Justic and Truth, FINALLY!!

[layoutshooter]

Much of what happened in Viet Nam, the Cold War etc was lied about on a regular basis. The press lied. The elected officials lied, liberals and conservatives. Very little truth about those times have EVER come out. Most TRUE stories remain burying, some still classified, other no one ever bothered to look for the truth.

Here is ONE case that the TRUTH FINALLY came out. This General had his life and career RUINED by a pack of LIES. Nothing new. MANY GOOD people had their live ruined by LIES. GOOD CIA agents, GOOD Soldiers, GOOD Intell people. Live DESTROYED by a bunch so called "Whistle Blowers" out to "Clean UP" America, BY LYING!!!

There are MANY MORE stories like this. To be sure there were bad things that went on. It is REALLY bad that the press seldom wrote in a fair and honest manner. More stories like this should come out. Not only from back then but things that are being LIED about today.


Obama restores rank of disgraced Vietnam general - Yahoo! News

 

[jjoerger]

Much of what happened in Viet Nam, the Cold War etc was lied about on a regular basis. The press lied. The elected officials lied, liberals and conservatives. Very little truth about those times have EVER come out. Most TRUE stories remain burying, some still classified, other no one ever bothered to look for the truth.

Here is ONE case that the TRUTH FINALLY came out. This General had his life and career RUINED by a pack of LIES. Nothing new. MANY GOOD people had their live ruined by LIES. GOOD CIA agents, GOOD Soldiers, GOOD Intell people. Live DESTROYED by a bunch so called "Whistle Blowers" out to "Clean UP" America, BY LYING!!!

There are MANY MORE stories like this. To be sure there were bad things that went on. It is REALLY bad that the press seldom wrote in a fair and honest manner. More stories like this should come out. Not only from back then but things that are being LIED about today.


Obama restores rank of disgraced Vietnam general - Yahoo! News

Did I read this correctly?
President Obama did something that you agree with?
I guess there is a first for everything. LOL

 

[dieseldiva]

Did I read this correctly?
President Obama did something that you agree with?
I guess there is a first for everything. LOL

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while!

 

[greg334]

I don't get it, Layout you know this is another "trash the establishment" piece at the same time correcting the media's guilt feelings. The guy took the fall for his Commander In Chief as did McCrystal.

The problem is without knowing how it works, it makes it look like he was demoted as a punishment but that wasn't the case. There were and still a protocol to follow at that rank for promotions and especially retirements. He didn't meet the standards for General but did for Major General.

He wasn't as clean as people made the guy out to be, he was involved with a lot more than they are telling, but generals seem to be more political appointments than officers who serve. I'm not taking anything away from the guy, but he did retire as a Major General and did well in serving the country.

 

[layoutshooter]

This General had his life and career RUINED by a pack of LIES.

He was demoted 2 stars Joe..to a Major General...
I don't think that ruined his life that much....it did blemish a great career however...I am betting insiders knew the real truth anyhow...

it is good to see this farce get cleared up...

I did not know this man. Assuming, for arguments sake that he was a man of honor, there could be few things worse than having your honor taken from you. If he is the kinda guy that I think he was he died a bitter angry man. Politicians are almost always to blame.

 

[layoutshooter]

but, but Joe...as Greg said Generals are political as well...
some of these modern day Generals have never seen real battle...they've sat in the office and meeting rooms discussing planning and logistics....

Yeah, I get it. I don't know about today's generals at all. I worked with generals a lot at the agency. No matter what I thought about the individual there was one overriding factor I noticed. I NEVER met a STUPID general. I met LOTS of stupid looies, captains and even the odd dumb Lt. col. Not ONE stupid general.

The only general I knew on a personal basis worked his way up from pvt E1. He started as a "dittybop", a morse intercept guy, same as I did. He was beyond sharp.

