Sydney Schanberg is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who is best known for his coverage of the war in Cambodia. His book, “The Death and Life of Dith Pran, “ covered Dith Pran’s survival in Cambodia despite the oppression of the Khmer Rouge. The book inspired the 1984 film "The Killing Fields", in which Schanberg was portrayed by Sam Waterston.
Schanberg has now turned his sights on John McCain. He makes allegations that McCain, over many years in the Senate, has orchestrated a cover-up of information regarding Vietnam POWs who, unlike McCain, did not return home.
It is a long, but interesting, read. I have an excerpt here, but also provide a link to the complete version below. (Government documents can also be viewed when viewing the article at the link.)
McCain and the POW Cover-up
The "war hero" candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam
Research support provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute. This is an expanded version, with primary documents attached, of a story that appears in theOctober 6, 2008 issue of The Nation.
By Sydney H. Schanberg
September 18, 2008
John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn't return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.
Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain's role in it, even as the Republican Party has made McCain's military service the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn't talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.
The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington—and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that "men were left behind." This imposing body of evidence suggests that a large number—the documents indicate probably hundreds—of the US prisoners held by Vietnam were not returned when the peace treaty was signed in January 1973 and Hanoi released 591 men, among them Navy combat pilot John S. McCain.
Mass of Evidence
The Pentagon had been withholding significant information from POW families for years. What's more, the Pentagon's POW/MIA operation had been publicly shamed by internal whistleblowers and POW families for holding back documents as part of a policy of "debunking" POW intelligence even when the information was obviously credible.
The pressure from the families and Vietnam veterans finally forced the creation, in late 1991, of a Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. The chairman was John Kerry. McCain, as a former POW, was its most pivotal member. In the end, the committee became part of the debunking machine…..
There is much more to the story; the complete text can be accessed here.
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.
Showing posts with label Sam Waterston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sam Waterston. Show all posts
Friday, September 19, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Unity '08 - The Obituary
Back on November 17, I wrote in this blog a post titled “Unity ’08 – DOA?” (See link to original,here. )
Well, I think I called that one right.
Last Thursday, I got a letter from Unity ’08 – below – which sounds like its swan song. And when I visited the web site today, the letter is all that was left. I’m so glad I held off and didn’t donate any funds.
It was a valiant attempt on their part to try to create an organization that wanted to put partisan politics aside. Maybe they picked the wrong year in which to do it. With the large number of candidates for both Democratic and Republican parties, there already seems to be a great opportunity for major political shake-up. It’s almost as if Unity ’08 really wasn’t able to differentiate itself in the barrage of promises for change coming from the candidates themselves.
I was drawn to the cause initially by hearing Sam Waterston talk about it. It was probably the wrong reason to give it a look, but it got me there anyway, which is what the group may have intended. More eyeballs to see and ears to hear their message. I think that as more people realized – like me – that Unity ’08 was not a political party but a political action committee, interest waned. And the organization never seemed to congeal its message. Compounding the problem was an FEC ruling that strangled their fundraising ability. It appears that Unity ’08 was a nice in concept, but that it wasn’t clearly thought through, and maybe the right people weren’t leading the charge.
So while I called its death in November, I think it’s time to finish it off with what I think is its "obituary", from the Unity '08 website:
"Dear fellow members of Unity08,
One of our principles at the outset of this audacious project was transparency and openness. Too often in our recent political history, what you see is not what you get.
For this reason, we are writing you today to lay out the current status of Unity08 and possible paths going forward.
First, however, it's important to reflect upon what we - together - have accomplished in shaping the current political discussion and building a sense of what is possible in this crucial election year. Two of our core ideas - the importance of a centrist, bi-partisan approach to the solving of our nation's problems and the possibility of an independent, unity ticket for the presidency have already gone from far-out to mainstream.
Barack Obama, for example, has made the theme of unity and the necessity of bridging the partisan divide an absolutely central theme of his campaign. And just last week, a group of former and present national office holders - independents, Republicans and Democrats - met in Oklahoma for the sole purpose of stating their belief that at the present perilous moment, a unity government is the only hope of solving the nation's mounting problems. When you have agreement among the likes of former RNC chairman Bill Brock and Gary Hart, you're onto something.
