New John Kerry Editorial About Patriotism

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,244
Location
Edge's beanie closet
April 22, 2006

"Thirty five years ago today, I testified before the United States Senate. I was a 27-year-old Vietnam veteran who believed the war had to come to an end.

It was 1971.

Three years earlier, Richard Nixon had been elected president with a secret plan for peace -- a plan he kept secret from the American people as young Americans continued to die for a mission high-ranking officials of two administrations had decided was unwinnable.

We would watch the Nixon administration lie, break the law, and work overtime to squash dissent -- all the while claiming absurdly they were prolonging war to protect our troops as they withdrew. We were a country deeply divided. World War II fathers split with Vietnam generation sons over a war that was tearing us apart -- and split, particularly, over our responsibilities during a time of war.

Many people did not understand or agree with my act of public dissent. To them, supporting the troops meant continuing to support the war, or at least keeping my mouth shut.

But I couldn't remain silent. I felt compelled to speak out about what was happening in Vietnam, where the children of America were pulled from front porches and living rooms and plunged almost overnight into a world of sniper fire, ambushes, rockets, booby traps, body bags, explosions, sleeplessness, and the confusion created by an enemy who was sometimes invisible and firing at us, and sometimes right next to us and smiling. It was clear that thousands of Americans were losing their lives in Vietnam while politicians in Washington schemed to save their political reputations.

Thirty-five years later, in another war gone off course, I see history repeating itself. It is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a president who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a course in Iraq that weakens the nation. Again, we must refuse to sit quietly and watch our troops sacrificed for a policy that isn't working while Americans who dissent and ask tough questions are branded unpatriotic.

Just as it was in 1971, it is again right to make clear that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves the American people and our principles.

True patriots must defend the right of dissent and listen to the dissenters. Dissenters are not always right, but it is always a warning sign when they are accused of unpatriotic sentiments by politicians trying to avoid accountability or debate on their own policies. We should know by now that those who are right should never fear scrutiny of their policy and thorough debate.

In World War I, America's values were degraded, not defended, when dissenters were jailed and the teaching of German was banned in some public schools. It was panic and prejudice, not true patriotism, that brought the internment of the Japanese-Americans during World War II, a measure upheld by Supreme Court justices who did not uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution. We are stronger today because no less a rock-ribbed conservative than Robert Taft stood up at the height of World War II and asserted, ''The maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."

In recent weeks, a number of retired high-ranking military leaders have publicly called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And from the ranks of this administration and its conservative surrogates, we've heard these calls dismissed as acts of disloyalty or as a threat to civilian control of the armed forces. We have even heard accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That line of attack is shameful, especially coming from those who have never worn the uniform.

Generals and others who call for recognizing the facts on the ground in Iraq are not defeatists, they are patriots. At a time when mistake after mistake is being compounded by the very civilian leadership in the Pentagon that ignored expert military advice in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, those who understand the price being paid for each mistake by our troops, our country, and Iraq itself must be heard. At a time when our nation is imprisoned in a failed policy and we are being told once again that admitting the mistakes, not the mistakes themselves, will provide our enemies with an intolerable propaganda victory, that we literally have no choice but to stay the course even to a bitter end, those who seek to reclaim America's true sovereignty and freedom of action must be respected.

Iraq is not Vietnam, and the war on terrorism is not the Cold War. But the threat of jihadist extremism is another ''long, twilight struggle," as President Kennedy said in his inaugural, and the threat is very real, but we will never defeat terrorists by trampling our own freedom and democracy. The Swift Boat-style attacks that have been aimed at dissenters from Gold Star mothers to decorated veterans like Jack Murtha hurt our democracy even more than they wound their target.

I still believe as strongly as I did 35 years ago that the most important way to support our troops is to tell the truth. Patriotism does not belong to those who defend a president's position -- it belongs to those who defend our country, in battle and in dissent. That is a lesson of Vietnam worth remembering today."
 
Someone smells blood, I am not saying he is unpatriotic, I am saying that he is a politician. Incidently he is quite right about getting US troops out of the firing line as they are perpetual targets, the biggest lesson of Iraq is that there is no halfway occupation force with the current force structure.
 
