John Kerry is a liberal with a distinguished military record, but after he served honorably in Vietnam he returned and started delivering scathing speeches against not only Vietnam and American involvement there, Kerry delivered speeches that condemned America as a racist, imperialist, warmongering nation. John Kerry then tossed his war ribbons on the steps of the capitol in a famous protest when US soldiers gave their medals back in Washington, Kerry later said that the medals he tossed weren’t even real, they were just props, but the other soldiers were throwing real ones. John Kerry started out as a patriot and then turned into what he is now. Just look at this speech he delivered to a room filled with Kooks when he came home from Nam, it’s not much different from his speeches against Bush and Iraqi involvement today.



Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations
April 23, 1971

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that 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....

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." 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.

The words on Kerry are welcome. I suspect the 'controlled-media' will not be saying much against him as he is an insider, and fellow frat brother of bush's ( a plant to try to guarantee continuation of the same policies if elected?) AR15 and you point out his lack of integrity well and I thank you for the heads up. I'm sure Kerry has his good points as well, I just can't think of any right now. Oh yeah, he got a couple million loaned on his house to continue his campaign. I guess that proves he's just like us.

This is all nonsense. Kerry was fighting in Vietnam while Bush was sitting at home with Daddy. What is wrong with Kerry decided Vietnam was a mistake? Everything I learned in school points to the same conclusion. And he did not throw fake medals, he threw his ribbons and kept his medals. He never once claimed otherwise. Yes, he voted to give Bush the power to go to Iraq along with almost every other person in congress. His only mistake was thinking that Bush would actually exhaust every other possibility first, like he said he was going to. I don't know if Kerry can beat Bush, but I do think he poses the biggest challenge. And the fact that he has been a master of debating since college makes me very anxious to see our toungue-tied president try to compete. This is getting more interesting by the day. Thank you Iowa.

"Yes, he voted to give Bush the power to go to Iraq along with almost every other person in congress."

Sorry that's just not true. Many members of congress voted against the resolution.

"His only mistake was thinking that Bush would actually exhaust every other possibility first, like he said he was going to"

This goes back to what I was saying - that Kerry's was a stupidly naive position. It was obvious to nearly every one that the White House was determined to invade. If Kerry didn't realise that then he's a fool. Simple as that. As for Kerry being a great debater he wasn't up to much in the debate I saw (think it was Arizona). If the Dems want a good debater to tear strips off Bush then they should elect Kucinich or Sharpton who are far and away the best debaters in the field. Not that that's going to happen of course.

While it's true that many members of congress voted against the resolution, the record does show that a vast majority did vote for it. I understand it's semantics, but neither one of you is wrong. It's also possible that Kerry believed that Sadam was a threat, believed in the possibility of WMDs and voted for it. It's not naive, it's not foolish, it's just the way it is. Kerry doesn't have indpendent intelligence sources, even the Senate Committee on Intelligence gets their info after the president. So, believe a convincing lie, or don't, but I think we all know that Sadam was going to be building WMDs even if he hadn't yet. The threat has been eliminated, whether Bush lied is a different matter, but only a naive person or a fool would believe that Sadam had no intention of building WMDs.

Was it not obvious to you that Bush was lying about WMDs? It was to me. It's easy to tell when Bush is lying - his lips move. Sorry, old joke. The point is that all the propaganda was NOT convincing to many millions of people AT THE TIME. It was obvious that Bush had decided to go to war and was trying to make the intelligence fit the policy. Kerry should have realised this. Indeed I think he did realise this but he voted for the war because he thought it would be popular.

>>Reply #4 By: O G San - 1/23/2004 9:32:55 AM
>>they should elect Kucinich or Sharpton who are far and away the best debaters in the field. Not that that's going to happen of course.
>>
>>
>>


Kucinich: A man who displays charts during a radio broadcast, he is as sharp as a marble.

Street thug Sharpton: When FOX’s Britt Hume cleverly asked him a question about the Federal Reserve, Sharpton seemed clueless as to what it’s function was, Sharpton responded to Hume’s question as any Democrat would, he began to spew extraneous rhetoric.

We could play this game all day pointing out people's gaffes if you want - there are whole books filled with "Bushisms". I stand by what I said - they are the two best debaters in the field. I didn't say they were infallible. Why am I defending Kucinich and Sharpton? I was trying to attack Kerry and I got side-tracked, ah well.................

Sharpton had no idea how much the top 1% income earners pay in taxes. No idea. He said they paid less than 5% of the total taxes when they should (in his opinion) pay 15%.  He was shocked to find out that the top 1% pay 34% of the taxes.  This was on 20/20 and taxes aren't exactly some obscure issue.