And, of course, waiting in the wings should the divide persist, is the potential of a serious non-partisan candidacy in the person of the Mayor of New York (two of our founders Doug Bailey and Gerald Rafshoon have stepped down from the board and may have more to say about their plans in the near future).
Can Unity08 take full credit for these remarkable developments? Of course not, but through this website, your active involvement, innumerable news stories, op-eds, and public appearances by friends like Sam Waterston, we certainly have helped to bring these ideas to the forefront of the current political discussion.
So in a larger sense, we have accomplished a major portion of what we set out to do. But in the specifics and logistics, we have fallen short.
At the current moment, we don't have enough members or enough money to take the next necessary step - achieving ballot access in 50 states - to reach the goal of establishing our on-line convention and nominating a Unity ticket for president and vice president this coming fall.
The past year has taught us that it's tough to rally millions to a process as opposed to a candidate or an issue. In the past, third party movements that have broken through the monopoly of the established parties have always been based on a person (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 or Ross Perot in the last decade) or a burning issue (slavery in the case of the insurgent Republican party in 1860). Stirring people and moving them to action about a process change - replacing the quirky primary system that tends to drive candidates to the extremes with something more inclusive and sensible - has proven to be a lot harder than we expected.
And the Federal Election Commission hasn't helped. The Commission has taken the position that we are subject to their jurisdiction (even though two United States Supreme Court decisions hold exactly opposite) and, therefore, that we are limited to $5000 contributions from individuals (even though the Democrat and Republican Parties are able to receive $25,000 from individuals). Needless to say, this position by the FEC effectively limited our fundraising potential, especially in the crucial early going when we needed substantial money fast to get on with ballot access and the publicity necessary to build our membership.
We were caught in a peculiar catch-22; we wanted to break the dependence on big money by getting lots of small contributions from millions of members, but needed some up-front big money to help generate the millions of members to make the small contributions. And the FEC (in effect, an arm of the parties) didn't let that happen. We have challenged this ruling in the federal courts, but are still awaiting a decision and time is running out.
And so reluctantly, especially given the volatility of the present situation, we're forced to scale back - not cease - our operations and suspend our ballot access project. Our website will become less interactive (it takes staff to answer hundreds of e-mails a day) and we can't in good faith make the $5 million commitment necessary to make a serious start on ballot access.
But we're not closing our doors. We believe it is important to see our case against the FEC through (both for Unity08 and any similar movement in the future) and be ready to gear up if (when) we win our case and political circumstances warrant later this spring. Unity is in the air right now, and Mayor Bloomberg seems poised to run on his own (and the fact is that two independent candidacies wouldn't work) if the parties leave the sensible center open - but all this could change in a matter of weeks.
We still believe strongly that we have the right idea, but it just might (emphasize might because who knows what can happen in the next month) not be the right time. In the meantime, a sincere, profound thanks for your help, involvement and support so far and please keep pushin' - for the simple but very powerful idea that solutions to our nation's problems are going to take ideas and hard work from all sources, and that a political system whose stock-in-trade is division may well be the biggest problem of all.
Please know that you have already made a difference and are at the forefront of a movement that may yet save the country.
Robert Bingham
Angus King
Peter Ackerman
Zach Clayton
Lindsay Ullman
Board of Directors, Unity08 "
R.I.P.
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, HERE!
Well, I think I called that one right.
Last Thursday, I got a letter from Unity ’08 – below – which sounds like its swan song. And when I visited the web site today, the letter is all that was left. I’m so glad I held off and didn’t donate any funds.
It was a valiant attempt on their part to try to create an organization that wanted to put partisan politics aside. Maybe they picked the wrong year in which to do it. With the large number of candidates for both Democratic and Republican parties, there already seems to be a great opportunity for major political shake-up. It’s almost as if Unity ’08 really wasn’t able to differentiate itself in the barrage of promises for change coming from the candidates themselves.
