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 the fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more, 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 the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.
He later wrote in his book, The New Soldier, which he later tried to suppress, an epilogue:
Even among the New Soldiers, in our hatred for the war and our drive for change, there is a wide divergence on approaches to change, or, for that matter, on what causes the need for change. I know that my own views do not necessarily represent the feelings of some Vietnam Veterans Against The War. But among all there is an intense and deep-rooted agreement that America has lost sight, hopefully only temporarily, of much that we knew as our greatness.
The New Soldier does not have all the answers. We do not even pretend to. Unquestionably we lack some of the depth of experience from which to provide guidelines for many policy questions. We are aware also of all the traditional arguments -- that those in power have access to information, that America can do no wrong, that America has particular interests which it must safeguard, and so on. In reality, however, there is a big difference between these arguments and what happens to the people involved. In the end, the abstractions never convey the reality of human life.
I myself went into the service with very little awareness of the people in the streets. I accepted then and still accept the idea of service to one's country. But because of all that I saw in Vietnam, the treatment of civilians, the ravaging of their countryside, the needless, useless deaths, the deception and duplicity of our policy, I changed. Traditional assumptions and expectations simply were not enough. I still want to serve my country. I am still willing to pick up arms and defend it -- die for it, if necessary. Now, however, I will not go blindly because my government says that I must go. I will not go unless we can make real our promises of self-determination and justice at home. I will not go unless the threat is a real one and we all know it to be so. I will not go unless the people of this country decide for themselves that we must all of us go
I don't think that it is inconceivable that Sen. Kerry believes that he is still fighting the same forces he fought against after Viet Nam. His current speeches reflect the same language that he wrote in his book so long ago.
In his acceptance speech at the Democrat National Convention, Kerry says the following:
My parents inspired me to serve, and when I was a junior in high school, John Kennedy called my generation to service. It was the beginning of a great journey – a time to march for civil rights, for voting rights, for the environment, for women, and for peace. We believed we could change the world. And you know what? We did.
But we're not finished. The journey isn't complete. The march isn't over. The promise isn't perfected. Tonight, we're setting out again. And together, we're going to write the next great chapter of America's story.
Can you hear them singing?
All we are saying...is give peace a chance....All we are saying...is give peace a chance.
But the real kicker...the thing that sticks out, is his continued belief that the government lies to the people, just like it lied about Viet Nam:
We have it in our power to change the world again. But only if we're true to our ideals – and that starts by telling the truth to the American people. That is my first pledge to you tonight. As President, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House.
This is the truth about Mr. Kerry. He continues to question the motives of the government. He insists, through out his career, that the government cannot have a positive and out right motive, as stated by the current President, for wanting to introduce freedom and democracy to countries currently under authoritarian dictatorships. That this is not a viable weapon against the war on terror, but has some dubious reason for going there. That the President, according to Sen. Kerry's current campaign structure, regardless of information provided by the intelligence agencies of the world, regardless of congress seeing the same information, MUST have known something different. That there was no weapons of mass destruction, that there was no contact between Al Qaida and Saddam, but decided to take us to war anyway and tell the American public something different.
It's a well know fact that Sen. Kerry and his Vice Presidential running mate both voted to authorize the President to go to war in Iraq. It is also very well known that this was actually a very popular stance at the time. Now that it has become less popular, the Senator has decided to "nuance" his vote stating he was expecting the President to do something more before going to war. Edwards, for his part, was vehemenently for the war, even after this issue came out, right up until the time that he was selected as Sen. Kerry's running mate. Now they have both taken the stance that it was wrong and inappropriate while at the same time saying they would have voted for it anyway.
But let's continue comparing his current campaign to his history, particularly on Viet Nam.
I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States. (...)
Now I know there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities – and I do – because some issues just aren't all that simple. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so. Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn’t make it so. And proclaiming mission accomplished certainly doesn't make it so.
As President, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system – so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. And as President, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.
Again, the President is lying. In the same manner in which he proclaimed that the President had lied about troops in Cambodia and the reason for the Viet Nam war and about why he was in Viet Nam, in his 1971 statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
I would like to talk about the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't realize it yet but it has created a monster in the form of thousands 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 of betrayal that no one so far has been able to grasp. We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country.
In the same way that he is insisting that there is nothing that we really had to fear from Iraq and, more recently, Iran, he indicates that the spread of Communism in Viet Nam did not threaten the security of the United States:
(Senate Testimony)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.
