LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteTypical US politics.Originally Posted by Julie
Kick under the belt when everything fails.
Good if he is disqualified.
Hillary will win hands down.
She is a woman and not a Black!
The phrase 'to the best of my ability' was added, because the guilt induced on these men with very high standards for themselves and each other was debilitating, and impeded their ability to further resist and sometimes, to even survive.So did it get changed after Nam? IIRC, in the late 80s it still stood as name, rank, SSN and unit. We were instructed to provide absolutely nothing else. I admit I would have been good for some probably unheard of slurs, swears and insults. Never have been able to keep my mouth shut
When I went through Survival School and Resistance Training, the instructors stressed that this was there, but it was NOT an 'easy way out', and under extreme duress, EVERY person will eventually break. NOBODY can stand unrelenting torture, and to expect that level of performance is to set up your own men for failure.
So in Vietnam, as each man was broken, and was returned to his comrades feeling ashamed of himself for failing his trial, each was welcomed back into the fold, and each man that had been through the ordeal before told of his own moment of failure. The newest man to 'fail' was re-born; he became hardened, and looked upon his own personal ordeal as his entry into their society. He wasn't alone; they were more together than they'd been before.
During POW Training, we were told that upon re-patriation, each man's conduct in captivity would be reviewed. No dishonor would attach to adherance to the highest standards of the Code. 'To the best of your ability' is subjective, but the instructors told us that when the enemy has complete and total control over your physical person, they CAN and they WILL break you. Your job is to get to the next few minutes, over and over again, until it is simply unendurable. And then, make 'em PAY for what they did to you.
Resistance is required; successful resistance in all extremes is impossible. The Code of Conduct recognizes this, and is intelligently written to reflect reality, and to arm our men that have been captured with the only weapon the enemy can't strip from them: their will to fight back.
Last edited by Bluesman; 30 Aug 08, at 05:38.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Typical US politics.
Kick under the belt when everything fails.
Good if he is disqualified.
Hillary will win hands down.
She is a woman and not a Black!
Last edited by Ray; 30 Aug 08, at 10:53.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
Thanks for answering that one Bluesman. There was alot ofdoctrine changes going on around 1987-88. Do you know if this was around that time period? I know I'm getting off topic here, so I'll drop it after this one.
I went through Survival Skool in '87, and it was in there then. And I distinctly remember that class, and the discussion of the motive for putting that phrase in there being discussed.Thanks for answering that one Bluesman. There was alot ofdoctrine changes going on around 1987-88. Do you know if this was around that time period? I know I'm getting off topic here, so I'll drop it after this one.
The guys that returned from North Korean captivity in 1953 were absolutely destroyed by the brutality of that regime. They had entered captivity completely disarmed in the face of an enemy that considered the POW camp an extension of the battlefiled, in contravention of established customs and accepted behavior of past conflict. What happened was almost inevitable: desertions to the enemy, collapse of military standards, traitorous actions of the POWs, POWs turning on one another...it was a complete defeat on a new, completely unexpected battlefield.
Eisenhower realized that we owed our fighting men something better to fight back with, and the Code of Conduct was born. In Vietnam, our men aquitted themselves very well, and showed surprising - and HEROIC - ability to defend themselves against the same barbarity that the North Koreans had inflicted. And those words and that standard were all our men had, but it was enough. It made all the difference.
After Vietnam, it was realized that something more needed to be done, because the standard was impossible to meet. Torture's effects were compounded by the belief among the prisoners that ANYthing but perfect fidelity to an impossibly high bar under duress was a failure and represented lost and unredeemable honor. So '...to the best of my ability' was added (but I don't know when).
During my POW and Resistance Training, the employment and usefulness of the Code of Conduct was powerfully demonstrated. You wouldn't think a bunch of words on a page would have any utility against brutally-applied merciless force and the evil genius of a vicious enemy. It is simply all you've got, though, and it is surprisingly comforting and immensely reassuring that you can count on your fellow prisoners' behavior, your country's faithfulness to you, and a standard to adhere to so that you know: they can make me wear their clothes, but I know I'm still an American fighting man, and my chain-of-command is still operating and I'm still as proud of myself, my unit and my country as the day I swore in.
I've gone on WAY too long about this, but my bottom line is this: the Code of Conduct has put the steel back into our men when they SEEM defeated, and has allowed them to not only survive, but to defeat an enemy with all the advantages except one: unbeatable force-of-will. It is a powerful weapon.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Time for another O-bomb.
