Poor Mr. Lowry

Rich Lowry has a certain malady which I might catorigize as inability to understand that the part is not the whole. Now, I'm not a psychiatrist, but I feel confident that I can diagnose the medical conditions of people I have never met.

Inability to understand that the part is not the whole syndrome (or I.T.U.T.T.P.I.N.T.W. Syndrome) is rampant among conservative circles. It sees its fullest expression in the idea that one cannot protest the Iraq War and the decisions of the Bush administration in leading us into the Iraq war without attacking American Soldiers. In other words, President Bush is the Commander and Chief and Donald Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense, part of the American Military Apparatus. Therefore to attack them is to attack the American military, and in turn attack each individual soldier.

Now a child could explain to Mr. Lowry and other proponents of this sort of argument what is wrong with it. The part is not the same as the whole; particularly in this case. Nobody sensible thinks that each individual infantryman made the decision to go to war. Such decisions were made at the top; and by very few.

By the same token Rich Lowry takes exception with Senator Kerry playing up his past as a Soldier in Vietnam because of his post service anti-war activities.

"Asked about the testimony the other day by Knight Ridder, Kerry said he relied on the Winter Soldier Investigation "because some of it was highly documented and very disturbing. I did in my heart what I thought was correct to help people understand what was going on. I've always honored the service of people over there. I never insinuated that everybody fell into one pot. I was looking forward to telling the truth about some of the things that were happening."

This is a statement shot through with mendacity. Let's take it sentence by sentence: 1) The Winter Soldier testimony was not "highly documented," but -- as Mack Owens of the Naval War College has reported -- totally unsubstantiated. The fantastic stories of atrocities should have been unbelievable to any Vietnam vet.

Taking it sentence by sentence is a good idea Mr. Lowry. Need I point out that the military exonerated itself for the atrocities on numerous occasions. Yet there are still records of them having occurred. I'm not sure if the Winter Soldier was true or false, but the fact that the Navy claimed it unsubstantiated isn't exactly a nail in the coffin. I'm also curious as to why you chose to pick up Senator Kerry's quote mid-sentence.

2) Kerry didn't "help people understand what was going on," but rather helped publicize lies.

That's only if you believe that such atrocities did not take place. But they did. Frankly even using your last sentence the best you can say is unsubstantiated. That's not the same as a lie.

3) Kerry didn't "honor" the service of vets, but said, "We are ashamed of ... what we are called on to do in Southeast Asia," and maintained that in the vets, America "has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence."

Again a quote that has been cut to ribbons, but this points back to Lowry's I.T.U.T.T.P.I.N.T.W. Syndrome. Some soldiers committed atrocities; many did not. And at any rate, I doubt Kerry ever argued that the Soldiers in Vietnam went there to commit atrocities. Instead they went there to serve their country, but due to the failures of the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon presidential, they were thrust into a hell. It's not surprising that some of them became monsters.

4) Kerry did insinuate that the atrocities were widespread, noting that they were "not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." These crimes tainted the nation -- "the crimes threaten [the country], not Reds," as "America lose[s] her sense of morality."

Kerry may have over stated his case back when he gave his testimony. But the rest of your statement only makes sense if, once again, you assume that the atrocities did not happen.

5) If Kerry wanted to tell the truth, he shouldn't have traded in falsehoods.

Again, only relevant if you believe there were no atrocities.

Unfortunately for Conservatives, outbreaks of I.T.U.T.T.P.I.N.T.W. Syndrome have remained relatively rare in the general public. Hence, many might see through the argument that because Kerry related reports of atrocities, he smeared every single soldier. Particularly with so many of these smeared soldiers are willing to join him at events.