I was drawn to the cause initially by hearing Sam Waterston talk about it. It was probably the wrong reason to give it a look, but it got me there anyway, which is what the group may have intended. More eyeballs to see and ears to hear their message. I think that as more people realized – like me – that Unity ’08 was not a political party but a political action committee, interest waned. And the organization never seemed to congeal its message. Compounding the problem was an FEC ruling that strangled their fundraising ability. It appears that Unity ’08 was a nice in concept, but that it wasn’t clearly thought through, and maybe the right people weren’t leading the charge.
So while I called its death in November, I think it’s time to finish it off with what I think is its "obituary", from the Unity '08 website:
"Dear fellow members of Unity08,
One of our principles at the outset of this audacious project was transparency and openness. Too often in our recent political history, what you see is not what you get.
For this reason, we are writing you today to lay out the current status of Unity08 and possible paths going forward.
First, however, it's important to reflect upon what we - together - have accomplished in shaping the current political discussion and building a sense of what is possible in this crucial election year. Two of our core ideas - the importance of a centrist, bi-partisan approach to the solving of our nation's problems and the possibility of an independent, unity ticket for the presidency have already gone from far-out to mainstream.
Barack Obama, for example, has made the theme of unity and the necessity of bridging the partisan divide an absolutely central theme of his campaign. And just last week, a group of former and present national office holders - independents, Republicans and Democrats - met in Oklahoma for the sole purpose of stating their belief that at the present perilous moment, a unity government is the only hope of solving the nation's mounting problems. When you have agreement among the likes of former RNC chairman Bill Brock and Gary Hart, you're onto something.
And, of course, waiting in the wings should the divide persist, is the potential of a serious non-partisan candidacy in the person of the Mayor of New York (two of our founders Doug Bailey and Gerald Rafshoon have stepped down from the board and may have more to say about their plans in the near future).
Can Unity08 take full credit for these remarkable developments? Of course not, but through this website, your active involvement, innumerable news stories, op-eds, and public appearances by friends like Sam Waterston, we certainly have helped to bring these ideas to the forefront of the current political discussion.
So in a larger sense, we have accomplished a major portion of what we set out to do. But in the specifics and logistics, we have fallen short.
At the current moment, we don't have enough members or enough money to take the next necessary step - achieving ballot access in 50 states - to reach the goal of establishing our on-line convention and nominating a Unity ticket for president and vice president this coming fall.
The past year has taught us that it's tough to rally millions to a process as opposed to a candidate or an issue. In the past, third party movements that have broken through the monopoly of the established parties have always been based on a person (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 or Ross Perot in the last decade) or a burning issue (slavery in the case of the insurgent Republican party in 1860). Stirring people and moving them to action about a process change - replacing the quirky primary system that tends to drive candidates to the extremes with something more inclusive and sensible - has proven to be a lot harder than we expected.
And the Federal Election Commission hasn't helped. The Commission has taken the position that we are subject to their jurisdiction (even though two United States Supreme Court decisions hold exactly opposite) and, therefore, that we are limited to $5000 contributions from individuals (even though the Democrat and Republican Parties are able to receive $25,000 from individuals). Needless to say, this position by the FEC effectively limited our fundraising potential, especially in the crucial early going when we needed substantial money fast to get on with ballot access and the publicity necessary to build our membership.
We were caught in a peculiar catch-22; we wanted to break the dependence on big money by getting lots of small contributions from millions of members, but needed some up-front big money to help generate the millions of members to make the small contributions. And the FEC (in effect, an arm of the parties) didn't let that happen. We have challenged this ruling in the federal courts, but are still awaiting a decision and time is running out.
And so reluctantly, especially given the volatility of the present situation, we're forced to scale back - not cease - our operations and suspend our ballot access project. Our website will become less interactive (it takes staff to answer hundreds of e-mails a day) and we can't in good faith make the $5 million commitment necessary to make a serious start on ballot access.
But we're not closing our doors. We believe it is important to see our case against the FEC through (both for Unity08 and any similar movement in the future) and be ready to gear up if (when) we win our case and political circumstances warrant later this spring. Unity is in the air right now, and Mayor Bloomberg seems poised to run on his own (and the fact is that two independent candidacies wouldn't work) if the parties leave the sensible center open - but all this could change in a matter of weeks.