Throughout the campaign season Obama has attacked Wall Street’s financial sector and run a campaign based largely upon his “good judgment”. The problem with Obama’s rhetoric rests in the fact that tucked away in his database of 2.5 million donors is the approximately 180,000 power brokers that have funded nearly 60% of his campaign. Included in this list are the more than 594 campaign bundlers including 15 lobbyist bundlers who have accounted for over $140 million in contributions. Included in this list are just 36 bundlers accounting for over $18 million dollars, with two bundlers raising over $1 million, and one over $2 million. These amounts are impressive considering that just 552 individuals have accounted for nearly 1/3 of his total campaign contributions. Of course determining the occupation can be tricky considering the Obama campaign lists nearly 100 bundlers as having unknown occupations, nearly 100 who are listed as "self-employed", and dozens of "homemakers" and "retired" individuals.
Among Obama's campaign contributors are many Lehman Brothers Executives, such as CEO Richard Fuld ($2,300), President Joseph Gregory ($4,600) and dozens of other top Lehman Executives. On June 19th, Lehman shareholders filed suit against Fuld and Gregory for the company’s exposure in the subprime market. In addition to dozens of Lehman executives are Obama's bundlers from Lehman Borthers who have raised top dollar for the campaign. Direct contributions from Lehman Brothers have exceeded $395,000 for Senator Obama.
John Rhea - (over $500,000) Co-Head of Lehman Bros. Global Investment Banking
Mark Gilbert - (over $500,000) Lehman Brothers Senior Executive
Christine Forester - (over $500,000) Lehman Brothers Senior Executive
Theodore Janulis – Bundler (over $100,000) & Lehman Brothers Head of Global Mortgages
Nadja Fidelia – Bundler (over $50,000) & Managing Director of Lehman Brothers
In San Antonia this past February Obama stated in a campaign speech, “To give you a sense of what that kind of lobbying gets you… the CEO of the largest subprime lender was promised a hundred-million-dollar severance package at a time when more than 2 million Americans were facing foreclosure, including nearly 14,000 right here in San Antonio..." Obama was most likely referring to an Angelo R. Mozillo, one of three CEO’s that were scheduled to appear to testify in front of a senate committee concerning their compensation and firms roles in the ongoing mortgage crisis. Stanley O’Neal, who received more than $161 million when he was ousted as the Chairman of Merrill Lynch, was one of the three CEO’s coming under scrutiny. In 2003, O’Neil donated to Senator Obama’s Senatorial campaign, followed up by a maximum $4,600 campaign contribution by he and his wife, Nancy Garvey, to the Obama Campaign. Ironically, the O’Neals tried to originally contribute $6,900 to the campaign only to have $2,300 returned. For those attuned to the financial sector, Stanley O'Neil will forever be remembered as the man at the helm while Merrill Lynch exposed themselves to tens of billions in subprime exposure.
The real problem for Obama extends well beyond his campaign bundlers that include several prominent lobby–representing attorney’s and executives such as Frank Clark, the CEO of Commonwealth Edison. Executives across the financial and investment industry have accounted for millions in campaign contributions.
Contributing to Obama’s cause is the more controversial Brad Morrice, the former CEO and President of the imploded subprime lender, New Century Financial. Morrice and his wife contributed the maximum $4,600 to Obama’s campaign last August.
Among other subprime contributors to Obama’s campaign are Steve Boland, a managing director at Countrywide, who donated the maximum last June. Andrew Beer the president of Wachovia’s troubled subprime lender Evergreen Investment Partners also maxed out his contribution to the Obama campaign; and Joseph Azrack, the president of Citigroup Property Investments along with dozens of Citi Executives have heavily contributed.
In 2007 Eric Schwartz, the co-head of Goldman-Sachs Global Asset Management abruptly stepped down from is position, fueling rumors that his resignation was tied to a crumbling Global Alpha Hedge Fund. The Fund’s mounting losses led to a -39% performance last year as the fund assets shrunk by 60%. Shwartz, an Obama bundler and contributor, has helped to raise over $100,000 for the Senator’s Campaign.
In 2007 Robert Wolf, the CEO of UBS Americas, helped the Obama campaign raise more than $500,000. That amount was equaled by Louis Susman, the Chairman of a Citibank Subsidiary.
Additional High Profile Financial Executives Include:
John W. Roberts - (over $500,000) Ariel Capital Management
Richard Leweke – Vice Chairman of Washington Mutual Card Services
Seth Waugh – CEO of Deutsche Bank
Charles Lewis – Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch
Francisco Borges – Over $50,000 Chairman of Landmark Partners a private equity real estate firm.
Michael Froman – Over $200,000 Managing Director of Citigroup
David Heller – Over $200,000 Managing Director of Goldman Sachs
Bruce Heyman - Over $200,000 - Managing Director Goldman Sachs
J. Michael Schell – Over $200,000 Managing Director at Citigroup
Jim Torrey – Over $500,000 Founder of the Torrey Funds – Hedge Funds
Todd Williams – Over $50,000 Managing Director Goldman Sachs & The Real Estate Council
Louis Susman - Over $200,000 Citi Investment Banking
The listing of contributions flowing in from Financial Institutions through Senator Obama’s career is short of amazing. There are currently dozens upon dozens of Senior Vice Presidents, Managing Directors, and other top level executives from firms such as Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and other high profile Wall Street banks and funds mired in the mortgage meltdown.