Last edited:
If it is true?
Why is it too late?


Through the 30's and early 40s many in the U S did not want to hear anything about the German's or the European War.

Support to get involved in Europe did not exist.

And in the 50s dissenters against McCarthy
were being told it was too late,
that we had to take whatever steps necessary - to fight the Red Menace.
 
Too late for Kerry to be the leader he had the chance to be in 2004. He squandered it. I agree with what he said and it's nice he's jumping back on the bandwagon when he has nothing to lose.
 
and it's nice he's jumping back on the bandwagon when he has nothing to lose.

Nope, he's got nothing to lose...

...but the gossip says he's looking at another run in 2008.

The Democrats would be making a HUGE mistake IMO if they picked him.
 
Mr. Kerry was wrong in 1971 and he is wrong today. Its a good thing he was defeated in the 2004 election.
 
STING2 said:
Mr. Kerry was wrong in 1971 and he is wrong today. Its a good thing he was defeated in the 2004 election.

So dissent is, indeed, unpatriotic?

Melon
 
STING2 said:
Mr. Kerry was wrong in 1971 .

Actually, he was right.
to continue in Viet Nam was pointless.
And his argument / side won the day.

Perhaps you would be happier with 108000 names on the wall?


Is Iraq lost?
probably.

But as long as they can cloud the issue
we can get the number up from 2400 to 4000 - 5000
and Haliburton is having record profits on war profiteering.

Iraq will blow apart, for sure.
The Kurds want Kirkuk with the oil and will take it.

The Shia south will not give the Sunnis any real power sharing.

The Administration’s only plan
is to maintain the status quo
until 2008 election and then blame the collapse on the new president.
 
STING2 said:
Mr. Kerry was wrong in 1971 and he is wrong today. Its a good thing he was defeated in the 2004 election.

why don't you elaborate? how was he wrong to comeback from a war he fought in and say "no, this war is not necessary to the saftey of America. stop sending our young men to die for nothing"? just curious.

i think you should take that "stolen Honor" DVD out of the dvd player and listen to John Kerry's actual testimony before the congress.

if you think i'm off base please tell me for what reason was he wrong to do what he did?
 
deep said:


Actually, he was right.
to continue in Viet Nam was pointless.
And his argument / side won the day.

Perhaps you would be happier with 108000 names on the wall?


Is Iraq lost?
probably.

But as long as they can cloud the issue
we can get the number up from 2400 to 4000 - 5000
and Haliburton is having record profits on war profiteering.

Iraq will blow apart, for sure.
The Kurds want Kirkuk with the oil and will take it.

The Shia south will not give the Sunnis any real power sharing.

The Administration’s only plan
is to maintain the status quo
until 2008 election and then blame the collapse on the new president.

He was wrong and the majority of Vietnam Veterans agree. The United States by 1971 had successfully crushed the Vietcong movement in the south a year or so earlier. Most US ground combat troops had been withdrawn from Vietnam by mid-1971. The vast majority of the fighting was being conducted by South Vietnamese ground troops who were fighting North Vietnamese forces from the North.

In 1972 when the North Vietnamese launched their "Easter Offensive", they were only US military advisors and a smaller number US ground combat troops in the country. The South Vietnamese forces did all the fighting and repelled the North Vietnamese invasion.

Had the United States kept the 20,000 advisors and support troops in Vietnam for several more years to continue to support the government and military, the North Vietnamese would NEVER have been able to overrun South Vietnam.

But the last US troops were withdrawn in March 1973. Later in 1973, congress cut off all funding to South Vietnam. Still South Vietnam continue completely on its own until the Spring of 1975 when a serious of military setbacks put the North Vietnamese in a strong position to overrun the country which they did.

If the United States had kept the small number of advisors as well combat air support in the region for several more years supporting the South, the South Vietnamese would have eventually developed the capacity to successfuly defend against any North Vietnamese invasion on its own with out foreign aid.