We still believe strongly that we have the right idea, but it just might (emphasize might because who knows what can happen in the next month) not be the right time. In the meantime, a sincere, profound thanks for your help, involvement and support so far and please keep pushin' - for the simple but very powerful idea that solutions to our nation's problems are going to take ideas and hard work from all sources, and that a political system whose stock-in-trade is division may well be the biggest problem of all.
Please know that you have already made a difference and are at the forefront of a movement that may yet save the country.
Robert Bingham
Angus King
Peter Ackerman
Zach Clayton
Lindsay Ullman
Board of Directors, Unity08 "
R.I.P.
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, HERE!
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Unity08 – DOA?
Several months ago, I heard about a new political organization called Unity08. It’s a movement that was formed out of disillusionment with the current two political parties, the belief that neither party represents the opinions of most Americans. The intent was the group would conduct a national primary (on line) to pick a unity ticket for President and Vice President. OK, full disclosure here. I heard about Unity08 from Sam Waterston. Well, not in person as I would have liked, but from some sort of news release talking about his involvement. Since I’m a casual fan of Sam and am aware of his charitable work, I thought I’d check it out. So I signed up to be a Unity08 member.
My first email from Unity08 said, “As a supporter of Unity08, you're in a special position to lead the country in a new and exciting direction away from partisan bickering and polarized politics.” I went to their website to dig further into what the organization was about, and found that I was a little confused about exactly how they were going to revolutionize and reinvigorate this next presidential election.
To get more information, I watched Sam’s appearances on shows hosted by Bill O’Reilly, Chris Matthews, and Stephen Colbert. Sam seemed to be a good choice for spokesperson and with each appearance, seemed to get more comfortable with explaining what Unity08 is all about. And then – nothing. TV coverage dried up.
Unity08 had an on-line chat covering ballot access issues. There seemed to be a lot of questions being asked during the chat that didn't appear to be addressed. Some of the questions dealt with how Unity08 would identify candidates, difficulties in getting members, and raising cash when Unity08 seemed just a concept and not a candidate, etc. Clearly these were not ballot access questions, but it told me something – that some Unity08 members had issues with how the organization could be taken seriously if there were no big names willing to take up the challenge. By the way, I downloaded the final chat transcript at that time, and it doesn’t include all the questions that all the chatters asked, only those dealing with ballot access issues. This was of great disappointment to me, and made me wonder why they felt the need to edit those questions out without explaining why.
Initially, their web site was a little scattered and weak, although there were some decent blogs and a forum where people could discuss issues. I seemed to notice a lot of bickering going on about various potential candidates and issues, which made wonder again if the organization can pull off a unity ticket when Unity08 members had so many varying opinions. Does Unity08 really know what the American people want – and is it reasonable to expect there will be a candidate out there that can be all things to all people? My skepticism grew.
They also conducted a line scale survey – which I spent the time to complete – to poll members on various issues and people. It seemed to be helpful to identify the hot buttons, but was a little light on identifying potential candidates. OK, my impatience was starting to grow. I wanted to know, if I chose to back Unity08 with any money, to whom I would be giving my stamp of approval.
Somewhere during the time Sam Waterston appeared on the Colbert Report, Unity08 ran a poll involving a possible running mate for Stephen Colbert. Stephen Colbert? I know they were just trying to be funny, and maybe to grab a younger demographic, but for an organization trying to define itself, it seemed the wrong time to be funny.
I was, at first, delighted when I received an email recently telling me about their redesigned website. Great news, I thought, maybe the site’s home page would explain Unity08 in a way to get people interested. Maybe information would be easier to find. Maybe we’d get a front page like a news website, with changing content to draw people back to the site. Again, my hopes were dashed. The message boards seemed to be gone, previous blogs seemed to be wiped away. (Hmmm – did some sanitizing take place?) And horrors – there was no trace of Sam Waterston. NONE. Did Sam have second thoughts about his involvement – or did he just simply not have the time anymore? Either way, his face and his name seem to be missing, strange considering they made a huge deal about him being spokesperson. Maybe I just can’t find the right place on the website. The new site, if anything, doesn’t do any better than the last to excite, and draw in, new OR existing members, or make it easy to find information quickly.