The ties between Obama and the industry are too expansive and raise the question, “Is Obama just another politician, saying what is politically expedient while sending an opposite message to his donors?”
The Center For Responsive Politics continues to call upon both campaigns to provide updated and full disclosure of the campaign bundlers; yet the Obama campaign in practicing its “change” politics, has failed to provide full disclosure of its donors.
What we do know is that the FEC requires full disclosure (Names, Employers, etc…) of individual contributions of more than $250. From aggregating information contained within FEC disclosures you can begin to form a picture of where the large contributions are coming from. According to The Center For Responsive Politics, of the 20 largest sources of campaign contributions to the Obama Campaign, 11 were Investment Banks or International Law firms directly tied to the financial industry.
Meanwhile back on Wall street the executives of Goldman Sachs have contributed more than $691,000 to the Obama campaign, not including any ancillary contributions collected by bundlers who are employed by Goldman Sachs. The Obama campaign will counter these numbers by citing that these are large companies that these are large companies and due to their 2.5 million donors you would expect large amounts of contributions from the employees of these companies. Yet, this argument is nothing more than manipulative political spin. As I stated earlier, the campaigns are only required to collect and report employment information for donors contributing more than $250 during the primary or general election cycles. These numbers disclosed by the campaign are how we are able to determine that less than 10% of his donors account for 60% of his campaign’s contributions. Thus, the aggregate totals for these companies represent the highly paid and executive level contributions made to the Obama campaign, not donations flowing from employee who contributed $10 or $20 dollars. Goldman Sachs employees are the largest aggregated contributors to the Obama campaign.
UBS and Citigroup, companies writing off billions of dollars in “subprime” related losses in the over the summer, are also among top ten contributors to the Obama campaign. Executives at these companies, such as Obama bundler and UBS Americas CEO Robert Wolf, have contributed over $850,000 to the Obama campaign.
Lehman Brothers executives have also flocked to the Obama camp, directly contributing over $395,000 to the Senator. Of course, the amount of direct contributions by these executives is overshadowed by the bundled contributions they have collected on his behalf. We know based upon disclosure from the Obama campaign that just 6 Lehman executives alone are responsible for more than $2,200,000 in bundled contributions. Unfortunately, the extent of bundled contributions are unknown since the Obama campaign has refused full disclosure (all we know is that certain bundlers raise over $500,000, the amount could have been far more).
These contributions were matched by Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan Chase executives who rounded out the Obama campaigns top twenty with over $750,000 in combined contributions. In all the Obama campaign has accepted more than $25 million in contributions from the “disclosed” employees of financial services, insurance, and real estate firms, the largest sector to contribute to the Obama campaign. Additionally, Obama’s second largest source of campaign funds has come from the nearly $24 million he has accepted from attorneys, many of which work at large corporate law firms like those listed above. Oh...by the way, make sure you look for their names on the bundler lists, you will be amazed. These numbers are more than twice the amount contributed by these sectors to the McCain campaign; increasing even more when you factor in the large contributions made by spouses and direct family members of these executives.
WhiteHouseForSale.org | Home Page
[QUOTE=Julie;546760]
McCain supporters have to be careful here. The fact that his share of the booty is only half as much as Obama's doesn't exempt him from any criticism that might be heaped on Obama as to the source of these contributions.These numbers are more than twice the amount contributed by these sectors to the McCain campaign; increasing even more when you factor in the large contributions made by spouses and direct family members of these executives.
WhiteHouseForSale.org | Home Page
The sheer size of them and the source tells another story. Wall Street is betting on an Obama victory in November. Contributions to McCain by the same sources are just a hedge in case they bet wrong. Typical of big donors.
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
[QUOTE=JAD_333;546850]Point taken. BUT, McCain is not running his campaign blaming Democrats for the fault of this crisis. Obama is faulting Bush and McCain for it, not taking any responsibility, when there are wrongs on both side of this crisis.
[QUOTE=Julie;546876]Point taken on the crisis. McCain is addressing a methodology toward solutions. Obama is scoffing at him and playing the blame game. I think a lot of people will see thru it.Point taken. BUT, McCain is not running his campaign blaming Democrats for the fault of this crisis. Obama is faulting Bush and McCain for it, not taking any responsibility, when there are wrongs on both side of this crisis.
Obama Scoffs at McCain Economic Panel - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com“Instead of offering up concrete plans to solve these issues, Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book –- you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem,” Mr. Obama told an audience here. “But here’s the thing – this isn’t 9/11.”
The problem with Obama's reasoning here is that we don't know really what needs to be fixed. A serious commission effort would do the job.
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
For those of you who still cling to the fantasy that Barack Obama is "about change," you should note how he, or his minions, want nothing to do with reforming politics in Illinois, perhaps the most corrupt state in the Union.
"Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has fought for open and honest government," proclaims his campaign Web site. Apparently, no longer. When the Democratic presidential candidate--now his party's industrial-strength voice for our deliverance from political corruption everywhere--was asked by a reformer if he would help get his political mentor back home to get off the dime and move the most minimal of state ethics legislation toward passage, the Obama campaign sent word back that amounted to a "no."
State Sen. Emil Jones (D-Chicago) is the Chicago machine politician who might have been most instrumental in jump-starting Obama's political career. Now, as Illinois Senate president, Jones is the one sitting on the reform legislation, refusing to call it for an expected favorable vote before it officially dies of neglect.
Jones is the pal of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, no friend of reform, who used his amendatory veto power to change the legislation after it passed both houses so that Jones would get another chance to kill it.
If all that's confusing, welcome to Illinois politics, where intricacy is the best camouflage for chicanery. Suffice to say, neither Blagojevich nor Jones is working for reform.
So, along comes Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, thinking that now might be a good time for Obama to parlay his friendship with Jones to do a good deed: Won't you intervene with Jones and try to get him to call the Senate back into session to get this law passed? "[T]his is a place [Obama] could come in and quickly clean up some of the damage and serve his state," she told the Chicago Sun-Times. After all, her group and Obama worked together during those halcyon days when he actually supported reform in Illinois, so maybe he'll be receptive to a plea to intervene on behalf of Illinois folks who have been getting gouged for years by the likes of Jones. "A 30-second phone call to the Illinois Senate president could yield huge dividends to this state," she said.
In response, Obama's campaign issued an oozy statement reaffirming Obama's alleged commitment to reform, while getting no more specific than urging everyone to get together and love one another right now. What Canary was asking Obama for wasn't all that much. Maybe a 30-second phone call to back up his usual pap of, "Look, ah, I've, ah, always been for, ah, reform." For most people, the reform that we're talking about is so basic that they might ask, "You mean it's not illegal already?"
The legislation would make illegal the widespread abuse called pay-to-play politics, by which companies doing business with the state contribute to the state official in charge of ladling out contracts. The new law wouldn't let you do it if you have more than $50,000 in state contracts, which, even at that, leaves open a nice loophole. In Illinois, this is a huge leap forward from how things are done. Blagojevich, who has reaped bundles of cash from state contractors, could be one of the pols most jolted by the prohibition. That explains why he rewrote the legislation in a way that would make it ineffective and why the House overwhelmingly rejected his changes.
Jones now is the only one standing in the way of the reform, with Obama abetting.
Here's another example of how Obama has revealed himself to be a creature of the Chicago machine. Who can forget his silence when he could have affirmed his reformer credentials by endorsing Democrat Forrest Claypool over machine creature Todd Stroger as Cook County Board president? When things got too hot, Obama severed his ties from his racially inflammatory pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. That's not too hard; you can always find another pastor.
But betraying your political godfather(s) in Chicago and Illinois is an entirely different matter. Especially if you lose the presidential election and return to being just another senator from Illinois. Cutting his ties with the corrupt Chicago machine is one bridge you will not see Obama burn. Not now, not ever.
Agent of change, my foot.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Obama Sidesteps Reform in Illinois
September 20, 2008
He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False.
Summary
In Daytona Beach, Obama said that "if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week." He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers."
That's not true. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by McCain in 2005 would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. All current retirees would be covered by the same benefits they are now.
Obama would have been correct to say that many workers under age 58 would have had some portion of their Social Security benefits affected by the current market turmoil – if they had chosen to participate. And market drops would be a worry for those who retire in future decades. But current retirees would not have been affected.
Analysis
In our "Scaring Seniors" article posted Sept. 19 we took apart a claim in an Obama-Biden ad that McCain somehow supported a 50 percent cut in Social Security benefits, which is simply false. Then, on Saturday Sept. 20, Sen. Barack Obama personally fed senior citizens another whopper, this one a highly distorted claim about the private Social Security accounts that McCain supports.
What Obama Said
In Daytona Beach, Florida, Obama said in prepared remarks released by the campaign:
Obama, Sept. 20: And I'll protect Social Security, while John McCain wants to privatize it. Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half. But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week. Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes. Millions of families would've been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves. So I know Senator McCain is talking about a "casino culture" on Wall Street - but the fact is, he's the one who wants to gamble with your life savings.
That's untrue. All current retirees would be covered by exactly the same Social Security benefits they are now under what the Obama campaign likes to call the "Bush-McCain privatization plan," which Bush pushed for unsuccessfully in 2005.
FactCheck.org: Obama's Social Security Whopper
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: