For the Record: What Kerry actually said to Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,136
Location
Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
I am not a Kerry fan. If it comes down to a race between him and Bush, I'll probably vote for a Green or Libertarian. But I've been reading a lot of people around here claiming he told Congress he witnessed atrocities committed in Viet Nam. This is not true.

Democracy Now! played almost the full speech he made to Congress last Friday. I suggest you listen to the whole thing before you make more statements about what he said and who he associated with during the anti-war campaign. If you go to this page you can view or listen to all or part of the program. If you go here you can read a partial transcript. The video is better, because it includes testimony from the "Winter Soldier" Investigation that is not included in the transcript. It also includes some footage from the war.

Whatever we think of Kerry now, he was protesting a war that a lot of us back then came to realize was, as he said, "a mistake."

From Democracy Now:

On October 9, 2002, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry stood on the Senate floor and spoke in favor of the invasion of Iraq. The next day he voted to authorize President Bush to go to war.

Thirty years earlier, Kerry became a leading voice against the war in Vietnam.

Kerry returned from Vietnam in April 1969, having won early transfer out of the conflict because of his three Purple Hearts. He had also won a Silver Star.

When Kerry returned home, over 540,000 U.S. troops were deployed in Vietnam. Some 33,400 had been killed, and the number of protests in the U.S. was surging.

Kerry gradually became active in the antiwar movement. After working behind the scenes and making a few little-noticed appearances at rallies, he joined a group called Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

In January 1971, the organization held a series of hearings in Detroit called the "Winter Soldier Investigation." Kerry did not speak at the event, which received only modest press coverage. This is an excerpt of a veteran testifying at the hearings. He describes what it was like in Vietnam.

* Winter Soldier Investigation documentary

John Kerry declined to speak at the “Winter Soldier Investigation†hearings, but a bigger stage awaited him.

Three months after the hearings, Kerry took his case to congress and spoke before a jammed Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Television cameras lined the walls, and veterans packed the seats.

Kerry was 27 years old and dressed in his green fatigues and Silver Star and Purple Heart ribbons. On April 22, 1971, he sat at a witness table and delivered the most famous speech of his life. It was to become the speech that defined him and make possible his political career. Overnight, he emerged as one of the most recognized veterans in America.

Pacifica Radio played his speech on the air. Today, we will play a rare broadcast of that speech. From the Pacifica Radio Archives, this is John Kerry in 1971.

* John Kerry
, testifying on April 22, 1971.

* Pacifica Radio Archives

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT

JOHN KERRY: Several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term "winter soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776, when he spoke of the "sunshine patriots," and "summertime soldiers" who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel, because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

As a veteran and one who felt this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used it the worst fashion by the administration of this country.

In 1970, at West Point, Vice President Agnew said, "some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse," and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam.

But for us, as boys in Asia whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion. Hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country, because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dared to, because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam, because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees, and they lie forgotten in Veterans' Administration hospitals in this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol. And we cannot consider ourselves America's best men when we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia.

In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but, also, we found that the Vietnamese, whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image, were hard-put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

We found also that, all too often, American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search-and-destroy missions as well as by Viet Cong terrorism, - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai, and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free-fire zones--shooting anything that moves--and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while, month after month, we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings" with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using, were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and, after losing one platoon, or two platoons, they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of "Vietnamizing" the Vietnamese.

Each day, to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam, someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that, because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying, as human beings, to communicate to people in this country--the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions, such as the use of weapons: the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free-fire zones; harassment-interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions; the bombings; the torture of prisoners; all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly: He told me how, as a boy on an Indian reservation, he had watched television, and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The Marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done, and all that they can do by this denial, is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission: To search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war; to pacify our own hearts; to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so, when, thirty years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned, and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.
 
There were many good and honest people on both sides of the arguments about our efforts in SE Asia.

Big deal.

What who said about what back then--stipulating honesty and a loyalty to this country--is far less important than the track record of the next twenty or thirty years.

I'd be a heck of a lot happier if both sides of the electoral arguments would look at voting records and policies and and positions on issues. Those are far more important than whether or not somebody served anywhere in any branch of the service, or whether they were embittered veterans or playboy pilots.

People change. People grow up. People get over past problems. It's what they then do in the ensuing years that counts.

Art
 
I heartily second what Art posted.....

and add that, as must be obvious to anyone reading such statements as this:

************************************************************
"Kerry gradually became active in the antiwar movement. After working behind the scenes and making a few little-noticed appearances at rallies, he joined a group called Vietnam Veterans Against the War."
************************************************************


That John Kerry found a golden stairway to political office and bolted up it, truth, honor and integrity notwithstanding.:scrutiny:


************************************************************
"To search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war; to pacify our own hearts; to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so, when, thirty years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned, and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.
************************************************************


Goodness gracious! One can see the 'drama queen' character formed in Kerry even way back then.:barf:
 
An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz

I'd forgotten about the American Indian occupation of Alcatraz:

http://www.nps.gov/alcatraz/indian.html


------------------
And as for Kerry and atrocities, he never said he saw them personally. He said that this was uncovered during an investigation in Detroit:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/019...NFZ4MdbsGos7mLA6MqBBipiHSj/dH0NA=#reader-page

As for the veracity of that investigation, or the truthfullness of what was reported to him, that's entirely up for grabs.


Be that as it may, it was Kerry who put it into incendiary terms, for the express purpose of demonizing our troops.
 
I don't give a damn about his service.

I don't give a damn about his protest days.

I don't give a damn about his voting record.

I do give a damn about the future.

What I give a damn about is he has stated that he will reinstate the AWB, raise taxes, and put us deeper in bed with the UN.