I believe, having read many of his current speeches and listened to his interviews, that underneath his varying support and non-support for this war in Iraq, this is his true feelings, both then and now. That American lives are wasted in creating freedom or preserving it in foreign countries. That it is simply not our responsibility to insure freedom to the world's population currently under dictatorships and that this does not make us more secure. It is in his words then and now:
(DNC Speech)I know what kids go through when they are carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right when you're not sure that's true.
As President, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent." So lesson one, this is the only justification for going to war.
What we should be able to see is that Kerry continues to carry around what seems to be an "ideal" of what war and reasons for war might be. When in reality, they are never that simple. He states that he understands the complexities, but it is very clear that he is still looking for the alledged simplicity of the "greatest generation". What he doesn't seem to recall is that even World War II was not that simple.
And, on fear mongering both then and now:
(DNC speech)In these dangerous days there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words. After decades of experience in national security, I know the reach of our power and I know the power of our ideals.
We need to make America once again a beacon in the world. We need to be looked up to and not just feared.
(1971 Senate)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 the fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more, 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 the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.
(DNC speech)We have it in our power to change the world again. But only if we're true to our ideals – and that starts by telling the truth to the American people. That is my first pledge to you tonight. As President, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House.
There are questions about his own credibility based on his statements in 1986 and 1992 that continue to play on his theme that Viet Nam was a lie and everything since then has been a lie:
1986 on Central America; Senate RecordMr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.
I have that memor seared-seared in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the US Senate to go the last step, make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict
I included this entire section and not just the words on Cambodia for a specific reason. Obviously, Sen. Kerry is being called on the subject of his self proclaimed rambles into Cambodia. What I find most interesting about Sen. Kerry's speech is the last part of the statement. Regardless of Sen. Kerry's real or imagined "flip flops" on many subjects, one thing that remains perfectly clear, he is opposed to war in any form. He believes that the United States should only defend itself. Regardless of his understanding of "complexities", he is looking for a simplified version of the enemy. Some one easily defined by a mark on their uniform, a country for which they claim to fight, who has directly attacked the United States.
This speech was given in the Senate regarding a drastically scaled down assistance for the Contras in Nicaragua, who were fighting the Sandanistas (pro-Communists). He had already attempted to negotiate with Daniel Ortega directly, without approval or request by the State Department. In reading his other comments, you can see that he plainly fears the US being involved more directly in combat in Central America, similar to the wind up of Viet Nam.
This should be the thing that makes the people of the United States afraid. Mr. Kerry does not understand the nature of our enemy. Does not understand where they come from. How they are made. What motivates them. To him, he believes them to be simple actors that can be easily tracked from country to country. That, because they do not wear a uniform, they cannot be tied to a country, but are as criminals moving easily through their own auspices, without knowledge or assistance from these states.
Further, that the unrest within these states do not pose any real threat to the United States and should be left to their own devices, to figure their own path. he totally ignores the fact that many of these country's governments support the very institutions, universities and mosques, that teach and preach these edicts, preparing their young men to committ a terrible guerrilla war on Western Civilization. That allowing these country's to continue will not severely increase our risk. That we should be able to negotiate with these countries and hold their exported terror at bay.
This is why I call Kerry the real "idealist" in this campaign. He still believes the same thing he believed in 1971, that there is no reason for war and that the United States' security is not dependent on the stability or security of other states, but solely on her ability to defend.
It is common knowledge in all military campaigns that defensive wars cannot be won. Vanguards fighting to protect the rear of the retreat, suffer the highest casualties. In castle warfare (seeing America as our castle), besieged defenders were always at the mercy of the besiegers. Food, water and medicine runs out. Besiegers were most often defeated through one of two methods: the castle guard immediately rode out of the castle and fought the besieging force before it could become entrenched; another army from outside of the castle came to the aide of the besieged and routed the enemy.
Today, America is that castle. We are besieged by an enemy that has already located our postern door (hidden exit) and penetrated our defenses. The traitors are within, waiting for a moment's inattention, where they might raise the gate and allow the besieging, murderous hordes within our walls. We have no time to spare on the niceties of "complexities" in war and peace. We have very simple decision to make. Ride forth from our castle walls and meet the enemy before they have established their base, or stay within our walls, praying for rescue from an outstide force.
Mr. Kerry wants to send out skirmishers and wait to see if the besiegers get tired and go home.
This is the danger of John Kerry. This is the future of our foreign policy, our national security should he be elected. To try and negotiate from within our borders when the enemy wants nothing more than to raze the castle.
What did Viet Nam do to Kerry?
No comments:
Post a Comment