US deaths in the war dropped significantly as the South Vietnamese took over the fighting. Less than 300 US troops were killed in Vietnam in 1972. Remaining in South Vietnam for another 5 to 10 years with just 10,000 key advisors would likely have cost about a few hundred more deaths based on the results of 1972 which saw some of the heaviest fighting of the war.

But instead, the American people and Congress turned their backs on the South Vietnamese people and let them be massacred and enslaved by the North after so much had been spent and sacraficed to prevent that outcome. To have remained in South Vietnam at the level the United States was in 1972 would have cost a tiny fraction of what the war had cost up to that point and would have ensured that South Vietnam would have remained independent and free, with the potential to develop and economy like we see today in South Korea which has one of the highest standards of living on the planet.

John Kerry and those who supported the pre-mature withdrawal from South Vietnam were wrong and cost South Vietnam its country and freedom as well as many lives. It cost the United States its reputation and foreign policy standing in the world which would later embolden dictators and terrorist in the years to come, from Saddam Hussien to Bin Ladin as factually verified and writings and interviews by both individuals.


Iraq is not lost at all. The country has had a faster political development than either Germany or Japan did, both of whom took nearly a decade to form a new government after World War II. The insurgency in Iraq has not grown at all since April 2004 as shown by US casualty statistics. In fact, US casualties fell for 5 straight months from October to March despite claims that US troops had "gone from being the hunter to the hunted". But its easier to ignore such facts when they punch gaping holes in ones political agenda.

At the current rate of Casualties in Iraq, the United States would have to remain in Iraq for the next 100 years to suffer the same casualties it suffered in Vietnam. Current defense spending combined with spending all spending for Iraq and Afghanistan takes up a smaller percentage of US GDP than spending on Defense did during the 1980s in peacetime.

People said Bosnia will blow apart for sure! More than 300,000 people in a country of only 4 million were slaughtered in just 4 years time. You had three ethnic groups who people had been said were fighting for thousands of years and would never stop. 10 years after the end of that conflict, the top news story out of Bosnia is the discovery of 12,000 year old Pyramids.

Provided the coalition remains in Iraq and does not withdraw prematurely, Iraq is going to make it. It has come a long way already. By the end of this coming summer, the Iraqi military will be patroling and conducting security in 75% of the country with the coalition forces doing only 25%. Two years ago, the new Iraqi military only had a few thousand people and was still in training providing 0% of the countries security. Huge progress has been made, just not large enough yet for some to still pretend to ignore it.

The Shia in the South have just removed their selection for Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and put a person who is considered favorable to Sunni's in the position for Prime Minister, Jawad al-Maliki. The process is moving forward, there may be more delays in the weeks to come, but it is moving forward.

The Kurds, Shia and now Sunni's, want an Iraq where everyone is fairly represented and the revenues from oil are evenly divided between the communities, unlike the situation that existed under Saddam. The opportunity for substantial prosperity for the people exist in the future. Division and Civil War will only bring poverty and suffering. No single group has real strength to go it alone and succeed now, although there are obviously still some that have the mistaken belief that its possible.

The Administration has done more than just maintain the status qou over the past 3 years in Iraq as evidence by the rise of the Iraqi Military, the historic elections, and a new permanent government on the verge of completing its formation. There will be more progress and changes over the next 3 years. Over time the United States and coalition partners will be able to start withdrawing troops as the Iraqi military starts taking over all operations.

Provided there is no premature withdrawal from Iraq, the operation will eventually succeed. The insurgency has failed to grow since April 2004. It has failed to prevent the major achievments over the past two years as well. The insurgency at best has only maintained its strength, unlike the Iraqi military and Iraqi political process which grows stronger every day.
 
zooperson said:


why don't you elaborate? how was he wrong to comeback from a war he fought in and say "no, this war is not necessary to the saftey of America. stop sending our young men to die for nothing"? just curious.

i think you should take that "stolen Honor" DVD out of the dvd player and listen to John Kerry's actual testimony before the congress.

if you think i'm off base please tell me for what reason was he wrong to do what he did?

Its John Kerry's right to protest, he was wrong in what he alleged, his conclusions about the United States involvement in Vietnam, the Cold War, as well as overall US Foreign and National Security Policy.

I have never seen the "Stolen Honor" DVD, I have read John Kerry's actual testimony multiple times which even John Kerry admits to being embarrassed about some of the things in it.

I never said he was wrong to do what he did, just wrong in his claims, idea's, plans for the future of the country. He was wrong about Vietnam in 1971, he was wrong about what to do about defense spending when he first ran for the Senate in 1984. He was wrong in voting against the 1st Gulf War in 1991 and he was wrong the 2004 election. He is wrong now on his description of the situation in Iraq as well as his ideas on what to do.
 
melon said:


So dissent is, indeed, unpatriotic?

Melon

No, his assessment of the situation in Vietnam as well as what to do about Vietnam was wrong in 1971. His assessment of the situation in Iraq as well as what to do about Iraq today is also wrong.
 
STING2 said:


He was wrong and the majority of Vietnam Veterans agree. The United States by 1971 had successfully crushed the Vietcong movement in the south a year or so earlier. Most US ground combat troops had been withdrawn from Vietnam by mid-1971. The vast majority of the fighting was being conducted by South Vietnamese ground troops who were fighting North Vietnamese forces from the North.

In 1972 when the North Vietnamese launched their "Easter Offensive", they were only US military advisors and a smaller number US ground combat troops in the country. The South Vietnamese forces did all the fighting and repelled the North Vietnamese invasion.

Had the United States kept the 20,000 advisors and support troops in Vietnam for several more years to continue to support the government and military, the North Vietnamese would NEVER have been able to overrun South Vietnam.

But the last US troops were withdrawn in March 1973. Later in 1973, congress cut off all funding to South Vietnam. Still South Vietnam continue completely on its own until the Spring of 1975 when a serious of military setbacks put the North Vietnamese in a strong position to overrun the country which they did.

If the United States had kept the small number of advisors as well combat air support in the region for several more years supporting the South, the South Vietnamese would have eventually developed the capacity to successfuly defend against any North Vietnamese invasion on its own with out foreign aid.

US deaths in the war dropped significantly as the South Vietnamese took over the fighting. Less than 300 US troops were killed in Vietnam in 1972. Remaining in South Vietnam for another 5 to 10 years with just 10,000 key advisors would likely have cost about a few hundred more deaths based on the results of 1972 which saw some of the heaviest fighting of the war.

But instead, the American people and Congress turned their backs on the South Vietnamese people and let them be massacred and enslaved by the North after so much had been spent and sacraficed to prevent that outcome. To have remained in South Vietnam at the level the United States was in 1972 would have cost a tiny fraction of what the war had cost up to that point and would have ensured that South Vietnam would have remained independent and free, with the potential to develop and economy like we see today in South Korea which has one of the highest standards of living on the planet.



You can write all the words you want.

But you are just plain wrong.



Your writings are not even loosely based on fact.


How many Viet Namese people do you know?
 
How is he wrong on the issue of the Viet Cong being crushed in the Tet Offensive and the policy of Vietnamisation allowing US forces to leave "with honour"?
 
deep said:



You can write all the words you want.

But you are just plain wrong.



Your writings are not even loosely based on fact.


How many Viet Namese people do you know?


My writings are NOT based on the many public myths that have developed over time about the Vietnam War, but the raw facts from casualty numbers and troop statistics and spending that are available. I could go into more factual detail, but I think I already know what your answer is going to be.
 
By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff | April 23, 2006

"Before a wildly enthusiastic crowd of hundreds at Faneuil Hall yesterday, US Senator John F. Kerry exhorted Americans to speak out against the war in Iraq, declaring that troops are dying because of what he called an inept and deceitful policy orchestrated by the Bush administration.

It was the 35th anniversary of the day Kerry, as a young Navy veteran returning from the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, famously asking, ''How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Kerry's case yesterday was much the same: that Americans have a duty to speak out against a war that is sacrificing lives on the ''altar of stubborn pride."

''Presidents and politicians may worry about losing face or losing votes or losing their legacy; it is time to think about young Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives," Kerry said, to a thunderous standing ovation.

His speech, back on home turf, was billed by aides as a major address on the importance of dissent during wartime.