That's enough for me to have nothing to do with him.
 
Last edited:
The man seems to change his mind a LOT. He has a right to do it but, it certainly shows a lack of conviction to me. Especially when you consider that his "changes of mind" seem to coincide with whatever the popular opinion is at the time. I dont really like people who sway so easily with the wind. It takes a man to stand by his convictions even in the fact of disagreament. All evidence to date indicates that Kerry is not such a man.
 
Anyone else notice that Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam, under a Democrat. Then decided he was against the action when a Republican was President.

Could his stance have been entirely political all along.
 
The real problem is that if Kerry becomes president, he will be appointing some supreme court justices and probably a chief justice. History has shown us that judges have started to legislate from the bench, meaning the future of the second amendment could be at stake. You only have to look at the 9th circus court in California to see what damage leftist judges can do. TJ
 
I don't give a damn about his service.

I don't give a damn about his protest days.

I don't give a damn about his voting record.

I do give a damn about the future.

What I give a damn about is he has stated that he will reinstate the AWB, raise taxes, and put us deeper in bed with the UN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jimpeel:

Bush seems to have the same agenda. I don't see a lot of difference between Bush and Kerry. I will vote for Bush but I will hold my nose when I do.
 
...to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

As a Gen-Xer who has been to the People's Republic of Vietnam I find this statement disgusting and reprehensible. I encourage you to visit Ho Chi Minh's paradise and talk to those South Vietnamese who didn't/couldn't escape -- and ask them if they feel their post-'75 government has preserved their freedoms. You may want to duck before the punch lands.

The leaders of the '60s misfits Kerry & Agnew refer to (Leftist "peace protesters") were in fact trained and supported by Cuba and North Vietnamese Communists. And their actions helped spur this nation to oppose the war and turn against the very people fighting the Communist North Vietnamese.

And North Vietnamese government, it turns out, was every bit as oppressive and evil as JFK, LBJ and Nixon said they were. I contend strongly that the Americans who died in Vietnam did in fact do their best (as they were told) to fight for freedom of Vietnam. And those who abused American freedom of speech did so at the expense of the freedom of the Vietnamese people.

Draw your own conclusions as to why that war failed, but know that had we won, the Vietnamese would now enjoy far more freedom & prosperity than they currently do. :fire:
 
When the campaign heats up will the POWs be interviewed by Jennings, Blather et al how when the likes of Kerry & Fonda seemed to be driving the direction of the war they were tortured? When Nixon bombed N.V. back to the peace table the torture stopped and they were treated more humanely such as it was.

When I got back I was against the war too but only because it wasn`t a real war. Hard to win when you couldn`t attack strategic targets because of political considerations. If we were so afraid of the Chinese getting involved, like they weren`t supplying both ground troops and pilots, why did we bother in the first place?
 
"Could his stance have been entirely political all along"

Exactly right...He became a war protestor because it got him noticed.

Possible title for his memoirs....

Poor little rich boy goes to war....doesn't have fun
 
I just don't think the US had a right to try to impose our system on others with napalm. Didn't then, still don't.
And Cuba is a shining example of the stellar results of deletante and negotiation?
 
I usually try to keep out of debates over the right or wrong of Vietnam, and our decision to become involved militarily after the French Defeat at Dien ben Fu (Spelling?). My personal feeling is that we should have stayed out of the whole rotten mess.

Having said that, once the decision was made to commit combat troops to the fray, Protesters against the war had every right to protest. That is the American way. I can certainly understand how a potential draftee of the times would have felt at the prospect of going off to war. What I can't abide is those protesters who fled the country for refuges like Canada to avoid service. Then there are those like Kerry who for whatever reason, chose to go to Vietam and fight. (I applaud him for that)

What he did upon his return is what I can't stomach. To be associated in any way shape or form with the likes of Hanoi Jane, taints anything he might have said. In my mind there is no doubt that atrocities occurred on a regular basis in Vietnam. In a conflict where an 8 year old would beg chocolate during the day and frag our soldiers at night, where bar girls who welcomed GIs with open arms one day would slit their throats the next and where telling friend from foe was next to impossible it is not hard to understand how free fire zones, razing of villages, slaughter of farm amimals, and the blunder at Melai could occur I would hazard a guess that the same could be said of most other wars, the difference being that the soldiers involved had foresight enough to realize that making such actions public gave aid and comfort to the enemy and were better off unspoken.

When Kerry lent his name and status to the anti-war movement, he legitimized Hanoi Janes wish to be shooting down our planes (Remember the scene- her sitting at an AA battery), gave aid and comfort to the enemy. publicizing the atrocities that took place did nothing to shorten the war and probably added to the cost in American lives, through a strengthened resolve on the part of the NVA, and VC on seeing a lack of resolve by their enemy, and a willingness to admit to "War Crimes", which they of course never would.

Call me a dinasour or a relic, but what ever happened to "My country,right or wrong, but my country". Although I mght have opposed the war personally, I volunteered for service in the US N and served my 4 years, pre Vietnam but encompassing the Cuban Missle Crisis off the coast of Florida where total war was just a heartbeat away. Had I been assigned to duty in the Vietnam theater, I would have gone, done my duty, and if fortunate enough to return home, I would have kept my mouth shut. When the talk is over and the shooting starts, it is time to rally round the flag.


Just my opinion

JPM
 
JPM, you're no "relic". Heck, I spent Christmas Eve of 1954 on guard duty at Inchon, doing Occupation Duty there. :D (I can laugh, now, but I didn't, then.)

It's pointless to talk about Vietnam, now. For those who don't know why we were involved, merely look up "SEATO" as in South East Asia Treaty Organization as signed by Ike and approved by the Senate.

Anyhow, enough, I think...

Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top