs (so the CIA flew the planes into the WTC, Saddam never had or tried to get WMD), while treating any and all counterarguments as irrelevant, erroneous, immaterial, or just plain outright lies.

And of course, you have now made them "uncomfortable", and heaven knows, you have no right to make anyone uncomfortable.  One of the interesting myths of modern times is that we have an inalienable right to be comfortable all the time, and those people who make us uncomfortable are marking themselves as unpleasant, somewhat rude/inconsiderate, and therefore, best avoided.  If you don't like looking at certain things, then you really should turn your head and look elsewhere, either at something you like, or sometimes, at things you like to hate/despise.  (Feeling righteous is also addictive, and righteousness is a hallmark of ultraliberals and leftists.)

How it has come to be that there is a significant fraction of Western societies that have slid into ultraliberalism and leftism (including so many highly educated and intelligent people) is a major question.  If anybody knows, please let me know.  If you know how to reverse it, I'll get you a ticket to fly to DC and we can meet some people in Congress or the White House to talk about it!

Del

The Big White Lie
Andrew Klavan

The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I don’t have to say that everyone’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God. I don’t have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I don’t have to pretend that Islam means peace.

Of course, like everything, this candor has its price. A politics that depends on honesty will be, by nature, often impolite. Good manners and hypocrisy are intimately intertwined, and so conservatives, with their gimlet-eyed view of the world, are always susceptible to charges of incivility. It’s not really nice, you know, to describe things as they are.

This is leftism’s great strength: it’s all white lies. That’s its only advantage, as far as I can tell. None of its programs actually works, after all. From statism and income redistribution to liberalized criminal laws and multiculturalism, from its assault on religion to its redefinition of family, leftist policies have made the common life worse wherever they’re installed. But because it depends on—indeed is defined by—describing the human condition inaccurately, leftism is nothing if not polite. With its tortuous attempts to rename unpleasant facts out of existence—he’s not crippled, dear, he’s handicapped; it’s not a slum, it’s an inner city; it’s not surrender, it’s redeployment—leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was queen.

This is no small thing. To rewrite the rules of courteous behavior is to wield enormous power. I see it in Southern California, in the bleeding heart of leftism, where I live. I’ve been banned from my monthly poker game, lost tennis partners, lost friends—not because I’m belligerent but because I’ve wondered aloud if the people shouldn’t be allowed to make their own abortion laws, say, or if the world might not be a better place without the UN. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 25, 2007 at 04:59 PM in R J Del Vecchio | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 28 March 2007
 

R J Del Vecchio:
"Hey, I'm not the only guy who likes Thompson"
Contributed by Bill Faith

Del thinks you should read this. Do it.

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 28, 2007 at 04:43 PM in Fred Thompson, Politics, R J Del Vecchio | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 19 March 2007
 

Max Friedman: Identifying the Anti-War Protesters
Contributed by Bill Faith

Email from R J Del Vecchio:

This is a letter to the editor of the Washington Post, with absolutely wonderful information on the leaders of the "antiwar" peaceniks. Everyone in the country should know who these people really are. Please read this over and pass it on.

Del

I emailed back and learned that Del got this straight from Max and has his permission to pass it along:

Dear Editor:

Your paper's coverage of the so-called "anti-Iraq protest movement" seriously failed to identify both the groups involved in leading the demonstration on March 17th, but also failed to identify its leaders whose names either appeared in the WP or on their press releases and websites.

Brian Becker, identified as "national coordinator for the Answer Coalition" is not identified as a longtime member and leader of the Stalinist "Workers World Party", perhaps the top communist party in the US today.  The same goes for other ANSWER spokespersons (over time) including Richard Becker, Steve Hackwell, Leslie Feinberg, Monica Moorehead, Sara Flounders, John Catalinotto, etc. Many of these individuals were identified as members of the WWP as far back at April 1974 in the report "The Workers World Party and Its Front Organizations", House Internal Security Committee (HISC) and in an earlier hearing, "Revolutionary Activities Directed Toward the Administration of Penal or Correctional Systems, Part 1", March/May, 1973. Thus WP writer Brigid Schulte's writing in "Veterans, Others Denounce Marchers", March 18th, got the chant "Workers World traitors must hang!" wrong. It was not "a reference to the Communist newspaper", i.e. "Workers World." It was a reference to the WWP as the sponsoring organization of the demonstration, along with a mixed Communist/Maoist coalition known as United for Peace & Justice, led by an old Communist Party USA-connect activist, Leslie Cagan, and Revolutionary Communist Party leader, the aging Carl Davidson.

ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is the main "peace" front for the WWP, which also formed and controlled its predecessor, International Action Center (IAC), the All Peoples Congress, and the Peoples Anti-War Mobilization. Newer fronts include the  Peoples Video Fund, Troops Out Now, Party for Liberation and Socialism, and the various International Tribunals on Panama, Iraq, Haiti, etc.

Ramsay Clark was chosen as the front man either in late 1980 or early 1990, and this, in itself, would make a fascinating story to follow through on, though his support for various communist front groups goes back as far as the 1970's.

Significant information about the WWP and UPJ can be found at www.frontpagemagazine.com and its "DiscoveryTheNetwork" database, among other on-line sources.

Also, Schulte's attempt to characterize "The veterans for peace, including active duty men and women, and guys fresh from Iraq in desert camo ..." as  still having " the thousand-yard stare, and a battlefield hauntedness" was nothing more than pure hype, and garbage. While some may have seen heavy combat, it was of limited time of contact and of a limited in-country time of duration. The "stare" should belong to my father-in-law who fought his way across the Pacific in WW2 to a place called Iwo Jima,  or to the soldiers at the Chosin Reservoir, or to the Battle of Hue, Khe San, An Loc, etc.

This is not to take away from those Iraq veterans protestors who served honorably, but my son fought there and he doesn't have any "stare", only a healty respect for life and his fellow soldiers. Neither did the scores of Vietnam veterans I met with and talked to during the Protect the Wall rally. If anyone should have had the "thousand-yard stare," it was the guys I met from the Big Red One Division, the 3rd Marine Division, and the 82nd and 173rd Airborne Divisions, among other. Mike Benge, a former Marine and ex-civilian POW in Vietnam (5 years) and R J Del Vecchio, who was telling us about funny stories about how his wound was treated, didn't "stare"; they laughed, they shook hands and shared hugs of respect with fellow vets, and gave my daughter more history lessons on Vietnam in a few hours than you would find in many schools. They were the true "Band of Brothers."

Sincerely,

Max Friedman

(MF was a MACV-accredited correspondent in So. Vietnam, Fall 1970)

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 19, 2007 at 07:04 PM in Caring about our troops, Gathering of Eagles, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, Media Perfidy, R J Del Vecchio, The American Warrior, US Air Force, US Army, US Coast Guard, US Marine Corps, US Navy, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Saturday, 17 March 2007
 

EAGLES UP!
Contributed by Bill Faith

This post will remain at the top of the site for the remainder of the day. Please scroll down for possible newer content. Actual timestamp 2007.03.17.00:02. I know of at least three people who'll be at The Wall with my phone number programmed into their cell phones and they know I'll be anxious to know how things are going, so here's hoping. Click the Eagle to see the entire Old War Dogs Gathering Of Eagles series.

"Let us make it clear, we've all come here
To defend our long-dead brothers;
And understand you ain't layin' a hand
On our Wall you leftie mothers."
(Click here to listen to the .mp3) 

EAGLES UP!

*** 08:10

My feet hit the floor at the absolutely gawdawful (for me; I usually blog till all hours then sleep well into the day) hour of 07:45 CDT. The closest I can come so far to finding any GOE coverage of any sort, or any mention of the moonbat convergence that necessitated GOE, is this at Michelle's, written a couple of hours ago:

The silent guard of America's memorials 
Michelle Malkin

Bryan Preston and I are headed down to the Gathering of Eagles. Hope to see you there, too. I'll blog when my fingers and connection aren't frozen.

*** 09:37

Just got an email from J D Pendry. He says Fox & Friends did a segment on the moonbat convergence and The Gathering Of Eagles. Also says he got a call from one of his old troops who estimates there are about 5,000 vets gathered around the wall and says the moonbats are staying well clear of the area so far.

*** 10:35

FOX, at least, is giving fairly balanced coverage. I watch very little TV but my sister just had me come and look at what FOX had on.  If anything, the good guys may have gotten a little more screen time than the moonbats. Apparently things have been calm so far, with the moonbats scheduled to set out for the Pentagon in about an hour.

*** 10:42   

Just got a call from Bob K. (our newest Dog, btw; I just had the pleasure of welcoming him into the pack) who says things have been calm so far and that he thinks J D's 5,000 number is way out of date.

*** 12:32

Just heard from The Gray Dog a few minutes ago. He says if anything the good guys have the moonbats outnumbered. Says the estimates he's heard were around 10,000 on each side. No major incidents of any sort. Getting close to time for the moonbats to move out for their little protest at the Pentagon, well away from our Wall. He says he got to thank Michelle Malkin for showing up but didn't see her headed his way in time to get his camera out of his pocket. I'll be looking forward to her coverage of the event.

I was grabbing a short nap when The Gray Dog called and haven't checked the news sites or other blogs for a while but I'll do that now.

***

CNN: Crowds gather to denounce, support war

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hundreds of anti-war demonstrators and supporters of the U.S. policy in Iraq shouted at each other Saturday from opposite sides of a street bordering the National Mall as protesters formed a march to the Pentagon to denounce a war entering its fifth year.

The anti-war group carried signs saying "U.S. Out of Iraq Now," "Stop Iraq War, No Iran War, Impeach" and "Illegal Combat." The other side carried signs saying "Peace Through Strength," "al Qaeda Appeasers On Parade" and "We Are At War, Liberals Root For the Enemy."

Police on horseback and foot separated the demonstrators, who were on opposite sides of Constitution Avenue in view of the Lincoln Memorial. Barriers also kept them apart. ...

Police on horses ensured anti-war protesters and counterdemonstrators stayed apart at the staging area. Several thousand people, many of them service members, rallied in support of the war. They played "The Battle Hymn of the Republic;" the anti-war crowd danced to Stevie Wonder's "Superstition."

Veterans, some from the Rolling Thunder motorcycle group, lined up at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. ...   

Surprisingly balanced coverage for an AP piece, although it you read the whole thing some slant does come through.

*** 16:30

Don't know why FOX isn't giving this more coverage on their web site but they're doing a good job with it on air, including some good pics of the Gathering Of Eagles and Rolling Thunder crowd and the first on-air use I've heard of the words "Gathering Of Eagles." Sounds like the day ended with no violence beyond a couple of shoving matches. I shudder to think how things might have gone if the Eagles and RT hadn't been there in the numbers they were. Sounds like some anarchists got themselves arrested at the Pentagon but nothing major at all happened anywhere near The Wall. Color this Old Dog relieved and very, very grateful to the patriots who made the trip I wasn't up to, and especially to Bob K and The Gray Dog for taking time to call me in the midst of all that was going on.

