It would be wrong of me to post Jim’s previous response to Bergdahl’s return and not post this.
By definition, I came at the Iranian hostage crisis from the opposite side. As a Junior High student, I worked on Carter’s campaign and I would have voted for him myself, had I not been 12 at the time. I watched with horror as the capture dragged on…and on… and then watched with rage as the Reagan administration did what the Carter administration couldn’t. My rage came from elsewhere and time has proven me right concerning how those hostages were freed. I suspect more time needs to flow before we fully understand who and why the hostages were taken.
Perspective has a funny way of changing what we *know* as truth. Here’s just a taste of how the pot can call the kettle black:
Why is this so ironic? Some of you were likely too young to remember or too disaffected to pay attention to Iran-Contra back in the mid-80s. I wasn’t.
Seeing both sides of a situation without knowing all the facts, no matter how heinous the crime, is so completely and utterly unAmerican that I shudder to think what our country will become if we can’t somehow grab hold of the trolls who aren’t paid by the other side and get them to realize that they are acting as tools serving a purpose.
As far left as I am, I don’t know all the facts in this case. I wasn’t inside Bergdahl’s head, wasn’t there at his post, didn’t see his capture. I suspect that unless you are either Bergdahl himself or the Afghans who held him, you weren’t and didn’t either.
Fast forward to this week.
I’m telling you to look for the thinly veiled agenda behind all the hand-wringing.
In the United States of America (at least for now) by virtue of the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments to our Constitution, our citizens are considered innocent until proven guilty. Our soldiers fight and die for this principle along with all the rest. I respect the law. I just served the most recent round of jury duty and while I’m relieved that I didn’t have to sit on the jury panel for a trial, I would have done so and I would have applied the same principles to the crime and the accused.
Jim Wright presents the other side, and in his more than eloquent way, makes clear that the conversation won’t happen if all we do is swear at each other in apoplexy. Every decision we make, every opinion we hold, comes from what we have learned. When we are presented with facts we have to assess whether they are grounded in truth. If we still believe these facts after seeing all the evidence, we can then believe we know the truth. But there’s a caution in this: If we are told lies by people who have agendas we don’t know, and the people who speak are in positions of authority, it is our responsibility to investigate the agenda, not just the speaker. Even oaths can be broken if the oath-taker believes something other than the honest truth.
I have *always* been involved in politics. I have *always* been a Democrat. And I’ve gotten really good at researching what I write. If you throw up a straw man argument or fuzzy science, I WILL call you out. Your responsibility is to check your sources and make sure they’re not telling lies. If you don’t know what I mean, go back and reread everything in that Daily Kos article.