 

[greg334]

Layout,
It is like an executive, there are not too many who can not be sharp and get there. The problem is some of them are egotistical and arrogant which leads them to be dis-honorable. I have yet seen, read or know of a General who in war time didn't do some mean or nasty unethical things. Patton, Eisenhower, Pershing and even Washington all had something dis-honorable in their past. Patton may be the worst but he help win a nasty war.

I think restoring the rank means little, it is a congressional thing to do, not a presidential thing and for the media's part in it, it looks like they are trying to right a wrong at the same time slam Nixon again.

 

[layoutshooter]

Layout,
It is like an executive, there are not too many who can not be sharp and get there. The problem is some of them are egotistical and arrogant which leads them to be dis-honorable. I have yet seen, read or know of a General who in war time didn't do some mean or nasty unethical things. Patton, Eisenhower, Pershing and even Washington all had something dis-honorable in their past. Patton may be the worst but he help win a nasty war.

I think restoring the rank means little, it is a congressional thing to do, not a presidential thing and for the media's part in it, it looks like they are trying to right a wrong at the same time slam Nixon again.

I know it was a slam Nixon thing. None of the VERY bad stuff that Johnson/Kennedy/Carter or any of the Dumb-O-Crats did will come out in an election year that is hotly contested.

Many generals have an ego problem. Many don't. I had little trouble with the ones I had to work with in the past.

I also had NO problem bombing the snot out of North Viet Nam. Should hit them harder and longer and driven the Soviets completely out. If you are going to fight a war, fight it to win or just become a total isolationist country and just wait to be done in. Those are the only two choices based on my experience.

 

[greg334]

Layout,
there is a lot more to the war than what is been said. What surprised me was the limitations of the allied forces, like not bombing sanctuary air bases or targeting some population centers.

 

[layoutshooter]

Layout,
there is a lot more to the war than what is been said. What surprised me was the limitations of the allied forces, like not bombing sanctuary air bases or targeting some population centers.

Which war are you speaking of? Not that it matters. Our congress has been doing everything in their power to insure we never win another war again since WWII ended. I do wonder which side they are on.

If you are speaking of Viet Nam, I know A LOT about the behind the scenes restrictions that cost us lives and years of stupidity. It is all still going on today.

 

[RLENT]

Much of what happened in Viet Nam, the Cold War etc was lied about on a regular basis.

Yup - first and foremost by the government and their functionaries .....

And here's a big newsflash: that wasn't the first war, nor was it the last, where this was done.

This General had his life and career RUINED by a pack of LIES. Nothing new. ....... Lives DESTROYED by a bunch so called "Whistle Blowers" out to "Clean UP" America, BY LYING!!!

Uh ... the fact is, in this case, it wasn't whistleblowers that ruined his career - it was corrupt government officials - including high-ranking military officers ...

In fact, it was whistleblowers (The Caseys) that exposed the above .... and caused justice to prevail.

There are MANY MORE stories like this.

I'm quite sure there are .....

It is REALLY bad that the press seldom wrote in a fair and honest manner.

Taking the viewpoint of the press for minute, it is kinda hard to write about stuff with anything approaching complete accuracy, with fairness and balance, when all of your queries to government officials are met with the following sort of responses:

"No comment ....."

and

"..... I can neither confirm or deny ...."

More stories like this should come out.

I agree .... good or bad .... and let the chips fall where they may .....

Not only from back then but things that are being LIED about today.

Oh really ? .... ya think ?

BTW, while I may not agree with the policy that the General was acting under, or his actions specifically, I do think that it is good that this came out - no one deserves to have lies told about them - particularly government officials acting in performance of their duties - especially when those telling the lies are their superiors ... ostensibly to avoid culpability for themselves or others .....

This instance highlights the need to avoid unnecessary classification - something that is utterly rampant and literally out-of-control in Washington - where there is no actual threat to national security.

Transparency (as much as is practical, without jeopardizing the immediate lives of specific individuals) and open government are the keys to ensuring this kind of thing doesn't happen, and isn't the norm.

 

[greg334]

Rlent,
Justice?

I'm confused, wouldn't it be justice if the General would be alive?

 

[RLENT]

Rlent,
Justice?