***

From CNN.com, would you believe (click the pic to read the article):

***

R J Del Vecchio called a few minutes ago to let me know things went well. He thinks the patriotic counter-protests may become a regular thing. I hope he's right. He promised me an After Action Report by email by sometime tomorrow. Watch for it.  [Update: Click here.]

Don't miss Antimedia's reports here and here.

***

Blogburst: Gathering of Eagles
Michelle Malkin

It was a breath-taking, historic, and emotional day in Washington, D.C. You won't know it if you tune in to the usual MSM channels. But new media--bloggers, conservative documentarians, Internet activists, FReepers, citizen journalists, photojournalists, and talk radio hosts--turned out in full force to participate and cover the Gathering of Eagles counter-protest. Thousands upon thousands turned out despite freezing temperatures and hairy travel conditions. We met bikers who drove up all night from Huntsville, Alabama; a retired NYC firefighter who arrived here at 2am; college students who traveled from Massachusetts; a Vietnam veteran's wife who bought plane tickets at the last minute from San Francisco; and countless participants who arrived as part of Move America Forward's cross-country caravan.

A pure, grass-roots effort, the Gathering of Eagles' volunteers matched the massive Soros-funded anti-war machine sign for sign, chant for chant, and marcher for marcher. The contrast was most stark right before the entrance to the Memorial Bridge, where Eagles gathered with a field of American flags--while anti-Bush, 9/11 conspiracy nuts wrapped themselves in a figurative blanket of yellow "Out of Iraq" placards. Several of the vets shouted, "Yellow! How appropriate!" in between spirited chants of "U.S.A! U.S.A!" While the classless Cindy Sheehan ranted profanely, the Eagles raised their voices in polite, but roaring disapproval and raised their American flags in answer to the ANSWER socialists' Che banners and peace pennants.

Why did the Eagles come? One common refrain: Vietnam veterans, some fighting back tears, told us they came to show the kind of support for the troops that they did not receive when the surrender lobby marched on the Pentagon 40 years ago today.

Mission accomplished. ...

***

Bob Krupienski, our newest pack member, left this as a comment but I'll move it here so it doesn't get overlooked:

What an exciting day. Sorry I only called you once today Bill.

Today was a very emotional on for me. It was the first time that I had been to the Wall. There were many tears, including my own. There was a GoE determination that "We Are Back To Stay".

At the very least, we matched their numbers though I did hear a rumor that FoxNews said we had the punks by 3 to 1. It is really hard for me to say because we were spread out. We had folks at the GoE rally, we had long lines at the Wall, and we had folks along the punks parade route. My personal feeling is that we had them outnumbered.

I only saw one incident. One of the punks was dragging our flag on the ground. Of course, our side took exception to that and took the flag away from the punk. Just a little action but justified. The flag is in safe hands now.

Our non-Vet supporters get a big thanks. Behind us and our troops 100%. Our Milbloggers get a big thanks too. Without them, the word never would have gotten out. I mean, thousands of us got the word in a very short period of time. Oh, got to thank Michelle Malkin and Bryan for being there.

I spent the day with Kim from Rolling Thunder. RT had one heck of a turnout. They were everywhere. There is a rumor that I will be contacting my local RT chapter about joining. Patriots to the bone.

Got to close this for now. I have a wake-up call in 6-1/2 hours. Plan to drive back to Chicago in the morning.

I just took a few pictures and I will send them your way when I am home and rested. Kim, my RT buddy took a lot more and we will get his to you as well.

***

Spongebob Sheehan & the Eagles 

Sorry brothers, that I wasn’t with you defending the Wall today. Bit far from sunny, warm Encinitas (beach town between San Diego and Camp Pendleton). Took my almost 7-year old son Jason for a walk on the beach to collect sea shells, then went for pizza. The usual crowd of young, beach-going tatooed’s and a few comparative geezers like me scattered in. Watched TV in the pizza parlor, and someone turned to CSPAN. Cindy Sheehan came on ranting, as pizza eaters cracked up when one beach youth just up from surfing said Cindy looked worse than Spongebob Squarepants after a bad day. A grayed pony-tail geezer nearby commented that without sex, drugs and rock-‘n-roll during the ‘60’s to blur the senses these protestors looked truly bored at the rants, and that if he wanted to be yelled at that’s what he had a wife for. Probably why the shivering small crowd in D.C. looked like the fuzz-faced who didn’t yet know better about getting ranted at and angry grandma’s who miss having husbands to rant at. Vietnam vet, who runs the Army surplus store, came in for a slice, asked why the Gathering of Eagles wasn’t being shown, instead of the Cackling, and returned to work. Jason and I went back to the beach. Made a game of looking for our friend, the funny Spongebob. Had enough of the scary one. ...

***

I just posted R J Del Vecchio's After Action Report as a separate post: Defending The Wall.

***

Once-a-Marine-always-a-Marine Curt has some great pics and quotes here. Fine pup, that one. If he was older I'd try to recruit him as an Old War Dog.

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 17, 2007 at 11:59 PM in Bob Krupienski, Caring about our troops, Gathering of Eagles, Peacenik Stupidity, R J Del Vecchio, The American Warrior, US Air Force, US Army, US Coast Guard, US Marine Corps, US Navy, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 28 February 2007
 

R J Del Vecchio: Update on Mar 17th
Contributed by Bill Faith

Email from Del, who I understand shared his home with Larry Bailey last night and dropped him at the airport at 05:00 this morning [2007.02.28]:

Many of you will already know all or most of this, but just in case... this is what I know at the moment.

The main ad hoc group organizing the general assembling of vets to surround The Wall on March 17th to prevent any desecration or even disrespect to it by the antiwar protest demonstration is the Gathering of Eagles bunch.  (gatheringofeagles.org)

On the one hand, the Park Service has been flooded with letters, calls, e-mails, and general screaming about this, and have committed to having barriers up, lots of police there, and not allowing any sort of flags, banners, etc, that is, major demonstratives, to be carried into the vicinity of The Wall.  And they are not about to let anyone do anything to mark it, scar it, paste anything on it, etc.  They recognize that vet groups will be there, and some sort of liaison has been set up.  On the one hand, no one is to make a big noise of any sort while at The Wall, which means even those who are only there to honor and protect it.  And on the other hand, vets will be more or less allowed to be a barrier of bodies should anyone appear to approach The Wall with some sort of intent to perform any kind of political action there.  All physical action to remove such people (idiots, maniacs, suicidal, whatever they may be) is supposed to be done by the police.

(Continued "below the fold")

The idea is to keep The Wall safe, but not have any Viet Nam vets involved in even a mild form of violence right in that area.  This would play directly into the hands of the antiwar people, the media would of course instantly revert to the "Rambo" crazy vet images we all know and love, and we'd be the bad guys again.

So in the ideal world, vets will be there, in numbers, in large numbers, maybe in the largest numbers ever since the original dedication, but in a silent and powerful presence that will keep anyone from even thinking of trying anything stupid.  And which will be a solid reassurance to those who stand now where we stood so long ago, out in front of our country, serving and protecting as best they can, and sadly, facing some of the same crap we faced then.  We can hope (and I believe) that the TV coverage that will come and which will be seen on bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else our young people serve, will let them know that we stand with them and for them, that they are respected, appreciated, honored, no matter what politicians and other say.

This is not something that relates only to whether you approve of the war or not.  That's a different subject, a political subject, and we all get to have our own views and desires about it.  But The Wall is not for political purpose one way or another.  It's only about honoring the sacrifice of those who fell while the rest of us were lucky enough to come home. Left, Right, Center, or totally nonpolitical, we can all agree on that.

So I will be there, just to say hi to my friends on The Wall, and honor their memory again, and to attest, by my presence, that the tribute to them, this Memorial for them, cannot and shall not be made into any sort of tool for political purposes.  Demonstrators can demonstrate, they can be nice, not nice, smooth, or stupid, but whatever they do, they won't do it at The Wall.

See you there-

Del

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 28, 2007 at 10:12 PM in Caring about our troops, Gathering of Eagles, R J Del Vecchio, The American Warrior, US Air Force, US Army, US Coast Guard, US Marine Corps, US Navy, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Your tax dollars at work
Contributed by Bill Faith

Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard
By Mike S. Adams. Hat tips: Russ Vaughn, R J Del  Vecchio

Yesterday afternoon, I logged on to the "Global War" blog (global-war.bloghi.com) of Associate Professor Julio Pino – a Muslim convert who teaches at Kent State University. The heading for the site used to read "The Worldwide Web of Jihad: Daily News from the Most Dangerous Muslim in America." Now it reads "Are You Prepared for Jihad?" IN THE NAME OF OBL. 2007: THE YEAR OF ISLAMIC VICTORY!"

Hardly able to believe what I was reading, I called Pino at his office in Ohio around 4 p.m. According to his secretary, he had not been at work that day (he only has office hours two days of the week). He was drawing a paycheck from the people of the State of Ohio while trying to launch a Jihad against people like me. In fact, just five minutes before I called he posted an entry under the title "Crusaders Can’t Take Anymore in Afghanistan!" 

Pino began his morning of not going into his office at Kent State by penning a post under the title “Frightened British Crusaders Rush More Troops to Occupied Afghanistan.” Using terms like “occupation” and “Crusaders” it isn’t really necessary to read these posts in order to ascertain who this employee of the State of Ohio is rooting for in the War on Terror. ...

Many people believe that Julio Pino deserves to be fired because of his public statements about the War on Terror. I disagree. A simple firing is too light a punishment.

Dr. Julio Pino, for his decision to "provide battle dispatches, training manuals, and jihad videos to our (enemies) worldwide" deserves to be arrested and sent to an island off the coast of North America, striped naked, interrogated, and, if necessary, tortured to ascertain the extent of his involvement in assisting our enemies.

After we are done with him, he is free to return to Ohio. That is unless, of course, he is found to be something more than a professorial pansy posing as a genuine Jihadist.  ...

R J Del Vecchio writes:

Read this column and you, too, can be depressed by what goes on in this country.  The hell with tolerance, dammit, time is here to come down hard on those who rejoice in their hatred and destructive intentions towards us all. ...

I want this guy dropped into the mountains of Pakistan with an "Osama is a fag" T-shirt superglued to his torso.  Maybe with one of the Danish cartoons printed on the reverse side of the shirt for good measure.

Russ Vaughn wants to know: "And taxpayers are underwriting this shit?"

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 28, 2007 at 07:46 PM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, R J Del Vecchio, Russ Vaughn | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sunday, 25 February 2007
 

R J Del Vecchio: The voices are getting louder...
Contributed by Bill Faith

Del emails:

OK, the wake-up calls are getting louder and louder in some places, maybe loud enough to get heard over the incessant pap of the politically correct crowd that has trumpeted "diversity" and "tolerance" for so long. I still find Reagan's quote to be one that should be ringing out all over the West these days... "If history teaches us anything, it teaches that self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly."