Jabbing his thumb in the air and sweeping his hands across the lectern, Kerry could barely complete three sentences without being interrupted by applause. Standing beneath oil portraits of Samuel Adams, George Washington, and John Quincy Adams, Kerry invoked history, from Congress's attempts in 1798 to silence Thomas Jefferson to Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy's crusade against communism in the 1950s.

''The bedrock of America's greatest advances -- the foundation of what we know today are defining values -- was formed not by cheering things on as they were, but by taking them on and demanding change," Kerry said, again to applause.

Matt Wylie, executive director of the Massachusetts Republican Party, dismissed Kerry's criticism.

''John Kerry has been acting bizarrely ever since he lost the election for president," Wylie said yesterday. ''Today's speech is another strange step in that direction. There has never been a time in our nation's history when so many people freely gave dissenting opinions about the nation's policies from both ends of the political spectrum. John Kerry should hop on the Internet, and he'll see there is a dialogue about all the positions going on in America today."

A spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee also took issue with Kerry's remarks. ''While we have never questioned Democrats' patriotism, we do question John Kerry's motives, considering his eagerness to engage in political theatrics as he ponders a presidential run," said Tracey Schmitt.

After the speech, Kerry, in a crush of reporters, waved off questions about whether his remarks signaled a renewed interest in running for president in 2008, saying he was focused only on policy. But in the crowd -- thick with Democratic activists, many of whom had followed Kerry's career for decades -- the hunger was evident. People yelled, ''Run!" and ''2008!"

''Oh, beautiful, wonderful," exulted Grace Lindquist, 86, making the A-OK sign from her wheelchair. ''One of the best speeches I've ever heard."

Natasha Rosenberg, 14, who came to the speech with a digital camera, beamed. ''It was great," she said. ''It put words to what I've been feeling about the entire deal for a long time."

And some wondered why Kerry -- who voted to give President Bush authorization to go to war in Iraq -- had not spoken out so forcefully during his failed bid for president in 2004.

Kerry offered a scathing review of what he derisively termed the ''Bush-Cheney doctrine" -- in which executive power trumps the constitutional separation of powers, ''and smearing administration critics is not only permissible, but necessary."

Over the course of the 40-minute speech, Kerry was interrupted by applause 39 times. He made one joke, riffing on Franco-American animosities and the fact that teaching German was banned in some schools during World War I.

''At that time, it was apparently sounding German, not looking French, that got you in trouble," Kerry said, to laughter. "
 
Ah, now, if he is willing to be a voice of the value of dissent without another run at the Presidency. my opinion may change.:wink:
 
STING2 said:


Its John Kerry's right to protest, he was wrong in what he alleged, his conclusions about the United States involvement in Vietnam, the Cold War, as well as overall US Foreign and National Security Policy.

I have never seen the "Stolen Honor" DVD, I have read John Kerry's actual testimony multiple times which even John Kerry admits to being embarrassed about some of the things in it.

I never said he was wrong to do what he did, just wrong in his claims, idea's, plans for the future of the country. He was wrong about Vietnam in 1971, he was wrong about what to do about defense spending when he first ran for the Senate in 1984. He was wrong in voting against the 1st Gulf War in 1991 and he was wrong the 2004 election. He is wrong now on his description of the situation in Iraq as well as his ideas on what to do.

now i understand what you were saying but i still don't agree.

you are saying that if we would have stayed that Vietnamization would have been successful. how many years? would we still be there? and your "made America seem weak" theory also bothers me. Almost contridicting as it happpens. we were fighting in Vietnam and Iraq so that the people could be free from there current Government but they see in America that the politicians are ignoring the will of the people by continuing a war that most of the people in the country don't support. what does that say about our government. and i believe that John Kerry was right during Vietnam when he said that we needed to
first win the hearts and minds of the people. the failure to do that is what makes us weak in the peoples eyes and those people are the ones strapping bombs to themeselves. so if you can say that osama and sadam were givin strength by our withdrawl from Vietnam i can say what i just said.

maybe i don't know as much as you but thats what i can say to defend my opinions.
 