Saying that Kucinich and Sharpton would give Bush the best fight is an obivious attempt by a republican to get Democrats to elect the worst canidate. Pretty weak. Those guys would have no chance and you know it. I will say this, Kerry will be the canidate and he is an excellent speaker and, he will give Bush a great fight. That speech the first comment listed may not be popular to some, but it is basically what would get him into congress in the first place. The senators who heard it were, highly impressed and told him he should get into politics. Do some research on the guy and you may find him to be a better man than you think he is.

OK back to Kerry then, most people’s problem with Kerry was not that he went to Vietnam and what he did there, the problem most people have with Kerry is what he did when he came back to the US. Personally what disappoint me about Kerry were his outrageous speeches like his 1971 “winter soldier” speech that I listed above, the subsequent throwing of his phony medals was an act so severe and outrageous that it led to General George Patton III accusing Kerry of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," this is serious stuff to consider.

Rush has been calling Kerry Lurch lately … I know Kerry looks rather post mortal, he is also tall, ominous, and not very animated or cheerful, but I am not sure if he is analogous to Lurch lol.

I don't get what is so hard to understand about taking a logical thought process in where you use reasoning to come to a conclusion over using passionate, heated, ill-informed set of ideas when making a decision.

Every Democrat running, except for Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich, say it like it is: We support military force as the absolute last resort when not faced with a clear and present danger.

Iraq was not a clear and present danger. Afghanistan is where the actual hotbed of terrorism is, and has been - and its still alive outside the Kabul and other strongholds of the new government there. Why? We only have some 8,000 troops committed in Afghanistan - that's why we won't find Bin Laden anytime soon (if ever).

What is so anti-patriotic, anti-American by standing up and stating what you believe based on a philosophy that you use war as the last resort?? Something tells me half the country has a screw loose in their head, if you can't at least understand the other side's argument.

Furthermore, the idea that war is a last resort isn't the left's only valid argument. The fact is - having Saddam gone is a great thing, but that does not change the fact that the PROCESS of this war: i.e. how it happened, the way in which it occured without more consensus, the special backroom deals in which corporate welfare is given to companies Bush is friends with, the war profiteering that is coming out of this instead of non-profit oversight of Iraqi resources. These are all MAJOR issues that have MORE THEN VALID reasons to be debated. If the right can't even debate, then the left should be a bit peeved and start fighting back/protesting in the streets - what else can you do if you don't agree? Bush promised to "unite" the country and bring people together. HE CAMPAIGNED ON NOT BEING A NATION BUILDER in 2000. He said Clinton gutted the military - which is not true. Clinton was fairly moderate by any measure, even if he wasn't a conservative.

The fact is - almost none of that $87 billion we spent doesn't go to the troops. It doesn't go to benefits for the people over there, it goes into the pockets of contractors who want to "re-build" Iraq. And a surprising amount of it goes to oil companies. Its public information, too.. Just go to google and search for 87 billion iraq expenditures and you'll eventually come across a government website outlining how that money is to be spent. That's OUR MONEY as taxpayers. The numbers just don't add up. The Department of Defense's budget by itself is $370 billion. This Iraq war has cost an additional $166 billion on top of that. Compared that to the entire Department of Education's budget for FY 2003 - which is $59.5 billion. We could send every person who wants to go to college to a public university for free for a fraction of just the extra $87 billion we spent on Iraq, for reference. That's why Bush is wrong, that's why Bush is a failure. Not because he toppled Saddam, which IS a good thing.

All these numbers are somewhat hard to find, but they ARE AVAILABLE:
Link

I understand Bush's argument - he thinks pre-emptive war is the answer where we take over before we have a real reason to take action; and I totally disagree with that. But to totally ignore the valid arguments on the left is rediculous - and ignorant.

Maybe it's just me, but Kerry sounds like he can be easily manipulated when he claims he was tricked into voting in favor of the Iraqi war. And to think that Democrats criticized Bush for being a puppet without a clue. Not only that, but the phony medal act also shows that he's insincere. Surely the Democrats have better people in their arsenal.

Was it not obvious to you that Bush was lying about WMDs

Now wait a second, I think we can all agree that Sadam Hussein would eventually, if he was not already, attempt to develop WMDs. Does it matter if he had them? So a war, designed to prevent a clearly insane individuals from building WMDs was justified.

But Bush didn't say Saddam had the INTENT to produce WMD he said he HAD WMD. Now he speaks of "WMD programs" which is very different from what he was saying this time last year.

Also, to clarify, I didn't mean the Dems should elect Kucinich or Sharpton. I said that if being a good debater was all that matters then they should elect one of those two. It's not all that matters. I wish America was the kind of country where a man as left-wing as Kucinich could be elected president but unfortunately it isn't. I'm not some sort of closet Republican as Filazafer was alleging.