While digging through the new site, I found, in the FAQ section, that Unity08 describes itself as "...registered as a PAC. It is not a political party." How did I miss this before? Was it even on their old site? I never realized that it wasn't going to drive candidates separate from the other two dominant parties. In my opinion, this goes back to Unity08's failure to clearly define itself to current and potential members/donors.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Unity08 won’t be a significant force this election. It may only be a great concept in search of the perfect candidate. Right now, it seems more like a racehorse coming strong out of the starting gate, only to stumble early and finish last.
And I’d rather put my hard-earned money on a surer winner.
The Frequent Critic
Sam Waterston speaks for Unity08
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
HERE!
My first email from Unity08 said, “As a supporter of Unity08, you're in a special position to lead the country in a new and exciting direction away from partisan bickering and polarized politics.” I went to their website to dig further into what the organization was about, and found that I was a little confused about exactly how they were going to revolutionize and reinvigorate this next presidential election.
To get more information, I watched Sam’s appearances on shows hosted by Bill O’Reilly, Chris Matthews, and Stephen Colbert. Sam seemed to be a good choice for spokesperson and with each appearance, seemed to get more comfortable with explaining what Unity08 is all about. And then – nothing. TV coverage dried up.
Unity08 had an on-line chat covering ballot access issues. There seemed to be a lot of questions being asked during the chat that didn't appear to be addressed. Some of the questions dealt with how Unity08 would identify candidates, difficulties in getting members, and raising cash when Unity08 seemed just a concept and not a candidate, etc. Clearly these were not ballot access questions, but it told me something – that some Unity08 members had issues with how the organization could be taken seriously if there were no big names willing to take up the challenge. By the way, I downloaded the final chat transcript at that time, and it doesn’t include all the questions that all the chatters asked, only those dealing with ballot access issues. This was of great disappointment to me, and made me wonder why they felt the need to edit those questions out without explaining why.
Initially, their web site was a little scattered and weak, although there were some decent blogs and a forum where people could discuss issues. I seemed to notice a lot of bickering going on about various potential candidates and issues, which made wonder again if the organization can pull off a unity ticket when Unity08 members had so many varying opinions. Does Unity08 really know what the American people want – and is it reasonable to expect there will be a candidate out there that can be all things to all people? My skepticism grew.
They also conducted a line scale survey – which I spent the time to complete – to poll members on various issues and people. It seemed to be helpful to identify the hot buttons, but was a little light on identifying potential candidates. OK, my impatience was starting to grow. I wanted to know, if I chose to back Unity08 with any money, to whom I would be giving my stamp of approval.
Somewhere during the time Sam Waterston appeared on the Colbert Report, Unity08 ran a poll involving a possible running mate for Stephen Colbert. Stephen Colbert? I know they were just trying to be funny, and maybe to grab a younger demographic, but for an organization trying to define itself, it seemed the wrong time to be funny.
I was, at first, delighted when I received an email recently telling me about their redesigned website. Great news, I thought, maybe the site’s home page would explain Unity08 in a way to get people interested. Maybe information would be easier to find. Maybe we’d get a front page like a news website, with changing content to draw people back to the site. Again, my hopes were dashed. The message boards seemed to be gone, previous blogs seemed to be wiped away. (Hmmm – did some sanitizing take place?) And horrors – there was no trace of Sam Waterston. NONE. Did Sam have second thoughts about his involvement – or did he just simply not have the time anymore? Either way, his face and his name seem to be missing, strange considering they made a huge deal about him being spokesperson. Maybe I just can’t find the right place on the website. The new site, if anything, doesn’t do any better than the last to excite, and draw in, new OR existing members, or make it easy to find information quickly.
While digging through the new site, I found, in the FAQ section, that Unity08 describes itself as "...registered as a PAC. It is not a political party." How did I miss this before? Was it even on their old site? I never realized that it wasn't going to drive candidates separate from the other two dominant parties. In my opinion, this goes back to Unity08's failure to clearly define itself to current and potential members/donors.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Unity08 won’t be a significant force this election. It may only be a great concept in search of the perfect candidate. Right now, it seems more like a racehorse coming strong out of the starting gate, only to stumble early and finish last.
And I’d rather put my hard-earned money on a surer winner.
The Frequent Critic
Sam Waterston speaks for Unity08
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
HERE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)