Since there are so many opinions on this I may as well add mine.  His
statement to me is a termonalogy of war.  If he were a bit older and said
the same thing refering to Natzis I really don't think anyone would have
blinked.  It's a given what Natzi represents.  Our boys were brainwashed
with hate of the *Gooks* in order to survive Vietnam.  Upon their return,
it  wasn't clarified enough, oh by the way, forget what we taught your
tender minds.  These were boys. They were given no support back home and
still aren't.  And the downfall of our society to them was that very
ignorant belief that upon coming home, they would naturally adjust, without
help, by themselves. It's taken what thiry years for us to recognize the
wrong we have done to them.  Expecting them to have normal veiwpoints and
rational ones after the hell they have lived through?  The question is that
as long as Gook is defined in the same terms as Natzi, who would have a
problem with it?  Not racial slur, but a wartime term.  Taken out of time,
out of context, it does sound inappropriate.  Except to other vets maybe,
that were brainwashed and subjected to the same type of cruel inhuman
treatment.  To me it's a reminder of how many men must still have so much
pain around it.  And I wonder if McCain sees oriental people on the street
in the same light?  That would be the real question.  Can he make that
distinction?  Or are his captors still caught in time where they probably
always will be and remain defined in his memory.  In a far away, long ago
place.
My o2 for the day.
Shawn

>I'm not so sure.  If you recall, "Slick Willie" maintained in his inaugural
>address that his would be the most ethical administration in the nation's
>history--we all know the rest of the story.  Some folks don't have a problem
>with this.  They say, "Look at the economy, etc.  What the man does
>'privately' is fine with me as long as I'm not personally affected."  A
>rather myopic view, IMO.
>
>I am not in any way, shape or form equating Senator McCain with the current
>administration.  I think he is a "good man" in the sense of the prevailing
>world view.  I think he will be one of the best and strongest leaders this
>nation has seen in a good long time.  My point is, what comes out of a man's
>mouth is usually a reflection of what's going on in his heart--if he's
>honest.  I think McCain is honest.
>
>I'm reminded of the heat that Jimmy Carter took when he admitted in an
>election-year Playboy interview that he had "lusted in his heart".  Few
>people took the time to research the source of this phrase and he almost
>lost the election over it.  The man was being painfully honest--as is Sen.
>McCain.  The difference is that President Carter recognized that this
>"lusting", if you will, was a negative issue in his life.  Senator McCain
>does not see his hatred for his captors as negative, minor as it may appear
>to be.
>
>What would have been cool for me to hear would have been something like, "I
>still struggle with my hatred of my captors, so much that I still think of
>them as "gooks" in my mind's ear.  I hope to be able to get past this
>someday."  This would be more in line with the ethical statements he made in
>"Faith of My Fathers".
>
>Still hope he wins!  ;>)
>
>-Kyle
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bobby Greer [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 11:27 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: McCain Criticized for Slur
>
>
>In a message dated 3/1/00 4:22:01 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
><< But that he
>won't even entertain the idea of reconcilliation is what bothers me.  I
>guess it's because I like the guy so much that I hate to see him hurt by his
>own heart. >>
>
>As I understand it, he endorses full recognition of and trade with Vietnam.
>>From a leadership point of view, isn't that the only thing that counts???