But the addiction to fantasy seems to be stronger than ever in leftist circles and among too many intellectuals.  One wonders how bad it will have to get before the fantasy collapses, and the real ugliness begins.

British Multiculturalism - One Man's Experience
Giraldus Cambrensis

We received a testimonial from one of our readers, of his experiences of the current climate in Britain. We shall call him "Doug" to disguise his identity. In his own words, unedited, this is his account:

Why its time to go

This story starts in Bristol city in the SW of the United Kingdom. In June 2003 I decided to leave that city to return to Scotland the Country of my youth. The reason for that return was simple, I had witnessed a series of events, which had shocked and depressed me.

The worst of these was a serious assault against a student, he was walking home from a night out, he was causing no harm, the area was St Pauls, a notoriously crime ridden area, favoured by immigrants, and Afro Caribbeans. The student was set upon and his mobile stolen, he was left bloodied and unconscious, we went to help but we were no match for the attackers who fled instantly.

The other events in Bristol, which prompted my return North, included the introduction of armed police onto the streets of part of Bristol, this was done to combat the armed gang violence between black gangs. Bristol is the UK's crack capital. These gangs were a mix of Afro Caribbean "Yardies" and Somalian tribesmen, as well as a few indigenous hangers on. People who lived in these areas where subjected to endless robberies and assaults by drug addicts, crackheads etc. I decided that this was not for me. I packed my car and left. As I was leaving I noticed a large queue on the pavement I had seen the queue many times full of people of African and Middle Eastern extraction, they were outside the local Asylum seeker help centre. I paid little attention.

I was originally brought up in the Scottish lowlands a beautiful area of rolling hills and moor land, one of the least populated parts of the UK. On my arrival at my parents house I knew I had made a good decision, I immediately felt at home, amongst the trees and hills.

Anyway after a few months I started to set my mind to careers and money, without which we all know you don't get very far. I had friends in Glasgow a hundred miles North I decided to head up and look at opportunities. I have always liked Glasgow, it was once the richest city in the British Empire (per capita). A place with a chequered history but a good vibrant city. Well after a while I decided to move there, I chose to move to an area in the south side of the city, Pollokshields. This is area was one of the UK's first garden suburbs, massive houses, and beautiful large tenement apartments. I decided to purchase an apartment; it was one of the few areas I could afford given the UK's housing price boom. I had high hopes and was full of ideas and expectation.

It began the first night, the upstairs neighbours began shouting and screaming, a man was hitting his wife, the noise was unbearable, they were Pakistani, the area was home to the largest Pakistani Muslim community in Scotland. I had looked at the area and was bedazzled by the ornate Georgian architecture; I had forgotten to take a look at the more important social dimension. ...

Read the whole thing,

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 25, 2007 at 10:38 PM in Great Britain, Islamism Delenda Est, R J Del Vecchio | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 22 February 2007
 

R J Del Vecchio: "Quid, me vexare?"
Contributed by Bill Faith

Email from Del:

Or as the MAD magazine character Alfred E. Neumann used to say, "What, me worry?".

Well, here's why I worry.

1- There have been in the past more than enough examples of crazy/nasty/megalomaniac leaders of nations and movements who did not hesitate to lie, cheat, manipulate, punish, destroy, and murder in pursuit of their own agenda for power, to the point of bringing horrific damage to not only all those they wanted to conquer or destroy, but also their own people.  From Napoleon to Pol Pot, we do not lack knowledge of what such people can accomplish if left alone to build engines of destruction while descending into an egomaniac arrogance of invulnerability.  Why would we believe none such can exist in the world of today or tomorrow?

2- We have only to glance at North Korea to see a true hellhole on earth, ruled by the present nutcase and his father before him for the past 60+ years, with a starving population but an army of brainwashed automatons champing at the bit to invade South Korea, and an apparent devotion to having nuclear weapons capacity.  A government that has defied and manipulated the West for decades, extorting food and energy supplies by threats of violence, while conceding nothing of any meaning at all.  What is there to indicate to the madmen at the top that anything can ever happen to really affect them negatively, when the West has acted largely as a supplicant and the worst that happens is the occasional UN embargo that doesn't cause that leadership to be deprived of so much as an after dinner mint?

(Continued "below the fold.")

3- Or we can examine Iran, the modern history of which started with the most blatantly illegal and illicit international outrage of modern times, a 444 day imprisonment of an entire diplomatic staff, for which there were no real negative consequences, but the enormous positive consequence of being the first "little nation" to successfully defy and indeed humiliate the USA.  A nation under rule of what is the only real theocracy of modern times, dominated by fundamentalist Islamic thought that has concentrated on hatred of Israel, the USA, and the West in general for over a generation now.  A government in power under a radical whose public pronouncements are so strongly reminiscent of Adolf Hitler that people who wish to do so, can dismiss him as a crazy clown (just as Hitler was dismissed by many in the late 1920s).  A government which has exported massive amounts of weapons and supplies to radical jihadists in many parts of the Middle East, and very effectively fomented violence and expansion of radicalism in the region, and has yet to suffer the slightest penalty for so doing.  A government that continues to defy the world in its drive to also obtain nuclear weapons capacity.

4- Underlying all this is the broad spread of Wahabism throughout the Islamic world, funded in large part by billions in Saudi oil money that has gone to build madrasa schools far and wide, where young boys are inculcated in religious extremism, where fiery preachers learn their trade and end up in mosques from Scotland to Skokie spreading the word that the caliphate must be restored, the infidels conquered or destroyed, and of course, Israel be utterly removed from existence.  There are multiple currents in this overall stream of jihadism, the contributions of Hamas and Hezbollah, often allied with Iran, cannot be neglected either, and the incredible perversion of Islam that glorifies suicide attacks against innocents and has mothers rejoicing in their sons' deaths while acting as mass murderers is the most dramatic evidence possible of how a culture of death and destruction has been created and nurtured into significant proportions.  And the tactics of terror have rendered mute the great bulk of the moderate communities of Islam across the world. 5- And who is left to counter the growth of these threats to world peace and stability?  The UN, which could do nothing in Ruanda, failed in a feeble attempt in Somalia, can do nothing today in Darfur, could not even manage a very public and important program to allow Iraq under Saddam to export oil solely for food to feed his people?  Like it or not, the US is the only six-foot-six guy in the room, everyone else is 5'6" or less, and when anyone thinks of heavy lifting to be done, all eyes turn to the red/white/blue.  But at the same time, they want, and many of our own people want, us to be able to do things with transparent perfection, so no innocent is even made uncomfortable, much less hurt or killed, indeed, even fanatic killers by their own admission must be treated far better by us than our own convicts on Death Row, and infinitely better than they'd be treated by authorities in their own countries.  The least transgression, real or alleged, by our troops is trumpeted as evidence of our utter moral failure and brings screaming condemnation from all sides, while a massive policy of atrocities by anyone else generates at most some expressions of regret.  (Or even various levels of excuses as to why such acts are understandable, if not quite excusable.)  All of this leads steadily towards inevitable impossibility of achieving any good in the world, and impels Americans back more and more towards feelings and concepts that harken back to the days of Isolationism.  (Which didn't work then and sure as hell won't work now.)

6- So we see all these very worrisome things rolling along with no real brakes to be applied by the UN or anyone else.  Here is the quote that I am only too sure applies now- "If history teaches us anything, it teaches that self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly."  Today's self-delusion is that the West can walk away from Iraq and let it collapse into complete bloody chaos, and it'll all work out somehow.  And just a decade or two from now people will be taking great vacations there, greeted by warm and friendly locals, just as we can today in Viet Nam.

But Iraq is NOT Viet Nam, and rising Islamic extremism is not weak and failing Soviet communism.  No, there is no "Green Army" of divisions of men, with tanks, planes, ships, large military bases, etc, threatening to invade like the Panzers into Poland in '39.  That doesn't mean there's no real threat in the long term.  Iran and North Korea are threats as well. In terms of the world today and these dangers, a very simple principle applies- You can pay now, or you can pay later.  And later, the costs will be much, much higher.

I don't have a perfect, easy answer, nobody does.  But abandoning Iraq, and continuing to tolerate rogue states that openly threaten the peace and continue to work at gaining nuclear weapons with which to bully and endanger the world are absolutely the wrong answers.

Del

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 22, 2007 at 05:08 PM in Iran, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, NoKo, R J Del Vecchio | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Sunday, 18 February 2007
 

And if we cut & run...
Contributed by Bill Faith

R J Del Vecchio emails:

Really good food for thought, for anyone interested in thinking about the real consequences of abandoning Iraq.  Which will not apply, of course, to all those who hate George Bush more than they do Bin Laden.

If We Fail…
Been there, done that.
By Victor Davis Hanson

Most Americans accept that if the United States cannot stabilize Iraq, and, in frustration and acrimony, withdraws in defeat, crises follow. The only disagreement is over how bad they will be.

Some point to the aftermath of Vietnam and, mirabile dictu, think the world eventually went on pretty much the same. In this rosy view, the preordained end of the Cold War made the communist postwar Vietnamese increasingly entrepreneurial, and thus more pro-American than friendly to their erstwhile Chinese patrons.

Others, more soberly I think, recall instead in the interval the million-plus of boat-people, exiles, the executed, and detained — and the aftershocks that killed millions more in Afghanistan, Cambodia, and Central America, once it was established that the United States would not, or could not, thwart Communist aggression. The Iranian hostage-taking and the rise of radical Islam itself were predicated on the idea that a post-Vietnam America would not intervene against terrorists, whether in Tehran or Lebanon. And Vietnam, of course, today is no South Korea, as millions there without freedom could attest. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 18, 2007 at 03:26 PM in Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, R J Del Vecchio | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 14 February 2007
 

Let's Be Specific
Contributed by Bill Faith

Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret. (Hat tip: R J Del Vecchio):

Due to the thunderous applause that I received from the far-left over the “I Am Tired” letter written by one of our troops in Iraq, I thought it prudent to follow up with one last attempt to be very specific about what I have observed and actually personally encountered during my 36 years of service to this Great Country. This will be a one time attempt to reach some of those who are confused by the far-left and their ilk’s unethical rantings and give some insight through my personal experience as a professional military officer over the years. These examples are but a few. In real life there were many more which space and time will not allow. ...

I realize there are different points of view on war, and I do not believe the meek will inherit the earth, at least not in the next few hundred years. To those of the far-left, who will undoubtedly respond to this letter, let me say, “This is a strong country!!!” It has survived the uneducated thinking of the far-left before, and I’ll just bet it will again. Regardless of who is President, the people will not tolerate mass explosions on a daily basis, as our good friends in Israel have been forced to do. To protect that position of power, even Hillary will be forced to become a true hawk. To guarantee a few more votes Ted Kennedy may be forced to begin supporting a strong military. One more attack on America might even wipe the giddy, ‘I-am-finally-somebody’ grin from Nancy Pelosi’s face, and make her realize that is not about votes and personal power. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THIS GREAT COUNTRY FROM ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

Read the whole thing.