I'm confused, ....

Yup .... you apparently are .....

wouldn't it be justice if the General would be alive?

I'm afraid that would be .... an awfully narrow view of the subject of justice, and it's application .... (notice how I avoided using "shallow" above .... and used "narrow" instead ... )

You appear to be considering the matter simply in the context as to how it affected a only single individual (Lavelle) .....

There is a broader context than that, particularly in terms of society as a whole (justice is often done for the benefit of the group in question, and not just an individual) ..... and there certainly was more than one individual involved anyways ....

To a great extent, Justice is served by the other parties in the matter being exposed for what they did (or didn't, as the case may be) do ..... Ryan, Admiral Moorer, Gen. Abrams, likely Kissinger, ..... and even Nixon - who clearly knew the what the right thing to do was - as evidenced by his agonizing over Lavelle's fate - but then surrounded and advised by corrupt, shallow men (Kissinger), was weak and failed to act on that knowledge .....

If these men acted dishonorably, then let it be shown .... and known by one and all .....

The justice rendered was, for Lavelle (and his family) small, in that he didn't live to see it ..... but the justice rendered for society as a whole was far greater ....

 

[layoutshooter]

Yup - first and foremost by the government and their functionaries .....

And here's a big newsflash: that wasn't the first war, nor was it the last, where this was done.


Uh ... the fact is, in this case, it wasn't whistleblowers that ruined his career - it was corrupt government officials - including high-ranking military officers ...

In fact, it was whistleblowers (The Caseys) that exposed the above .... and caused justice to prevail.


I'm quite sure there are .....


Taking the viewpoint of the press for minute, it is kinda hard to write about stuff with anything approaching complete accuracy, with fairness and balance, when all of your queries to government officials are met with the following sort of responses:

"No comment ....."

and

"..... I can neither confirm or deny ...."


I agree .... good or bad .... and let the chips fall where they may .....


Oh really ? .... ya think ?

BTW, while I may not agree with the policy that the General was acting under, or his actions specifically, I do think that it is good that this came out - no one deserves to have lies told about them - particularly government officials acting in performance of their duties - especially when those telling the lies are their superiors ... ostensibly to avoid culpability for themselves or others .....

This instance highlights the need to avoid unnecessary classification - something that is utterly rampant and literally out-of-control in Washington - where there is no actual threat to national security.

Transparency (as much as is practical, without jeopardizing the immediate lives of specific individuals) and open government are the keys to ensuring this kind of thing doesn't happen, and isn't the norm.

We seem to agree more than we disagree here.

I am not sure what you would mean by unnecessary classification in this case. On going military operations always involve lives and should be classified. We would have lost WWII if we had not classified troop movements, battle plans etc.

You most likely won't believe this but we always tried to classify information at the LOWEST level possible. Why? Inflating ANY system lowers its ability to function. Over classification also makes it more difficult for those working in that field to do their jobs and raises costs higher than might be needed.

We would most likely differ on what constitutes a threat to National Security. There I would have a much lower threshold than you would. At least I think I would based on your writing.

Most of the "toys" I worked with were classified and for good reason. If the specs or capabilities of those "toys" came out we would have lost the ability to "collect" needed information. That information was used to counter moves made by the Soviets that were a direct threat to this Country.

Most of the information that I worked with was the same. If the Soviets had truly known what we were able to do we would have lost that "window" into their operations and a much bigger war would have been fought than the one that was.

The entire basis of our work was to AVOID a larger war and to keep any fighting to a MINIMUM while containing the Soviets. It worked for the most part. Too bad all those innocent civilians in Eastern Europe, Asia and every where else they spread their evil were allowed to die. 25 million or so in Russia alone. Made Hitler look like an alter boy.

My entire point when I started this thread was to show how most of the problems we see when a "general" or an "agency" appears to be "out of control" is NOT the fault of the "general" or the "agency", it is almost always the fault of the elected civilian government that controls them. It is the government, not their employees, that cause most of the problems. The "generals" and the "agencies" MUST, and rightfully so, follow the orders of the Commander in Chief. It is up to the individual to determine for his or her self if that order or task he or she was just given adheres to their own moral standards. If and when that threshold is breached it is time to get out. For better or worse no general or agency determines the legality of orders or tasking. That is the job of those who issue the orders or write the tasking. That is often a problem to be sure. The elected officials that give those orders and write that tasking are NOT subject to the same vetting that those they control are, and it shows.

Of course there are "bad" generals just as there have been "bad" intell agents. They are NOT the norm and every effort, sometimes to the point of silly, is made in ensure that those kinds of people are either never employed or are removed as soon as they are seen to be a problem.

 

[layoutshooter]

They should have stuck to their guns...NO press on the battlefield...we waste lives and resources that distract from the mission with them there....

We have always had press on the battlefield, we need them there and I don't want to live in a country that does not allow them there. I do, however, think that they should be responsible. They should KNOW not to report, locations, plans, troop movements etc. That costs lives and loses wars. They are there to document and keep things HONEST. That honesty part can ONLY happen when the reporter does not go to that battlefield to do anything other than report.

 

[layoutshooter]

Honest ? Joe? its war...a front...crap happens...some good, some bad.....to have a camera stuck in a soldiers face...I don't like it....the right to know stops at our border..ours laws don't apply on a foreign battlefield..

I know all about war, OVM. I know the "good" and the "bad". I also know that the press ARE needed. We do have laws on the battlefield. We should follow them. We do, for the most part. Our troops must follow the UCMJ which includes law on what they can or cannot do on a battlefield. I believe that a free and HONEST press are very IMPORTANT to our society. They did a good job, for the most part, in WWII. IF they worked that way now it would be fine. It does seem that many today are just out to press their agenda rather than just report.

 

[layoutshooter]

I suppose that is my point really..the press has gone beyond their mandate to report, abused the right....put the foot down, suspend the right, get back to basics, or you are outta here..

"Rights" are "different" on the battlefield then in the real world. While the need for a free press is likely GREATER on the battlefield than at "Ford Motor Company" it does carry far GREATER responsibilities. People tend to forget that EVERY right that we have comes with an equal responsibility. The bigger the task the higher level of responsibility is required.

 

[layoutshooter]

The press seems to have forgotten that Joe....they need reminded, rights given, can also be taken...like a child...

Not only the press, OVM, many people in general have forgotten that "rights" carry responsibilities. Freedom of speech does NOT mean that you can run around saying anything you want anytime that you want, but many people think and act that way. The same can be said of every right we have in this Country. I am of the opinion that, in general, we have, as a Nation, forgotten or downplayed things like personal responsibilities.

 

[greg334]

They did a good job, for the most part, in WWII.

They did a fair job in WW2, by no means a good job. They were limited to the point that only Military reporters were allowed on the battlefield and where operations took place. They were subject to censorship by the military on every piece of information they wrote and many of them were inducted as civilian reporter corp members (not military) in order to even participate as reporters.

Andy Rooney's book My War, describes the system pretty well and includes some key points about how we got our news.

We didn't allow reporters in WW1 or Korea either, but Vietnam wasn't a "global" operation, it was an allied operation per se and the "right" to know surpassed our country's right to keep secrets from that point on.

Once what was treason are now leaks, once when we executed soldiers for desertion, we reward them. Censorship on the battle field and in military operations should be a priority for the military, not embedding civilian reporters and making sure they are housed and fed at tax payers expense.

We don't have the first amendment that says the press is above the people's right of free speech or sanction the press as the only way we get our news but the press is quick to point out that the people are dumb and need 'them' to tell us what is going on. A twisted world we have now and all of it puts us in danger.

 

[layoutshooter]

Yeah, there were mainly military correspondents on the battlefields during WWII. Censorship is a MUST during combat operations.

You are right. We reward BAD people and their actions today and many ridicule law abiding citizens for theirs. It is crazy. It is a small wonder that things are even worse.