Well said, John Kerry. It's shocking to me that there are still a few educated Americans out there—very few, granted— who still defend the actions of this administration in regard to the Iraq fiasco.
 
zooperson said:


now i understand what you were saying but i still don't agree.

you are saying that if we would have stayed that Vietnamization would have been successful. how many years? would we still be there? and your "made America seem weak" theory also bothers me. Almost contridicting as it happpens. we were fighting in Vietnam and Iraq so that the people could be free from there current Government but they see in America that the politicians are ignoring the will of the people by continuing a war that most of the people in the country don't support. what does that say about our government. and i believe that John Kerry was right during Vietnam when he said that we needed to
first win the hearts and minds of the people. the failure to do that is what makes us weak in the peoples eyes and those people are the ones strapping bombs to themeselves. so if you can say that osama and sadam were givin strength by our withdrawl from Vietnam i can say what i just said.

maybe i don't know as much as you but thats what i can say to defend my opinions.

At the level that US forces were at in 1972 which was about 20,000(down from a peak of 540,000 in 1969) another 6 years at most, at that level or perhaps half the level would have completed the process. "Major" North Vietnamese offensive were coming in intervals of every 3 to 4 years by that time. Another defeat like the one the North Vietnamese suffered in 1972 or at most two, would have forced them to give up the fight. If not, by the end of the 1970s, the South would be strong enough to carry on the fight on its own. In addition, the North Vietnamese would not be able to count on the same Soviet and Chinese support they had enjoyed, indefinitely. By the mid-1970s China was moving closer politically towards the United States, and the Soviet Union was starting to strain economically because of the overall cost of the Cold War.

Would there still be a US presence in South Vietnam, perhaps. US troops are still stationed in Germany 61 years after the end of World War II. But it would not have to be a large presense if any at all.

The United States has fought in both Vietnam and Iraq because of threats to international security 1st, with a 2nd goal being the formation of a better government(democratic government and market oriented economy) for the people of those countries, which naturally enhances US and international security.

Most people in the United States still support the war in the sense that the majority of people do not want to see the United States immediately withdraw from Iraq, based on the polling data. But its important not to draw so many conclusion from polling data. The country voted in Bush by solid majority in November 2004, only 18 months ago indicated that support for the war was still strong then no matter what various polls might have said. On the anniversy of the war a few weeks ago, only small numbers of people in a few major cities gathered to march against it. True opposition to the war is no where near the levels that were seen during the Vietnam War, and public opinion was considered to be divided on that war.
 
LPU2 said:
Well said, John Kerry. It's shocking to me that there are still a few educated Americans out there—very few, granted— who still defend the actions of this administration in regard to the Iraq fiasco.

The majority of the Americans voted for Bush in November 2004, despite Michael Moores popular film, a massive concert tour by some of the most popular artist in the United States, as well as other high profile media related events leading up to the election.

In hindsite, everyone including myself can find something they do not agree with, that the administration did in Iraq. But you could say that about any war that the United States has ever been involved in of this length and scope, if one were to put it under the same microscope that this war is under.

True opposition to the war is not very strong. In the current polling data where most people get the sense that the majority of Americans are opposed to the war, the same data reveals that a majority of Americans are opposed to an immediate withdrawal. On the third anniversy of the war, the average number of protesters on the streets in the major cities was only in the hundreds. Back in 1968, 3 years after the introduction of US ground combat units to Vietnam, there were hundreds of thousands of people marching in most major cities, multiple times a year.

There are a wide number of opinions on the war in Iraq in the United States today. The media does their best to group them into either 100% for the war or 100% against the war. The reality of what most people feel and think on the issue is a little more complex.
 
STING2 said:




Most people in the United States still support the war in the sense that the majority of people do not want to see the United States immediately withdraw from Iraq

i don't want immediate withdrawl from Iraq but i certainly don't support the war.
 
Last edited:
melon said:
So dissent is, indeed, unpatriotic?

Dissent is neither patriotic or unpatriotic. It is just dissent.

Making patriotism a centerpiece for dissent is just as bad as making patriotism a centerpiece for justification.
 
Back
Top Bottom