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 14, 2007 at 06:12 PM in Peacenik Stupidity, R J Del Vecchio | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Saturday, 10 February 2007
 

R J Del Vecchio: The WSJ roasts Lembke
Contributed by Bill Faith

Del emails:

The debunking of Lembke's bunk has now made it all the way into the big time.  NOW will the idiot defenders of his 100% biased writings finally back off?  The answer is NO, because you see, he MUST be right, the antiwar people MUST be clean, pure, living at the highest peak of moral ground, they have to go into fanatic resistance to any of the sad but real history of the bad treatment that too many antiwar people (be fair, not all of them) gave to vets and encouraged everyone else to give to vets.  Their insecurity is demonstrated by the screaming passion of their attacks on anyone who points out the facts of the history and the falseness of Lembke's book. ...

From the Wall Street Journal Opinion page:

Spit or Myth?
James Taranto

An item yesterday referred to a column by Slate's Jack Shafer, in which he asserted that the "myth" that Vietnam War opponents spat on veterans has been debunked. Shafer rests this claim on Jerry Lembcke's 1998 book, "Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam," which Shafer says he has made his "best efforts to publicize":

Lembcke found no news accounts or even claims from the late 1960s or early 1970s of vets getting spat at. . . . Then, starting around 1980, members of the Vietnam War generation began sharing the tales, which Lembcke calls "urban myths."

But Jim Lindgren, blogging at The Volokh Conspiracy, says he "easily found many accounts published in the 1967-1972 period claiming spitting on servicemen." They include articles in the New York Times and Washington Post, as well as smaller papers. Here's just one example:

Among the journalists who gave first-hand accounts of spitting on soldiers was James Reston, two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize. Spitting was one of the actions tame enough for Reston to describe in his New York Times front page story covering the October 21-22, 1967 Washington anti-war demonstrations: "It is difficult to report publicly the ugly and vulgar provocation of many of the militants. They spat on some of the soldiers in the front line at the Pentagon and goaded them with the most vicious personal slander. Many of the signs carried by a small number of militants . . . are too obscene to print."

If such stories existed, why did Lembcke fail to find them? Another Lindgren post offers this quite plausible explanation:

Having done literally thousands of WESTLAW and LEXIS/NEXIS searches, I can say that when something starts appearing in the press in the early 1980s, that is almost always a function of when these two news services started including the full texts of major newspapers.

We recall once editing an article in which the author claimed that some idea gained greater currency because an Nexis search for it turned up more references with each passing year. The trouble is, Nexis includes more publications with each passing year, so that results like this will be deceptive unless you limit the search to publications that have full Nexis coverage for the entire period of interest.

Did Lembke, a sociologist at Holy Cross University, really make such a basic error in methodology?

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 10, 2007 at 03:27 PM in Caring about our troops, Peacenik Stupidity, R J Del Vecchio, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 08 February 2007
 

R J Del Vecchio: Why Can't They See It?
Contributed by Bill Faith

Del emails:

Today there was an interesting blurb on the AOL website, a video clip from an interview with Celize Theron by a CNN reporter, focused on the phenomenon of rap music in countries other than America, most specifically, in Cuba.  In the course of the discussion, it came out that the composers had to submit their lyrics to Cuban government officials for approval before they could be performed in public, and that there were severe penalties for anyone who defied the rules and presented anything the government found somehow inappropriate.

The reporter at one point said, casually, something like "So, you found there are controls on free speech in Cuba?"  To which Theron replied instantly to the effect that after all, the same thing exists in the USA. The reporter, clearly taken aback a bit by this, went on to question her basis for such a statement, and she referred to having heard that some people in media jobs had been fired for expressing antiwar views.  The reporter then went on to ask if she really saw such alleged incidents as being equivalent to the type of controls in Cuba (and to be fair, the tone of his voice and his delivery clearly expressed his own feeling that this seemed a bit over the top).  She replied without hesitation that yes, she sees no difference.

This is one more example among so many of assorted public figures, mostly Hollywood/media/academic types, freely opining that whatever defect any other society has, the USA is no better (and in some cases, worse).  It is also an example of real obtuseness, if there is no difference between a government policy of official censorship of performing artists and some individual employer imposing (fairly or unfairly) restrictions on what employees can say in public, then every society now and in history has always been equally repressive.  Ms. Theron may be quite intelligent and talented, and certainly impressively beautiful, but she's still incapable of objective, reasoned thought on some issues.

What she doesn't see, what none of the social critics seem to see, is that whether they intend it or not, they play directly into the hands of those who hate and despise us, and intend to do as much harm to us as they possibly can.  Every time any public figure criticizes this country, that gets picked up and added to the massive propaganda that washes over all of Islam and much of the rest of the world.  It's proclaimed far and wide as rock solid confirmation by enlightened Americans of the total corruption and decadence of the society, which of course fans the enthusiasm of those who want to see us and present us as the Great Satan.

When Lt. Watada makes statements that if he went to Iraq at all, he'd automatically be guilty of partaking in war crimes, Bin Laden et al. jump for joy and it makes headlines all over the Moslem world, and elsewhere. When Micheal Moore and others say the war is only about stealing Arab oil and persecuting Moslems, the flames of hatred and fanaticism get fanned wonderfully.

No, we aren't perfect, then again, who the hell is or ever was?  No, that doesn't excuse our flaws and mistakes, but it does call for some kind of balanced view rather than the orgy of self-recrimination and general ignoring of the evils of those with whom we are in conflict.  The West can self-destruct, and too much of what we see going on in the USA and other Western societies seems to indicate we're sliding in that direction.

God knows I hope I'm wrong.

Del

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 8, 2007 at 08:09 PM in Peacenik Stupidity, R J Del Vecchio, Unclear on the concept | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 12 January 2007
 

R J Del Vecchio: "Save your buck"
Contributed by Bill Faith

Travelogue Through Vietnam’s “War Museum”
Bruce Kesler

The North Vietnamese conquerors of Saigon (renamed Ho Chi Minh City, but still called Saigon by almost everyone else) renamed their Museum of American Atrocities simply War Museum, to better appeal to tourists and the gullible. But, it’s still the same exhibits.

Below is a tour of the Saigon War Museum narrated by DelVecchio. Very educational.

My friend R.J. DelVecchio was a Marine combat photographer during the war, and has a sharp eye for both the visual and for facts. I wrote about his return trip to South Vietnam last February, to deliver small packets of cash to disabled former South Vietnamese soldiers who are still treated abysmally by their conquerors. I wrote more about the Vietnam Healing Foundation, a tax-deductible charity, that collects the funds to distribute. ...

[The reader will kindly click the green and white VHF button on the sidebar. -- BF]

[Del] is completing his second return to South Vietnam, and takes us on a tour of Saigon’s “War Museum.” The travelogue is full of interesting and sharp observations. Especially notice how dependent the exhibits are on Western and American sources, themselves selective in the meme of opposition to the U.S. effort there, and selectively used to still be a propaganda “Museum of American Atrocities.”

Here's Del's letter, which I received directly from him about the same time Bruce did: 

Well, here I am with time to kill in Saigon, so I thought what the hell, I know it won't be fun exactly, but may as well go see the War Museum. (Formerly known as the Museum of American Atrocities, but renamed a few years back to be a bit more attractive to the tourists.)

It has several sections placed around a large courtyard, and with lots of big equipment in the courtyard.  (A Huey, two fighter jets, spotter plane, two tanks, another armored vehicle, a 175mm cannon, some other artillery, a bunch of bomb casings, etc.)  The first hall is the Hall of Historical Truth, and has a lot of pictures from the earliest US involvement in Viet Nam, a lot of charts of how many planes and tanks and rifles and damn near every military supply item you can think of were used in the war or given to the ARVN.  It has one wall with all the insignia of major US units serving in country.  (Took a snapshot of that.)  Then there's a long hallway with a couple hundred pictures from the war, some blown up very large.  I looked at the first one and recognized a Larry Burroughs shot that won a prize, and then as I glanced around I recognized more and more of the images.  They were all from the major display of war pictures that has been touring the US for the last several years, in fact I helped put them up at the library of the university in downtown Raleigh two years ago.  By the end of the display I came across the plaque from some group in Kansas that had contributed the whole display to the museum.

They had a whole wall display of the names of all the commercial photojournalists who died in SE Asia, and I stopped to tell the guide at the desk that it's an incomplete display, since it doesn't list any of the military photographers and correspondents who died there too.  She, of course, could have cared less.  But I was wearing my old OD Marine cover, and one of the other guides, an older guy with white hair, came up and asked if I was a Marine in the war.  He was an interpreter for a US unit in Chu Lai, and ended up at the battle of Hue.  Like all the former Southern soldiers, he went off to the camps, but being only an E-6, only had to spend 3 months there.  But he couldn't get a job for years afterwards, because of the official discrimination, until finally they wanted people who could speak good English and also French for the museum, and he has worked there since.  (And very, very happy to have a regular job after all the years of being very poor.)

I went on to the other halls, where the pictures and stories started going directly to three main themes.  These are: terrible effects of napalm and white phosphorous on people, with a bit on flechette wounds and grenade wounds thrown in for good measure; how the bombing of the North damaged residential areas and schools and hospitals (strongly implied to be totally deliberate); and of course, how Agent Orange is responsible for every birth defect, cancer, and skin disease in all of Viet Nam from then right until now.

And not to be forgotten is the big picture of the naked little girl running down the road burned by napalm, but at least it doesn't say it was a US plane or pilot (it was all ARVN, and the bomb hit a bunch of their own troops as well, and there was no US advisor even on scene).  I couldn't help myself, opened my big mouth and told the horrified Australian tourists staring at the picture that she now lives in Canada as a refugee.  That got me very strange looks, so I shut up and went away.  I figured there was no point in mentioning that napalm was used by the NVA to barbecue a whole Montagnard village, and that collateral damage to civilians is a tragic but totally normal part of warfare.

Nor, of course, would pointing out that the 40,000 tons of bombs dropped on Hanoi and Haiphong killed fewer than 1500 people, and less than 2% of the bomb strikes were off target and hit civilian areas, do any good. It's their dance hall and they get to pick the music that's played.

They really outdid themselves on the Agent Orange thing, the displays went on for yards and yards of wall space, lots of jars of deformed fetuses, lots of pictures of kids with birth defects, adults with cancers, etc.  No statistics at all, which is the only way you can demonstrate that anything is different from the normal run of birth defects, skin diseases, and cancers that occur in any population.  They list birth defects in the north, hundreds of miles from any spray, as AO related.

[Comment- would I say that there are no AO effects on anyone, anywhere? No, certainly not.  The final studies indicate a strong possibility of an increase in early diabetes and just maybe prostate cancer, but the contrast between the exposed and unexposed groups is not like between smokers and nonsmokers.  Whatever the effects of AO or any other factor in the war, they are not remotely related to what the boys in Hanoi like to claim.  It's a basic sucker game to guilt people, the US most of all, into sending more millions to subsidize the fairly lousy state health system they have in Viet Nam.  And the assorted tourists buy into it hook, line, and sinker, and it really ticks me off!]

Next came... you guessed it, My Lai.  Lots of pictures of that, and a couple of other claimed massacres too, with a big portrait of Bob Kerrey and a list of a bunch of civilians claimed to have been killed by him and his SEAL team in their night raid.  I hate the fact that some of these things happened, there is no defending at least a few of the claims of very bad behavior by our guys.  The fact that there were comparatively few such crimes and that the policy of the communists was to commit many thousands of assassinations in the villages, not to mention the very organized Hue massacre of several thousand civilians, is never going to register with the assorted Australians, Germans, Italians, French, and others who wander past those displays with staring eyes and shock on their faces.

Thrown in were also some pictures of nasty interrogations, mostly with Vietnamese doing the bad stuff with US guys in the background, but a couple with Americans working on someone.  All in all, the 50 yard stroll around that part of the big hall would convince anyone that the Nazis were amateurs compared to the US when it came to being bad guys and hurting innocent people.

There were a bunch of display cases of weapons used in the war, every variety of M-16 you ever heard of, shotguns, a couple of types of bloopers (I only ever saw the original), old French rifles, an M-1, a BAR, a greasegun, etc.  Didn't happen to see any pistols.

The second-last building was the "tiger cage" replication, with lots of shots of abused people and sketches of assorted tortures, but if you read closely most of it related to the French and later the South Vietnamese and their interrogation and prison techniques.  One mention of an island prison (I never heard of it before) run by the US, where supposedly a lot of the prisoners were badly treated and many died.

And the final building was dedicated to all the support given to Hanoi by antiwar and/or communist groups across the world.  Americans featured prominently, but German,  French, and every client nation of the old Soviet Bloc (Hungary, Poland, etc, and Cuba too).  The picture of John Kerry is no longer on display, last I heard it was taken down somewhere after the beginning of his presidential campaign.

Oh, and one other thing- from this display you would have almost no idea that any such thing as a South Vietnamese military existed, that they ever fought any battles or had any part of the war.  The period of time from late '71 to the fall of Saigon, over three years and hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides, is invisible.  They may have changed the name, but this is still essentially the Museum of American Atrocities.

That about did me in, I was very glad to get the hell back out on the street and find my motorbike guy waiting for me.

I guess the killer is that I know a majority of the visitors to that museum will go away accepting that what they have seen is all good stuff, rignt on the money, and the legend of the stupid, brutal American behavior in the war will just go on and on.  And of course that means they'll be all the more ready to accept whatever the media say about us in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The demonization of the US soldiers will continue to be a normal part of the world's view of us.  Not for everyone, no, but for far too many.  I wish I had a better answer for this.

Anyhow, that's what's there, so if you go to Saigon, save your $1 entry fee,  so see a nice temple or something

Del

Contributed by Bill Faith on January 12, 2007 at 12:14 AM in Bill Faith, R J Del Vecchio, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Sunday, 29 October 2006
 

Light One Candle
Contributed by Bill Faith

Email from R J Del Vecchio:

This is overdone, in making it sound like I did it all, which is certainly not true at all.  The local Vietnamese were the force behind this, and are still working their tails off to help raise money.  One of them is on the way to Viet Nam as I write to check out more vets for help, and find better ways to help them.  And to set things up for my trip in late December.  But it's nice to get some publicity for the VHF, maybe it'll bring in a few more contributions.  One can always hope!

Del

From Holy Cross Magazine:

Off-Campus:
Catching up with Crusaders on the move and in the news
By Kathleen S. Carr '96

Light One Candle: R.J. Del Vecchio ’64

“People talk in similes and metaphors about having their hearts torn. That is no longer just an expression for me. I watched a brave, long-suffering, proud old man turn away from me on a scarred and shattered lower torso. It was too much. Much too much. I wept then, and I weep now as I see it again in my mind. He wants a wheelchair. The kind they make here from bicycle parts. They cost $100. He will have one on Monday. He doesn't know it is coming, but it will be there on Monday so help me God.”

In the person of R.J. Del Vecchio ’64, God is helping.

Del has spent the past 18 months working with, and reporting on, the disabled Vietnamese veterans still living in South Vietnam. He was haunted by a recent visit he made in early 2006—a visit that, he says, his wife wishes he never took. Because it still affects him.

After his first return visit to Vietnam, Del started a charity for disabled veterans. There are a large number of badly disabled South Vietnamese vets still living in Vietnam, and, according to Del, the Vietnamese government has an official policy of discrimination against them: Their children have higher school fees. They do not have pensions. And all are subjected to a system of oppression and punishment that extends to their children and their grandchildren. Those who are healthy can manage adequately, but the poor are locked into a cycle of poverty and desperation.

To help, Del has rallied the local Vietnamese community in Raleigh, N.C., that numbers around 5,000 people. He has also met with a dozen veterans who spent time in the “re-education” camps—and many still have friends and relatives in Vietnam they are concerned about.

They came to Del for help, and he has been assisting them ever since.  ...

Read the whole thing, help if you can at all. There's been a Vietnam Healing Foundation button on our sidebar for quite some time now.

Contributed by Bill Faith on October 29, 2006 at 08:12 PM in Bill Faith, R J Del Vecchio, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 12 September 2006
 

Today's The Day
Contributed by Bill Faith

Countering Vietnam Misconceptions by Photography

Today's the day.

Contributed by Bill Faith on September 12, 2006 at 01:35 PM in Bill Faith, R J Del Vecchio, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sunday, 03 September 2006
 

When someone asks you ...
Contributed by Bill Faith

When someone asks you why in hell we went to interfere in a civil war on the other side of the world, and how it was we then lost the war to a bunch of little guys in black pajamas, what do you tell them?  If the right explanation doesn't come to your lips right away and they make you feel defensive and uncomfortable, then reading this little book will help you a lot.

When someone says that not learning the lessons of Viet Nam, about how wrong and stupid it is for the US to try to be an imperialist power, and how immoral action always leads to defeat and disgrace, and you are not sure just how to formulate some kind of response, then reading this little book will give you a clearer picture of the real history, in simple terms you can explain to others.

When you hear or read a diatribe about how the US military lost its soul in Viet Nam, committing atrocities as a matter of course, and how it was mostly the innocent citizens and peasants of the countryside who were the victims of American might, and you wish you could effectively counter such talk, then you will find in this little book the facts you need.

When someone blathers on about how wonderful things are in Viet Nam today, and how proud the antiwar people can be who got us out of there so that national reunification and peace and justice could come to pass, do you wonder if they are right after all?  Then the details of the actual effects of the fall of Saigon will interest you, as well as what goes on in Viet Nam today.

Have you wondered about the many hundreds of books and articles now listed on the Net about Viet Nam and the war, which are worth reading, which are mistaken, inaccurate, or biased?  The reading list provided in this little book covers every aspect of the war, with books and authors whose reviews and qualifications are outstanding.  The list of websites where many volumes of information can be found is also splendid.

-- R J Del Vecchio

I'll may try, eventually, to write my own long thoughtful piece on why you should own a copy of Whitewash/Blackwash. On the other hand, I never claimed to be one of the world's great writers. For now I'll settle for "I read it. I learned from it. You will too." Click here to learn more.

Contributed by Bill Faith on September 3, 2006 at 10:02 PM in Bill Faith, R J Del Vecchio, The American Warrior, Viet Nam, Whitewash/Blackwash | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 30 August 2006
 

The Vietnam Healing Foundation
Contributed by Bill Faith

Just a heads up on something you'll be hearing more about soon. For now please go read Forgotten South Vietnamese Allies and Vietnam Healing Foundation. I got an email from R J Del Vecchio a little bit ago that really got my attention -- I'll post it soon as part of a larger post -- and I intend to do my best to try to get yours. Developing ...

2006.08.31 Update: It turns out there may be some practical reasons I can't tell you as much as I'd like to about The Vietnam Healing Foundation. For now I'm going to just have to say "Del believes in this project, Bruce Kesler believes in this project (We've traded mails on the subject within the last 24 hours) and that's all this old dog needs to know." Please, please, follow the links to Bruce's posts and do everything you can to help. If the situation changes so I can tell you more I will.

2006.08.31 Update 2: Here's a slightly revised (by Del) version of the email that grabbed my attenton when I saw it last night:

Early last year my local vets group was contacted by the nearby VN community.  We did a few things together, and I got friendly with a few of their guys.  After a while they decided that I was medium OK for an old white guy, and brought me into some meetings about a concern they had.  Many of these guys were in the camps, or had relatives who died there.  They all know of former ARVN still living in Viet Nam, where they are (as you may know) subject to official discrimination, they and their kids and grandkids.  (Really nice guys, those communists- I'd love to have Kerry explain again to me how the takeover of the South was going to have very little negative impact on the people.)

The worst off guys are the disabled ones, and my local VN wanted to set up a charity to help them.  I, being the logical former manager, etc, pointed out you'd need to do some kind of survey in Nam to find and interview at least a few guys, bring back pictures and recordings.  Well, none of the VN guys are going back to do that, something about having been in the camps tends to make then not ever want to be under communist control again.  Next thing I knew, they said "Del, you are just a fat old white man, no one will pay attention to you.  So we have elected you for this honor."

I had never had any urge to go back, there's nothing there today that I need to see or do in connection with the war.  But finally I found a way to get myself there (FT miles and a combination business trip to Germany).  I got off the plane, gave a fictitious hotel address to the officials, walked out into the mass of people in the reception area, and then vanished from official sight for the rest of my stay.  I was met by some very good people, taken out of the city, and provided with a bilingual translator who was visiting from another country.  We lived with a VN family in a built-up village, and went out to travel around the countryside to meet and interview and photograph the crippled vets.

It was tougher than I'd ever thought it would be, I gave away every dime I had, sent home for more money, gave that away, got some from friends and the VN back in the US, gave that away too.  My wife is a bit sorry now that I went, because I cannot get those guys out of my mind any more.  The shame and guilt I feel about us leaving them in the lurch are tough to deal with.  And what I saw of life in Viet Nam, and heard about what goes on there and elsewhere, makes me hate the bastards in power (who aren't really communists any more) more than ever.  And I'd like to drag all the proud antiwar activists through the real Viet Nam, not the tourist trail or the banquets the gov't throws for VIP visitors, and have them see and understand what they made happen.

So I got back and we got the charity going, and have raised money and sent it over to help people.  And to avoid any problems with the bureaucracy and politics and the costs of doing anything officially, it is all done on a people-to-people basis.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 30, 2006 at 11:11 PM in Bill Faith, R J Del Vecchio, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 29 August 2006
 

In my mailbox this afternoon:
Whitewash/Blackwash: Myths of the Viet Nam War
Contributed by Bill Faith

See my previous post here to understand how much that title means to me.  I don't have a really good place to sit and read dead-tree stuff -- my back and my eyes both give me fits after a while -- but I'll find a way to get it read within the next two or three days.  I spent enough time reading randomly chosen pages this afternoon to know it's just as good as I expected it to be. Rather than me trying to go into more detail now I'll just show you a picture of the preface page:

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 29, 2006 at 08:03 PM in Bill Faith, Media Perfidy, Peacenik Stupidity, R J Del Vecchio, The American Warrior, Whitewash/Blackwash | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 28 August 2006
 

Whitewash/Blackwash: Myths of the Viet Nam War
Contributed by Bill Faith

If you haven't read this post yet please read it before continuing. While you're at it read this Intellectual Conservative review. I'll wait.

... Back? Good.

Lest anyone be surprised at the number of OWD posts you're going to see on this subject in the coming days and weeks, a couple of relevant facts:

1) All four Founding Dogs are Viet Nam combat veterans. I'm the only one of the four who's never been under direct fire. (I did dodge enough "Chinese fireworks" to last me a lifetime but I didn't die.) We got to know each other due to our shared hatred for John Kerry, whom we've never forgiven, nor will we, for returning from a brief visit to Nam to launch a political career based on slandering our troops.

2). Of the remaining Dogs, four more are also Viet Nam veterans, as are some others who stay in touch but haven't accepted keys to the site yet. 

To put it simply using terms I picked up from Del "This book is about what we're about." There's nothing this Old Dog would like more than to see a copy of Del's book on every bookshelf in America. I'll do my best to make that happen. The day I win the lottery I'll buy enough copies to go around.

Keith, Barry, Scotty, this one's for you. And yes, Barry, I'm still embarrassed. I'm here and you're not. I haven't forgotten. Sgt Vanh, Lt Minh, Xuan, Kiemoi, I try not to even wonder what happened to you, but it doesn't always work.

Del's made it about as easy as a man can to get copies of his book. The "list" price is $9.95, but you can order it by mail for $8.00, S&H included, discounted as low as $5.50 if you buy enough copies. (Email Del for details.) For schools and bookstores it's $5.00. For teachers, libraries, USOs and Vet Centers it's free, as in $0.00. (Damn it, Del, at that rate you're going to make about as much money off your book as we make off this blog!)

Del's promised me code for a PayPal button but in the mean time to get your copy you'll need to email him (techconsultserv@juno.com) for his address and mail him a check.

I have a copy of Whitewash/Blackwash on the way, as do George Mellinger and John Werntz. Watch for the reviews. Watch for me to remind you about the book every few days just because I feel like it.

A question for the Dogs: Who's going to do the first post pointing out all the parallels between the way the MSM misreported the Viet Nam war and the way they're continuing down the same path today? Just askin'. ... At least back then they didn't have Fauxtoshop.

UPDATE

Those of you who prefer to save time by paying electronically may do so using the button below. It's programmed with a fixed price of $9.95 but it's the best I can do for now. To get the "direct mail" price or any of the discounts mentioned above you'll still need to email Del and send him a check.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 28, 2006 at 10:23 PM in Bill Faith, R J Del Vecchio, The American Warrior, Whitewash/Blackwash | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Re: The Media Stripped Naked. Part 2.
Contributed by The Gray Dog

Author’s Note:  The Gray Dog has been blessed and honored to be married to a professional educator who put her students and subject matter first. While there are thousands more like her, they are sadly a minority within their profession.  I know that she will not take offense at this post, and I hope that the other classroom professionals that share her integrity and commitment will understand that the following opinion is directed at their institution and not them personally.  You know who you are.  As background, please read Bill Faith’s contribution, “The Media Stripped Naked”, and my first response “Re: The Media Stripped Naked. Part 1”.

In case you missed it the first time and/or don’t want to read the first posts, let me simply state my thesis:  The media, like government, panders to its constituents.  Neither conservative talk shows nor liberal newspapers would continue to exist if they were not providing their customers a product that satisfied their political predispositions.  Likewise, conservatives and liberals are both capable of being easily led to false or misleading conclusions because of their willingness to accept the written and spoken words of their media idols.  In an effort to be “fair and balanced” to our liberal bone heads friends, I first cite the following flight of fancy that appeared on the WSJ online Opinion Journal last week.  “The Fertility Gap” by Arthur C. Brooks, makes the argument that Republicans are procreating at a higher rate the Democrats.  Brook’s questionable mathematics attempts to quantify that Republicans currently enjoy a 41% birth rate advantage over the Democrats.  Add to that the presumption that “about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents” and voila! You can rest comfortable knowing that Republicans will continue to hold power for all eternity.

A rather non-committal BLOG, Half Sigma, responds with much more impressive math to refute Brook’s claim.  After wading through charts, means and standard deviations, the conclusion reached is, “The trend in the United States is that poor, religious, and stupid people are having more children, while rich, secular, and smart people are having fewer children.”  I’m not sure that either definition describes conservatives or liberals.  Maybe both groups are the result of a mixed marriage. 

The commonality of the two arguments is that the “acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.”  Opposing sides are led to the same conclusion that children will automatically carry on the family political banner.  Partisans all regale in the brilliant analysis of their preferred position while being led down the same primrose path of whimsy.  Unfortunately, it is a path liberals may travel with relative ease and comfort, while conservatives will discover the road to be fraught with peril.

In fact, the very conservatives who send their children to Sunday School, monitor the movies and television they watch, and restrict the types of computer games and internet access available to them, happily send them off each day to the liberal indoctrination camps we call the public school system.  What?

Yes, while we whine about the loss of prayer in school, and bemoan the latest folly of the ACLU, we willingly incarcerate our children each day with one of the most powerful liberal lobby groups in the country, the NEA.  Opting for soccer practice instead of the school board meeting or dance class in lieu of the parent-teacher conference, we leave the education of our most valuable resources in the unbridled hands of the very liberal forces we reject.  Maybe, we need to go back to school. 

As a precocious child of four, I entered Kindergarten in 1956.  Over the years my parents would typically ask, “What did you learn in school today?”   A typical response might range from recounting the adventures of “Dick and Jane” to the amazing factoid that the sun was really a star!  My fear is that a child entering Kindergarten in 2006 will soon respond to the same question with concern that Jack wasn’t using protection with Jill and the earth will soon self-destruct from global warming caused by carbon emissions. 

Of course, we baby boomers are afflicted by our training.  As Ann Coulter describes, we revere teachers as having “absolute moral authority.”  We are afflicted by the argument that “there are good teachers”, much the same way as we respond to “good Muslims” and “good liberals.” 
We hesitate to fire into a crowd of priest to stop a pedophile, we don’t dare criticize a mother whose son was lost in battle, nor do we dare challenge a teacher when confronted with the rare exception that is heralded as nothing less than the second coming of Christ.

There are many remedies that some can do and many can not.  Run for your school board, attend school board meetings, attend parent-teacher conferences, meet with principals, discover which are the good teachers, consider private schools if you can, home school if you must, but more than anything, talk to your children! 

Education today, envelopes far more that the traditional Three R’s.  Today, parents must do more than prepare our children for the work place.  We must prepare them to protect their very existence. History, Religion, Culture, Language, Politics and Family are the basis for Duty, Honor and Country.  If we can take the time to give this vital gift, we may yet preserve a future for the next generation in the same manner our parents preserved ours.  If we fail, history will see us as the “Least Generation.” That’s unimaginable.

Contributed by The Gray Dog on August 28, 2006 at 09:28 PM in Bill Faith, Current Affairs, Politics, R J Del Vecchio, Religion, The Gray Dog | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dark View, But Real
Contributed by Bill Faith

Email from R J Del Vecchio

There it is...
This is a very solid, very perceptive, very accurate, and very scary analysis of where we are today.

Del

Weaponizing Civilization: The New Way of War

War has morphed, indeed, in ways unimaginable fifty years ago.

The Islamic Resistance Movement (IRM), the Jihad, which includes Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all other like-minded folk, is much smarter about it than we are. It has turned the civility of the US, and Europe, into a weapon and turned it against us. It has weaponized niceness, it has weaponized compassion, it has weaponized the fundamental decency of Western Civilization. It has weaponized our desire for peace. It has recognized that our goodness is no match for its savagery, and will continue to exploit that fact until we lose and they win. However long it takes. Centuries, generations, decades, years, months.

The soft underbelly of America in particular and Western Civilization in general is that it has become so excessively nice and decent and civilized that it is now loathe to rise to its own self-defense, loathe to kill civilians when necessary, loath to cause "collateral damages," loathe to fight and defeat other countries, even when its own survival is at stake. We have emasculated our will to rise to our own defense, to the defense of our interests, to the defense of our friends and allies, to the defense of our own civilization and its unique freedoms. We would rather die than kill. We are willing to martyr ourselves and our children and their children and our country to the conceit of our own goodness. We have spent sixty years obsessing (as a culture, as a nation) with whether we might have done the wrong thing by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even if it did end World War II, even if it did save a million American casualties and maybe five or ten or twenty million Japanese casualties . . . the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might well have saved Japan from extinction, since if the Japanese had all fought to the death as they promised and threatened to do there wouldn't have been enough Japanese left to be Japan anymore, so that, in a perverse way, Japan may now owe its existence to America's willingness to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We can't imagine ourselves nuking Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or firebombing Dresden or Tokyo anymore, killing scores of thousands of civilians in the process, or laying waste to Beirut, or Damascus, or Tehran. We're way too nice for all that, now. We have become much more civilized.

[...]

So the Jihadis hide in plain sight among the civilians, and thumb their noses and say "Check!" ...

[Read the whole thing.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 28, 2006 at 02:32 PM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, R J Del Vecchio | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Saturday, 26 August 2006
 

The media, stripped naked
Contributed by Bill Faith

Thank R J Del Vecchio for the title, and for the link to this. The bad news is that the link is perishable. The good news is I can legally copy the whole article if I include the statement “Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu.” Del calls this "The nicest dissection of the media and its flaws that I've seen in a long time." I agree.

Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu.:

August 2006

“Is the Mainstream Media Fair and Balanced?”

Fred Barnes
Executive Editor, The Weekly Standard

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard. From 1985 to 1995, he served as senior editor and White House correspondent for The New Republic. He covered the Supreme Court and the White House for the Washington Star before moving on to the Baltimore Sun in 1979. He served as the national political correspondent for the Sun and wrote the Presswatch media column for the American Spectator. He is host, along with Mort Kondracke, of the Beltway Boys on FOX News, where he also appears regularly on Special Report with Brit Hume. Mr. Barnes graduated from the University of Virginia and was a Neiman Fellow at Harvard University.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered in Palm Beach, Florida, on February 22, 2006, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar on “The News Media in the Twenty-First Century.”

Let me begin by defining three terms that are thrown around in debates about the media today. The first is objectivity, which means reporting the news with none of your own political views or instincts slanting the story one way or another. Perfect objectivity is pretty hard for anyone to attain, but it can be approximated. Then there's fairness. Fairness concedes that there may be some slant in a news story, but requires that a reporter will be honest and not misleading with regard to those with whom he disagrees. And finally there's balance, which means that both sides on an issue or on politics in general—or more than two sides, when there are more than two—get a hearing.

My topic today is how the mainstream media—meaning nationally influential newspapers like the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today; influential regional papers like the Miami Herald, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times; the broadcast networks and cable news stations like CNN; and the wire services, which now are pretty much reduced to the Associated Press—stacks up in terms of the latter two journalistic standards, fairness and balance. In my opinion, they don't stack up very well.

Twenty years ago I wrote a piece in The New Republic entitled “Media Realignment,” and the thrust of it was that the mainstream media was shedding some of its liberal slant and moving more to the center. This was in the Reagan years, and I pointed to things like USA Today, which was then about five years old and was a champion of the Reagan economic recovery. CNN was younger then, too, and quite different from the way it is now; Ted Turner owned it, but he wasn't manipulating it the way he did later, which turned it into something quite different. Financial news was suddenly very big in the midst of the 401 (k) revolution, and the stock market boom was getting a lot of coverage. The New Republic, where I worked, had been pro-Stalin in the 1930s, but by the 1980s had become very pro-Reagan and anti-communist on foreign policy. I also cited a rise of new conservative columnists like George Will. But looking back on that piece now, I see that I couldn't have been more wrong. The idea that the mainstream media was moving to the center was a mirage. In fact, I would say that compared to what I was writing about back in the 1980s, the mainstream media today is more liberal, more elitist, more secular, more biased, more hostile to conservatives and Republicans, and more self-righteous.

Liberal and Impenetrable

Liberalism is endemic in the mainstream media today. Evan Thomas—the deputy editor of Newsweek and one of the honest liberals in the media—noted this very thing with regard to coverage of the 2004 presidential race, which I'll discuss later. It was obvious, he said, that the large majority in the media wanted John Kerry to win and that this bias slanted their coverage. And indeed, every poll of the media—and there have been a lot of them—shows that they're liberal, secular and so on. Polls of the Washington press corps, for instance, about who they voted for in 2004 always show that nine-to-one or ten-to-one of them voted Democratic. Peter Brown, a columnist who just recently left the Orlando Sentinel, conducted a poll a few years ago of newspaper staffs all around the country—not just at the big papers, but midsize papers and even some small papers—and found that this disparity existed everywhere.

Nor is this likely to change. Hugh Hewitt, the California lawyer and blogger and talk radio host, spent a few days recently at the Columbia Journalism School, supposedly the premiere journalism school in America. He spoke to a couple of classes there and polled them on who they had voted for. He found only one Bush voter in all the classes he spoke to. Steve Hayes, a fine young writer and reporter at The Weekly Standard, went to Columbia Journalism School and says that during his time there he was one of only two or three conservative students out of hundreds.

This is not to say that there aren't many fine young conservative journalists. But they aren't likely to be hired in the mainstream media. When I was at The New Republic for ten years—and The New Republic was quite liberal, despite its hawkish foreign policy—any young person who joined the staff and wrote stories that were interesting and demonstrated that he or she could write well was grabbed immediately by the New York Times or other big newspapers, Newsweek, Time or the networks. But that doesn't happen at The Weekly Standard, where I work now. Some of our young writers are the most talented I have ever met in my 30-plus years in journalism. But they don't get those phone calls. Why? Because they're with a conservative magazine. Of course there has been one famous exception—David Brooks, who is now the conservative columnist with the New York Times. But he was probably the least conservative person at The Weekly Standard. Conservatives are tokens on most editorial pages, just as they are on the broadcast networks and on cable news stations like CNN and MSNBC. Of course, I have a vested interest, since I work for FOX News; but if you compare the number of liberal commentators on FOX—and there are a lot of them—with the number of conservatives on those other stations, you'll see what I mean.

The fact is that the mainstream media doesn't want conservatives. It doesn't matter whether they're good reporters or writers. They go out of their way not to hire them. This was true 20 years ago, and it's true today. This impenetrability is why conservatives have had to erect the alternative media—talk radio, the blogs, conservative magazines and FOX News. Together, these form a real infrastructure that's an alternative to the mainstream media. But it's still a lot smaller, it's not as influential and it's largely reactive. It's not the equal of the mainstream media, that's for sure.

Powerful and Unfair

One way to see the unequaled power of the mainstream media is in how it is able to shape and create the stories that we're stuck talking about in America. A good example is Cindy Sheehan last summer. The Sheehan story was a total creation of the mainstream media. And in creating the story, the media shamelessly mischaracterized Sheehan. It portrayed her as simply a poor woman who wanted to see President Bush because her son had been killed in Iraq. Well, in the first place, she had already seen President Bush once. Also, though you would never know it from the dominant coverage, she was in favor of the Iraqi insurgency—the beheaders, the killers of innocent women and children. She was on their side, and she said so. She was also filled with a deep hatred of Israel. Yet the media treated her in a completely sympathetic manner, failing to report the beliefs that she made little attempt to hide. In any case, the Cindy Sheehan story came to dominate the news for the latter part of the summer; only the mainstream media still has the power to make stories big.

To see how distorted the mainstream media's view of the world can be, one need only compare its coverage of the Valerie Plame “leak” story with its coverage of the NSA surveillance leak story. Plame is the CIA agent whose name was written about by reporter Robert Novak in a column, following which the media portrayed her as having been outed as an undercover CIA agent. The simple facts from the beginning were that she was not an undercover agent any more; she was not even overseas. The story had no national security repercussions at all—none. But that didn't stop the media, which built the story up to great heights—apparently in the groundless hope that it would lead to an indictment of Karl Rove—and kept it front page news, at least intermittently, for what seemed like forever. The NSA surveillance story, on the other hand, also created by the media—this time pursuant to a real leak, and one that was clearly in violation of the law—had tremendous national security implications. After all, it revealed a secret and crucial program that was being used to uncover plots to bomb and massacre Americans and probably rendered that program no longer effective. Not only was this important story treated on an equal basis with the non-story of Valerie Plame, but the media was not interested, for the most part, in its national security repercussions. Instead the media mischaracterized the story as a “domestic spying scandal,” suggesting constitutional overreach by the Bush administration. Well, a domestic spying story is exactly what the story was not. Those being spied on were Al-Qaeda members overseas who were using the telephone. If some of those calls were with people in the U.S., they were monitored for that reason only. But the media's stubborn mischaracterization of the story continued to frame the debate.

This brings me to the use of unfair and unbalanced labeling by the media. How often, if ever, have you heard or read the term “ultraliberal”? I don't think I've ever heard or read it. You'll hear and see the term “ultraconservative” a lot, but not “ultraliberal”—even though there are plenty of ultraliberals. Another widely used labeling term is “activist.” If people are working to block a shopping center from being built or campaigning against Wal-Mart, they are called “activists.” Of course, what the term “activist” means is liberal. But while conservatives are called conservatives by the media, liberals are “activists.” For years we've seen something similar with regard to debates over judicial nominees. The Federalist Society, with which many conservative judicial nominees tend to be associated, is always referred to as the conservative Federalist Society, as if that's part of its name. But the groups opposing conservative nominees are rarely if ever labeled as liberal—giving the impression that they, unlike the Federalist Society, are somehow objective.

Related to this, I would mention that conservatives are often labeled in a way to suggest they are mean and hateful. Liberals criticize, but conservatives hate. Have you noticed that the media never characterizes individuals or groups as Bush haters? There are Bush critics, but there are no Bush haters—whereas in the Clinton years, critics of the president were often referred to as Clinton haters. I'm not saying that there weren't Clinton haters on the fringes in the 1990s. But far-left groups like MoveOn.org have been treated as acceptable within the mainstream of American politics today by the media, while in truth they are as clearly animated by hatred as the most rabid anti-Clinton voices ever were.

Secular and Partisan Bias

With regard to religion, Christianity in particular—but also religious faith in general—is reflexively treated as something dangerous and pernicious by the mainstream media. Back in the early 1990s when I was still at The New Republic, I was invited to a dinner in Washington with Mario Cuomo. He was then governor of New York, and had invited several reporters to dinner because he was thinking about running for president. At one point that night he mentioned that he sent his children to Catholic schools in New York because he wanted them to be taught about a God-centered universe. This was in the context of expressing his whole-hearted support for public schools. But from the reaction, you would have thought he had said that one day a week he would bring out the snakes in his office and make policy decisions based on where they bit him. He was subsequently pummeled with stories about how improper it was for him, one, to send his kids to religious schools, and two, to talk about it. It was amazing. The most rigid form of secularism passes as the standard in mainstream journalism these days.

President Bush is similarly treated as someone who is obsessive about his religion. And what does he do? Well, he reads a devotional every day; he tries to get through the Bible, I think, once a year; and he prays. Now, I know many, many people who do this. Tens of millions of people do it. And yet the media treats Bush as some religious nut and pursues this story inaccurately. Again, it is clear that partisan bias is involved, too, because in fact, Bush talks publicly about his faith much less than other presidents have. There is a good book about Bush's religion by Paul Kengor, who went back to every word President Clinton spoke and found out that Clinton quoted scripture and mentioned God and Jesus Christ more than President Bush has. You would never get that from the mainstream media.

The partisan bias of the mainstream media has been at no time more evident than during the last presidential election. Presidential candidates used to be savaged equally by the media. No matter who—Republican or Democrat—they both used to take their hits. But that's not true any more. Robert Lichter, at the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, measures the broadcast news for all sorts of things, including how they treat candidates. He's been doing it now for nearly 20 years. And would anyone care to guess what presidential candidate in all those years has gotten the most favorable treatment from the broadcast media? The answer is John Kerry, who got 77 percent favorable coverage in the stories regarding him on the three broadcast news shows. For Bush, it was 34 percent. This was true despite the fact that Kerry made his Vietnam service the motif of the Democratic National Convention, followed weeks later by 64 Swift Boat vets who served with Kerry in Vietnam claiming that he didn't do the things he said he did. It was a huge story, but the mainstream media didn't want to cover it and didn't cover it, for week after week after week.

There was an amazingly well documented book written by a man named John O'Neill—himself a Swift Boat vet—who went into great detail about why John Kerry didn't deserve his three Purple Hearts, etc. It might have been a right-wing screed, but if you actually read it, it wasn't a screed. It backed up its claims with evidence. Normally in journalism, when somebody makes some serious charges against a well-known person, reporters look into the charges to see if they're true or not. If they aren't, reporters look into the motives behind the false charges—for instance, to find out if someone paid the person making the false charges, and so on. But that's not what the media did in this case. The New York Times responded immediately by investigating the financing of the Swift Boat vets, rather than by trying to determine whether what they were saying was true. Ultimately, grudgingly—after bloggers and FOX News had covered the story sufficiently long that it couldn't be ignored—the mainstream media had to pick up on the story. But its whole effort was aimed at knocking down what the Swift Boat vets were saying.

Compare this with September 8, 2004, when Dan Rather reported on documents that he said showed not only that President Bush used preferential treatment to get into the Texas National Guard, but that he hadn't even done all his service. The very next morning, the whole story—because CBS put one of the documents on its Web site—was knocked down. It was knocked down because a blogger on a Web site called Little Green Footballs made a copy on his computer of the document that was supposedly made on a typewriter 30 years earlier and demonstrated that it was a fraud made on a modern computer. Then, only a few weeks after that embarrassment, CBS came up with a story, subsequently picked up by the New York Times, that an arms cache of 400 tons of ammunition in Iraq had been left unguarded by the American military and that the insurgents had gotten hold of it. Well, it turned out that they didn't know whether the insurgents had gotten that ammunition or not, or whether indeed the American military had possession of it. It was about a week before the election that these major news organizations broke this unsubstantiated story, something that would have been unimaginable in past campaigns. Why would they do that? Why would Dan Rather insist on releasing fraudulent documents when even his own experts recommended against it? Why would CBS and the New York Times come back with an explosive but unsubstantiated arms cache story only weeks later? They did it for one reason: They wanted to defeat President Bush for re-election. There is no other motive that would explain disregarding all the precautions you're taught you should have in journalism.

I'll wind up on a positive note, however. Forty years ago, John Kenneth Galbraith—the great liberal Harvard economist—said that he knew conservatism was dead because it was bookless. Conservatives didn't publish books. And to some extent, it was true at the time. But it's no longer true. Conservatives have become such prolific writers and consumers of books that Random House and other publishing companies have started separate conservative imprints. Nowadays it is common to see two or three or four conservative books—some of them kind of trashy, but some of them very good—on the bestseller list. Insofar as books are an indication of how well conservatives are doing—at least in the publishing part of the media world—I would say they're doing quite well. They're not winning, but they're much better off than they were before—something that can't be said about how they are faring in the unfair and unbalanced mainstream media.

*** 2006.09.01 Update: Thank you Greg for the comment telling me this article is archived here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 26, 2006 at 03:35 AM in Bill Faith, Media Perfidy, R J Del Vecchio | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Friday, 25 August 2006
 

Re: Countering Vietnam Misconceptions by Photography
Contributed by Bill Faith

Steve, thank you for an excellent post and for taking the first step toward establishing a valued friendship and good working relationship between Old War Dogs and R J Del Vecchio. Del has declined, at least for now, my offer of a key to the site but we'll definitely be staying in touch. In his words "You're about what I'm about." Just a quick hint of something you'll be hearing more about later:

Whitewash / Blackwash: Myths of the Viet Nam War

Excerpt -- Myth #8: Media coverage of the war was balanced and accurate and contributed to development of appropriate US policies

However, the overriding effect of the Tet offensive in the US was extremely damaging psychologically; at the least it convinced many people that the outcome of the conflict was in severe doubt, and at the worst it absolutely confirmed to many others that it was an unwinnable war, or that the US leadership had been deceiving people about the progress made, or both.

Perhaps the pivotal event of the time was a broadcast on February 27th by Walter Cronkite, the greatly respected dean of US newsmen, after his return from visiting the war zone. Although he had previously been at least tacitly supportive of the war, and been reasonably objective in his reporting, in the dramatic TV spot late that February he was strongly negative about what had happened and the general prospects for the future of the war. Some of his statements were clearly in error, he made some predictions that failed to come true, and he wound up declaring the war a "stalemate" that could only be settled by negotiation.

[Read the whole thing here. Seriously. You need to.]

Myths of Vietnam/Lessons for Iraq
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 14, 2005

[...]

FP: So what do you and the others involved in this booklet hope to accomplish overall?

Del Vecchio: The great mass of readily available information about Vietnam is riddled with inaccuracies, misstatements, and some outright falsehoods.  Yet it is more critically important today for people to understand the real history of that war than ever, and unless people look carefully among those sources of information to avoid those with major flaws, they cannot hope to glean good information as the basis for thinking about the war and its meaning. 

All we hope to accomplish in this booklet, which is written to be clear, concise and objective, is to help people see how many reefs there are in the river of information about Vietnam, and show them how to cruise that river to avoid those reefs.  It is still true that sincere, intelligent people may see the same valid data about the war and draw somewhat different conclusions, but if any of the biased and inaccurate information is absorbed, then chances of achieving real understanding become very low, and chances of arriving at a very flawed view of the war become high.  Those flawed views have damaged our country too long, and we cannot afford to indulge in them any longer.

[Read the whole thing here.]

To my knowledge there are three copies of Whitewash / Blackwash on the way to OWD members. Of the current "official" members of the pack 8 of us are Viet Nam vets, not to mention some invitees I haven't given up on yet. "Developing ... "

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 25, 2006 at 05:24 PM in Bill Faith, R J Del Vecchio, The American Warrior, Whitewash/Blackwash | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Countering Vietnam Misconceptions by Photography
Contributed by Steve Gardner

Bumped just for the hell of it. Originally posted 2006.08.23.12:46

Yo! General Bonaparte! Look what I can do!

I happen to know one of the professors involved in getting permission for R.J Del Vecchio to show his combat photos to the college kids .This would be a great time for some Vietnam vets to be present to help Del get the point across about the misrepresentations brought on by the media in the 60's & 70's. I personally will be attending just to help Del get his point across.

At Wingate University in the George A. Batte Fine Arts Center (Recital Hall), beginning at 6:30 PM, on Sept 12, 2006, there will be a two-hour PowerPoint presentation of wartime photographs taken by former photojournalist Mr. R. J. Del Vecchio.  His lecture will include a description of his experience as a Marine and Combat Photographer for the 1st Marine division in Viet Nam, from December 1967 to November 1968.  He has given a number of presentations of his remarkable pictures in high schools and colleges, and enjoys using the medium of photography to educate young people about this important part of twentieth century history.

Mr. Del Vecchio took hundreds of photos and slides for the military during his service in Vietnam. He often shot as many as 100 frames at a time, only to have 10 to 15 selected for record-keeping.  The rest he kept for himself, creating a unique archive of a significant part of Vietnam history.  Del Vecchio now owns some of the last or only photos taken of American soldiers and Vietnamese peasants. Many of the faces in his collection belong to people long since dead.

Though many military photographers shot film around their home bases and at accidents, Del Vecchio found himself shooting more and more combat photos and earning the respect of the other Marines with which he served, as he carried a rifle along with his camera.  In 1968 he caught a bullet in his camera hand. The camera itself was shot straight through, and is now on display in the Marine Corps Museum in Washington, D.C.  He has also kept an archive of live footage from Vietnam. When other videographers were wounded or killed, he stepped in for them.

According to Del Vecchio, "The pictures range from being very pleasant to very grim." One poignant frame, he said, is of a soldier caught at the very moment of death. Others are of Vietnamese villagers at work. This presentation will capture the drama and horrors of the war in a way that no verbal recreation can, as Del tells story after story to go with the images.

Del holds both a B.S. (Holy Cross) and an M.S. (University of Maryland) in chemistry, and has previously authored books on applied Polymer Science and industrial applications of statistical methods.  For the last 25 years, he has worked for a variety of top firms in the rubber industry. For the last 16 years he has worked as a private consultant and now lives in Fuquay, North Carolina. 

There is no admission, and the event is open to the general public.
An open-ended Question/Answer session will follow the presentation.
[Contact: <jagibson@wingate.edu>]

Del believes that although all wars generate a certain number of myths, Viet Nam is unusual in that the myths seem to have been more widely accepted than the actual facts; and he is very active in exposing these myths.

Quotes from Del Vecchio:

On the anti-war movement of the sixties and seventies:

"The coverage of that war [Viet Nam] was different from all earlier wars, due to technical advances such as TV reporting, the very heavy presence of the media in-country, the evolving controversies of the war, the serious loss of objectivity by much of the media, and finally, the frustration and enormous discomfort most Americans experienced during and after it. The antiwar movement seized on everything from valid complaints to exaggeration of the problems inherent to any war to outright falsehoods and communist propaganda and publicized it all in an unending media blitz. Returning vets very often felt alienated, even rejected at times, and the bulk of them closed off the war in their minds and went on to jobs, families, making lives. The comparatively tiny fraction of antiwar vets tended to remain publicly active, and some of them went into teaching, so they've had a very disproportionate share of attention. And since the college campuses had become hotbeds of protest during the war, academia in general accepted and recorded much of the negative reports, and established a bias in thinking and teaching about the war that continues today."

On the ambiguous and misleading statement that "Viet Nam is the only war America ever lost":

"People take this to mean that the full might of the US was brought to bear on a small country with comparatively little military technology, and the small country won against all odds. This has fostered great insecurity among many Americans about our ability to accomplish military goals, which again tends to paralyze us in the world today. But the fact is that the US never fought a real war against North Vietnam, nor even fought with all possible resources and tactics in the South. We fought a holding action until the South Vietnamese had a chance to stand on their own. After Vietnamization and the departure from Vietnam of all US ground units, the South was in fact able to repel a very conventional invasion from the North, one that involved 200,000 men, hundreds of tanks, and artillery pieces superior to what we'd given the South. So we had in fact achieved our major goal. Clearly the South fell and there was a loss, and a failure on our part to support the South as we'd promised; but we did not fight and lose a war in the normal sense, and such a statement is misleading."

"…we as a society, need to acknowledge that what gave victory to the communists in Vietnam was our succumbing to impatience, war-weariness, and being manipulated by antiwar propaganda. We must remain determined and unified in the commitment to do the job all the way, and publicly so. This is what is so scary about the rebirth of the antiwar movement, even as small as its numbers really are, it's having an effect on public perception, and it's providing enormous morale boost to the jihadists. We need more people to publicly voice clear opposition to these misguided idealists, we need more support from Congress to supply whatever is needed to do the job, we need good media coverage about the positive things we achieve in Iraq, and we need bold but very competent leadership in waging this war. It cannot be anything but a lengthy and messy war, and we must learn to deal with that appropriately, with determination. Anything less will guarantee an increase in jihadism and anti-Americanism and instability all over the world."

Contributed by Steve Gardner on August 25, 2006 at 09:59 AM in R J Del Vecchio, Steve Gardner, The American Warrior | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack