Lindaland
  Global Unity
  John Kerry's Speech on Dissent Awesome Speech (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   John Kerry's Speech on Dissent Awesome Speech
Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 02, 2006 04:55 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Senator John Kerry
"Dissent"
Faneuil Hall
April 22, 2006


Thirty-five years ago today, I testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, and called for an end to the war I had returned from fighting not long before.

It was 1971 - twelve years after the first American died in what was then South Vietnam, seven years after Lyndon Johnson seized on a small and contrived incident in the Tonkin Gulf to launch a full-scale war-and three years after Richard Nixon was elected president on the promise of a secret plan for peace. We didn't know it at the time, but four more years of the War in Vietnam still lay ahead. These were years in which the Nixon administration lied and broke the law-and claimed it was prolonging war to protect our troops as they withdrew-years that ultimately ended only when politicians in Washington decided they would settle for a "decent interval" between the departure of our forces and the inevitable fall of Saigon.

I know that some active duty service members, some veterans, and certainly some politicians scorned those of us who spoke out, suggesting our actions failed to "support the troops"-which to them meant continuing to support the war, or at least keeping our mouths shut. Indeed, some of those critics said the same thing just two years ago during the presidential campaign.

I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that 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 war in Iraq that weakens the nation.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country's ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin. And that's certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place. Indeed, one of the architects of the war, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed in a recent book that he knew victory was no longer a possibility far earlier than 1971.

By then, it was clear to me that hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen-disproportionately poor and minority Americans-were being sent into the valley of the shadow of death for an illusion privately abandoned by the very men in Washington who kept sending them there. All the horrors of a jungle war against an invisible enemy indistinguishable from the people we were supposed to be protecting-all the questions associated with quietly sanctioned violence against entire villages and regions-all the confusion and frustration that came from defending a corrupt regime in Saigon that depended on Americans to do too much of the fighting-all that cried out for dissent, demanded truth, and could not be denied by easy slogans like "peace with honor"-or by the politics of fear and smear. It was time for the truth, and time for it all to end, and my only regret in joining the anti-war movement was that it took so long to succeed-for the truth to prevail, and for America to regain confidence in our own deepest values.

The fissures created by Vietnam have long been stubbornly resistant to closure. But I am proud it was the dissenters-and it was our veterans' movement-and people like Judy Droz Keyes-who battled not just to end the war but to combat government secrecy and the willful amnesia of a society that did not want to remember its obligations to the soldiers who fought. We fought the forgetting and pushed our nation to confront the war's surplus of sad legacies-Agent Orange, Amer-Asian orphans, abandoned allies, exiled and imprisoned draft dodgers, doubts about whether all our POWs had come home, and honor at last for those who returned from Vietnam and those who did not. Because we spoke out, the truth was ultimately understood that the faults in Vietnam were those of the war, not the warriors.

Then, and even now, there were many alarmed by dissent-many who thought that staying the course would eventually produce victory-or that admitting the mistake and ending it would embolden our enemies around the world. History disproved them before another decade was gone: Fourteen years elapsed between the first major American commitment of helicopters and pilots to Vietnam and the fall of Saigon. Fourteen years later, the Berlin Wall fell, and with it the Communist threat. You cannot tell me that withdrawing from Vietnam earlier would have changed that outcome.

The lesson here is not that some of us were right about Vietnam, and some of us were wrong. The lesson is that true patriots must defend the right of dissent, and hear the voices of dissenters, especially now, when our leaders have committed us to a pre-emptive "war of choice" that does not involve the defense of our people or our territory against aggressors. The patriotic obligation to speak out becomes even more urgent when politicians refuse to debate their policies or disclose the facts. And even more urgent when they seek, perversely, to use their own military blunders to deflect opposition and answer their own failures with more of the same. Presidents and politicians may worry about losing face, or votes, or legacy; it is time to think about young Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives.

This is not the first time in American history when patriotism has been distorted to deflect criticism and mislead the nation.

In the infancy of the Republic, in 1798, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts to smear Thomas Jefferson and accuse him of treason. Newspapers were shut down, and their editors arrested, including Benjamin Franklin's grandson. No wonder Thomas Jefferson himself said: "Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism."

In the Mexican War, a young Congressman named Abraham Lincoln was driven from public life for raising doubts about official claims. And in World War I, America's values were degraded, not defended, when dissenters were jailed and the teaching of German was banned in public schools in some states. At that time it was apparently sounding German, not looking French, that got you in trouble. And it was panic and prejudice, not true patriotism, that brought the internment of 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 - "Mr. Republican" himself - stood up and said at the height of the second World War that, "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."

Even during the Cold War-an undeclared war, and often more a war of nerves and diplomacy than of arms-even the mildest dissenters from official policy were sometimes silenced, blacklisted, or arrested, especially during the McCarthy era of the early 1950s. Indeed, it was only when Joseph McCarthy went through the gates of delirium and began accusing distinguished U.S. diplomats and military leaders of treason that the two parties in Washington and the news media realized the common stake they had in the right to dissent. They stood up to a bully and brought down McCarthyism's ugly and contrived appeals to a phony form of 100% Americanism.

Dissenters are not always right, but it is always a warning sign when they are accused of unpatriotic sentiments by politicians seeking a safe harbor from debate, from accountability, or from the simple truth.

Truth is the American bottom line. Truth above all is fundamental to who we are. It is no accident that among the first words of the first declaration of our national existence it is proclaimed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident…".

This hall and this Commonwealth have always been at the forefront of seeking out and living out the truth in the conduct of public life. Here Massachusetts defined human rights by adopting our own Bill of Rights; here we took a stand against slavery, for women's suffrage and civil rights for all Americans. The bedrock of America's greatest advances-the foundation of what we know today are defining values-was formed not by cheering on things as they were, but by taking them on and demanding change.

And here and now we must insist again that fidelity, honor, and love of country demand untrammeled debate and open dissent. At no time is that truer than in the midst of a war rooted in deceit and justified by continuing deception. For what is at stake here is nothing less than life itself. As the statesman Edmund Burke once said: "A conscientious man should be cautious how he dealt in blood."

Think about that now-in a new era that has brought old temptations and tested abiding principles.

America has always embraced the best traditions of civilized conduct toward combatants and non-combatants in war. But today our leaders hold themselves above the law-in the way they not only treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib, but assert unchecked power to spy on American citizens.

America has always rejected war as an instrument of raw power or naked self-interest. We fought when we had to in order to repel grave threats or advance freedom and self-determination in concert with like-minded people everywhere. But our current leadership, for all its rhetoric of freedom and democracy, behaves as though might does make right, enabling us to discard the alliances and institutions that served us so well in the past as nothing more now than impediments to the exercise of unilateral power.

America has always been stronger when we have not only proclaimed free speech, but listened to it. Yes, in every war, there have been those who demand suppression and silencing. And although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily, and the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country.

Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America's leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion of the nation's direction, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate.

In recent weeks, a number of retired high-ranking military leaders, several of whom played key combat or planning roles in Afghanistan and Iraq, have come forward publicly to call for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And across the administration, from the president on down, we've heard these calls dismissed or even attacked as acts of disloyalty, or as threats to civilian control of the armed forces. We have even heard accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That is cheap and it is shameful. And once again we have seen personal attacks on the character of those who speak out. How dare those who never wore the uniform in battle attack those who wore it all their lives-and who, retired or not, did not resign their citizenship in order to serve their country.

The former top operating officer at the Pentagon, a Marine Lieutenant General, said "the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results." It is hard for a career military officer to speak those words. But at a time when the administration cannot let go of the myths and outright lies it broadcast in the rush to war in Iraq, those who know better must speak out.

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.

Once again we are imprisoned in a failed policy. And once again we are being told that admitting mistakes, not the mistakes themselves, will provide our enemies with an intolerable propaganda victory. Once again we are being told that we have no choice but to stay the course of a failed policy. At a time like this, those who seek to reclaim America's true character and strength must be respected.

The true defeatists today are not those who call for recognizing the facts on the ground in Iraq. The true defeatists are those who believe America is so weak that it must sacrifice its principles to the pursuit of illusory power.

The true pessimists today are not those who know that America can handle the truth about the Administration's boastful claim of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. The true pessimists are those who cannot accept that America's power and prestige depend on our credibility at home and around the world. The true pessimists are those who do not understand that fidelity to our principles is as critical to national security as our military power itself.

And the most dangerous defeatists, the most dispiriting pessimists, are those who invoke September 11th to argue that our traditional values are a luxury we can no longer afford.

Let's call it the Bush-Cheney Doctrine.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, alliances and international institutions are now disposable-and international institutions are dispensable or even despicable.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, we cannot foreswear the fool's gold of information secured by torturing prisoners or creating a shadow justice system with no rules and no transparency.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, unwarranted secrecy and illegal spying are now absolute imperatives of our national security.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, those who question the abuse of power question America itself.

According to the Bush-Cheney doctrine, an Administration should be willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the Iraq war, but unwilling to spend a few billion dollars to secure the American ports through which nuclear materials could make their way to terrorist cells.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, executive powers trump the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, smearing administration critics is not only permissible, but necessary-and revealing the identity of a CIA agent is an acceptable means to hide the truth.

The raw justification for abandoning so many American traditions exposes the real danger of the Bush-Cheney Doctrine. We all understand we are in a long struggle against jihadist extremism. It does represent a threat to our vital security interests and our values. Even the Bush-Cheney Administration acknowledges this is preeminently an ideological war, but that's why the Bush-Cheney Doctrine is so ill-equipped to fight and win it.

Our enemies argue that all our claims about advancing universal principles of human rights and mutual respect disguise a raw demand for American dominance. They gain every time we tolerate or cover up abuses of human rights in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or among sectarian militias in Iraq, and especially when we defiantly disdain the rules of international law.

Our enemies argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq reflect an obsession with oil supplies and commercial opportunities. They gain when our president and vice president, both former oil company executives, continue to pursue an oil-based energy strategy, and provide vast concessions in Iraq to their corporate friends.

And so there's the crowning irony: the Bush-Cheney Doctrine holds that many of our great traditions cannot be maintained; yet the Bush-Cheney policies, by abandoning those traditions, give Osama bin Laden and his associates exactly what they want and need to reinforce their hate-filled ideology of Islamic solidarity against the western world.

I understand fully that Iraq is not Vietnam, and the war on terrorism is not the Cold War. But in one very crucial respect, we are in the same place now as we were thirty five years ago. When I testified in 1971, I spoke out not just against the war itself, but the blindness and cynicism of political leaders who were sending brave young Americans to be killed or maimed for a mission the leaders themselves no longer believed in.

The War in Vietnam and the War in Iraq are now converging in too many tragic respects.

As in Vietnam, we engaged militarily in Iraq based on official deception.

As in Vietnam, we went into Iraq ostensibly to fight a larger global war under the misperception that the particular theater was just a sideshow, but we soon learned that the particular aspects of the place where we fought mattered more than anything else.

And as in Vietnam, we have stayed and fought and died even though it is time for us to go.

We are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. The second was against terrorists whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here. Now we find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war.

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can't bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq's leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires.

As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences.

Our call to action is clear. Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines-a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections. It was the most intense 11th hour pressure that just pushed aside Prime Minister Jaafari and brought forward a more acceptable candidate. And it will demand deadline toughness to reign in Shiite militias Sunnis say are committing horrific acts of torture every day in Baghdad.

So we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to deal with these intransigent issues and at last put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.

If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will actually empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country.

So now, as in 1971, we are engaged in another fight to live the truth and make our own government accountable. As in 1971, this is another moment when American patriotism demands more dissent and less complacency in the face of bland assurances from those in power.

We must insist now that patriotism does not belong to those who defend a President's position-it belongs to those who defend their country. Patriotism is not love of power; it is love of country. And sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power. This is one of those times.

Lives are on the line. Lives have been lost to bad decisions - not decisions that could have gone either way, but decisions that constitute basic negligence and incompetence. And lives continue to be lost because of stubbornness and pride.

We support the troops-the brave men and women who have always protected us and do so today-in part by honoring their service, and in part by making sure they have everything they need both in battle and after they have borne the burden of battle.

But I believe now as strongly and proudly as I did thirty-five years ago that the most important way to support the troops is to tell the truth, and to ensure we do not ask young Americans to die in a cause that falls short of the ideals of this country.

When we protested the war in Vietnam some would weigh in against us saying: "My country right or wrong." Our response was simple: "Yes, my country right or wrong. When right, keep it right and when wrong, make it right." And that's what we must do again today.

IP: Logged

Iqhunk
unregistered
posted May 02, 2006 06:14 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
An Exquisite, Erudite and Eloquent speech from someone who truly loves America.

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted May 02, 2006 08:56 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Aw, but we can't vote for him! - He's too int'lect'al and he snowboards.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 02, 2006 09:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
35 years ago John Kerry became a traitor to the United States when he lied to the Senate and to America about US military activities in Vietnam and gave aid and comfort to America's enemies.

Treason is the only crime specifically spelled out in the United States Constitution and John Traitor Kerry committed treason by the numbers.

Not content to merely lie, twist the truth and attempt to give America a black eye, this traitor went on to meet in secret with representatives of the Viet Cong and Communist North Vietnamese delegations in Paris. An illegal act and especially for someone who was a Reserve Officer in the US Naval Reserves, as it violates both his sworn oath as an officer of the United States and also violates US law and the United States Code of Military Justice.

Later, Traitor Kerry demonstrated for and flacked for the communists terms for peace...against those put forth by the Administration.

John Traitor Kerry's organization was directed and funded by the communist Soviet Union and communist North Vietnam...as were all the Vietnam anti-war organizations.

Later, Traitor Kerry interjected himself into the Nuclear Freeze movement and attempted to have the United States freeze our European nuclear missile numbers and alignment at their current level...knowing the Soviet Union had a huge superiority in manpower, tanks and equipment in divisions aimed at the heart of Western Europe. Another movement directly funded and controlled by the communist Soviet Union.

Traitor Kerry also rushed to Nicaragua to help his little communist pal Daniel Ortega who was attempting to spread communist revolution in Central America.

Demonstrations against US involvement in Central America, at a time when Ortega and his communist government were spreading communist revolution in Central America were also led by and funded by the communist government of the Soviet Union.

We believe John Traitor Kerry received a dishonorable discharge from the Navy for his treason and an attempt to cover it up was made by the incompetent boob and communist stooge, Jimmy Carter when he convened a military panel to grant John Traitor Kerry an honorable discharge. That's not the way discharges are handled...unless there's a problem.

John Traitor Kerry repeatedly demanded Bush open his military records for all to see but as of this date, John Traitor Kerry hasn't opened his own military records to inspection. The reason is simple, within those records is the proof of his dishonor and though he has promised to do so for more than 3 years, John Traitor Kerry still hasn't signed that SF-180 form to release all his military records.

Now it's not surprising to me to see support for John Traitor Kerry among leftists. Not in the least because leftists have the same treasonous mindset as John Traitor Kerry and given half a chance leftists would betray the United States at the drop of a hat. Many are already committing treason with support for terrorists and enemies of the United States including Saddam Hussein, a socialist dictator in the mold of Stalin, Mao, Ho, Castro and Kim Jong Ill.

Thomas Jefferson thought exile was the proper punishment for treason but I would see every one of them hanged. There is no worse crime against the United States than treason.

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 02, 2006 10:32 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
@ Prox Snowboarding, that's unforgivable.

That's how I feel about him too Iqhunk

He has a lot of courage and is true to his principals, values, and what he sees as truth regardless of the flak he has taken for it. I just gotta respect and admire the man a whole lot for that. A TRUE American patriot to the core of his being.

Not perfect, but then again, who is?

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted May 02, 2006 10:37 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You know, everytime you mention that secret meeting in Paris with the enemy it reminds me of something ... but gosh I can't seem to remember what it is.

IP: Logged

Iqhunk
unregistered
posted May 02, 2006 10:43 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
<<Aw, but we can't vote for him! - He's too int'lect'al and he snowboards >>

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 02, 2006 11:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Actually if the laws of the United States were enforced no one could vote for John Traitor Kerry.

The 14th Amendment bars anyone who ever gave aid and comfort to the enemy from holding any office in the United States.

It's not surprising the traitor Kerry is the choice of the radical leftist fringe in America...and some others who are clueless as to his character and treasonous mindset.

Traitor Kerry and the radical leftist fringe, collaborators with America's enemies are birds of a feather...always against America in every word and deed.

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 02, 2006 11:27 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That he broke a law and gave comfort and aid to the enemy is only your interpretation of Kerry's exercising his constitutional right to dissent to a war he felt was wrong, Jwhop. Your interpretation and that of the extreme right that is.

Read his speech, Jwhop. Kerry said it is not about being right or wrong about the Vietnam War, it's about the right to dissent.

If the laws of the U.S. were inforced Bush would have been impeached 3 years ago.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 02, 2006 03:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, and Kerry was even followed by either the FBI or CIA during the Nixon administration, and they found nothing worth pursuing, so Jwhop's (as well as many other conservative's opinion) is wrong and has been wrong for quite a number of years now. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16134-2004Mar22.html

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 03, 2006 02:20 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah but now under Bush's leadership what the FBI can't find out about Kerry or anyone else they just make up and form a new bogus group to back up their story.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 03, 2006 10:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I remember 900 Republican FBI files in the White House, requisitioned from the FBI by Craig Livingstone, a former bar bouncer hired by someone in Commander Corruption's administration who developed amnesia when testifying in front of a Congressional investigative committee.

Traitor Kerry was not exercising his free speech rights when he lied in front of the Senate Committee.

Traitor Kerry was not exercising his free speech rights when he met with representatives of a foreign government...a government which was at war with the United States.

Traitor Kerry was not exercising his free speech rights when he agitated for and adopted the postitons of America's enemy by promoting their agenda against the United States. Traitor Kerry was committing Treason as defined by the United States Constitution.

Kerry is a traitor, a traitor whose every word and deed is exercised against the United States and he's still committing Treason.

Traitor Kerry is a radical leftist who has disqualified himself from ever holding office in the United States.

If he makes another futile run for President and Traitor Kerry is forced to sign that SF-180 form to release all his military records the truth of Traitor Kerry's strange discharge from military service will be revealed for all to see.


IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted May 03, 2006 10:47 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Jwhop - I'd like to see a post in which you address the individual points that Kerry makes in the above speech rather than take the easy way out and remark on your stance on his general character.

I'm not saying that sarcastically - I really would find that post interesting; there are some little contradictory points that I picked out while reading it during my walk this morning.

So, read my first statement not as:
IIIIIII'd like to see a post in which yooooouuuu address the individual points that Kerry makes in the above speech(...)
but as
I'd like to see a post in which you address the individual points that Kerry makes in the above speech(...)

Honestly, I really would.
If you have the time.

IP: Logged

Mystic Gemini
unregistered
posted May 03, 2006 11:05 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Better then having a crack addict like Bush in office.

*Rolls eyes.


IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 03, 2006 01:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Thirty-five years ago today, I testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, and called for an end to the war I had returned from fighting not long before."

35 years ago Kerry lied through his teeth to the Foreign Relations Committee. He said rape, murder, torture and wanton destruction were institutionalized within the military forces in Vietnam. He said those behaviors were sanctioned by the military chain of command. Kerry was and still is a liar.

"It was 1971 - twelve years after the first American died in what was then South Vietnam, seven years after Lyndon Johnson seized on a small and contrived incident in the Tonkin Gulf to launch a full-scale war-and three years after Richard Nixon was elected president on the promise of a secret plan for peace. We didn't know it at the time, but four more years of the War in Vietnam still lay ahead. These were years in which the Nixon administration lied and broke the law-and claimed it was prolonging war to protect our troops as they withdrew-years that ultimately ended only when politicians in Washington decided they would settle for a "decent interval" between the departure of our forces and the inevitable fall of Saigon.

John Kerry is a liar. Watergate, the incident is which he says Nixon was breaking the law had nothing whatsoever to do with Vietnam. It's a further lie that the fall of Saigon was inevitable. The Vietnam war was won for communist North Vietnam in the halls of Congress, in the streets of America by demonstrators controlled and directed by the Soviet Union and communist Vietnam. The war was not lost on the battlefields of Vietnam by US military forces. Viet Cong and communist North Vietnamese military forces got their @sses kicked every time they engaged US military forces...including the Tet Offensive. Again, Kerry is a liar and Kerry is still lying about Vietnam.

"I know that some active duty service members, some veterans, and certainly some politicians scorned those of us who spoke out, suggesting our actions failed to "support the troops"-which to them meant continuing to support the war, or at least keeping our mouths shut. Indeed, some of those critics said the same thing just two years ago during the presidential campaign."

Kerry, as a Naval Reserve Officer had a duty to the United States. A duty which did not include lying about the posture of the US military or the government of the United States OR demonstrating against the military policy of the United States, under the direction and control of enemy communist governments. Again, Kerry is a liar. There are limits on free speech and Kerry has crossed and continues to cross the line into treason.

"I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that 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 war in Iraq that weakens the nation"

Kerry is a liar and a traitor. No citizen has the right to give aid and comfort to America's enemies, especially not during a time of war. Further, the Vietnam War was not wrong. It was not wrong to prevent communist North Vietnam from spreading communism into South Vietnam by military conquest...which was what was happening. Nor is the Iraq war or the war in Afghanistan...wrong. It's Kerry who is wrong and continues in his treason of giving aid and comfort to America's enemies at every opportunity.

"I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office."

Kerry is a liar and a traitor. American lives are not being squandered in Afghanistan or Iraq. More than 50,000,000 people have been set free from murderous dictatorships. There is no dishonor in losing one's life in freeing those held under the despotic rule of murderers, thugs, rapists and torturers. Kerry continues his treason by trying to weaken the resolve of America and the resolve of US military forces by asserting their mission dishonors them and by extension that those who sent them are participating in a dishonorable endeavor in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry is both a liar and a traitor.

"I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country's ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin. And that's certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place. Indeed, one of the architects of the war, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed in a recent book that he knew victory was no longer a possibility far earlier than 1971."

Kerry is a liar and a traitor. Demonstrating against one's own country and attempting to give hope to America's enemies is dishonorable and it's treason. We elect the people's representatives here in America and we vote them out of office when their conduct is not what we expect. Nixon was reelected in 1974....by the people of the United States...and against an antiwar activist candidate for President, George McGovern. Nixon won 97% of the popular vote and 520 electoral votes. Kerry is not willing to accept the judgment of American voters but then, Kerry is a Marxist twit who does not believe in representative government. If Kerry believed in representative government, the traitor Kerry wouldn't have supported every communist government which was at odds with the United States. Kerry is a traitor.

That's enough proxie. Kerry's rant is a tissue of lies, obvious lies like that incident seared into his soul. The incident where Richard Nixon sent Kerry on a secret mission into Cambodia at Christmas, 1971. Nixon didn't take office until January, 1972.

Nothing this lying traitor has to say can be taken at face value or taken for truth. Kerry is a common lying traitor who committed treason against the United States in the aftermath of his military service and Kerry is still engaged in treason against the United States today. His motives are obvious. First, to exonerate himself from his treason by declaring his treason to be dissent. Second, to weaken the resolve of American citizens and military forces by casting doubts in their minds about the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan and also about the fitness, judgment and honor of the President and the Bush administration. This treason is manifest when you examine the facts and find US military forces are destroying and capturing terrorists and those who fight against the legitimate governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, I'm finished deconstructing the lies of this lying traitor. There aren't enough hours in the day to cover the lies which flow from the ass of this dishonorable liar. The most appalling thing to me is that anyone with the capacity to think could or would believe a word Kerry utters.

The proof of Kerry's lies and treason are free for anyone to find. The military victories on the battlefields of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are all US and coalition victories. The only way the US could possible lose the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is in the halls of Congress. The results of the free elections held there are free for all to find and the absolutely degenerate actions of the terrorists whom Kerry attempts to aid are easy to find as well.

It's really time for Americans to choose. Either choose to be safe from terrorist attacks with the possibility of attacks in the US with WMD by killing or capturing and detaining terrorists, establishing representative governments in the areas they control OR follow the lying traitor Kerry's prescription which is cut and run in the face of the enemy. There is no safety in appeasing dictators and terrorists.

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 03, 2006 01:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ahh.. .there ya go again jwhop, posting the truth LOL....

Oh, I must inform you, you have become quite a hot topic in Rainbow's thread (you may already know). Apparantly, you have chosen to be less spiritual and more materialistic (according to IQ's dissection of your chart - along with words of insight from Ozone and AG). According to IQ, I am an angry b1tch prone to obsessive / complusive disorders (due to my pluto conjunct ascendant) because I said it wasn't in good form to post another Knowflakes chart without permission, specifically if astrology is then used to bash on that person.

Ahhh.... will people ever learn?

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 03, 2006 02:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As I said, no one ever took him to court for these serious allegations, and as such he is and will continue to be innocent until proven guilty.

quote:
lying traitor Kerry's prescription which is cut and run in the face of the enemy.

You know, despite my sometimes poor memory, I DO remember that Kerry never advocated cutting and running with regard to Iraq. Now tell me, how does posting a lie you created help make your case that he's a liar?

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted May 04, 2006 09:16 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
jwhop - Could you do that again, but less bombastically?

I couldn't get past the refrain, "KERRY IS A LIAR AND A TRAITOR!"

If you just deleted your references to your perception of his character and kept in your direct analysis of the speech, I should be able to wade through it.

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted May 04, 2006 09:28 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
AG - In fairness

quote:
And as in Vietnam, we have stayed and fought and died even though it is time for us to go. (...)
and
quote:
So we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.

could be interpreted as wanting to "cut in run", if the interpreter defines a timeline as such.

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted May 04, 2006 09:38 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And, in fairness to jwhop, I'm going to try to get through some of his response.

OK...I couldn't get past this:

quote:
He said rape, murder, torture and wanton destruction were institutionalized within the military forces in Vietnam. He said those behaviors were sanctioned by the military chain of command.

I didn't see that in the above speech - do you have a link to the text from speech from which it's an excerpt?

If he made that statement as a blanket statement about the conduct of the armed forces, I'd call it an exaggeration.
The case can be made that within certain units, however, the situation did degenerate to this degree - at least for a time.
I wasn't alive during Vietnam and so obviously have no direct experience, but I've heard this from those who were there.

And your wording makes it unclear - were you talking about the US military forces in Vietnam (which did transgress, but not consistently) or our Vietnamese allies (which could be, by all accounts, brutal b@stards)?

(I'll have to write my response piecemea - right now I've got to get ready to drop Meg off @ the daycare so I can get my volunteerin' on )

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted May 04, 2006 09:42 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
yup, what a bald faced liar john kerry is......

to say he was in cambodia in '71....which was well after he left vietnam completely.......and several years after nixon took office......

makes me think he's gotten so old he cant even remember enuff to get even a single fact straight.....i wouldnt trust anything that senile traitor has to say.....

too bad no one ever actually declared a war in vietnam, as the constitution requires...maybe then they could have locked him up and thrown away the key......

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 04, 2006 09:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My lie acoustic...or yours? Let the rationalization begin.

Out of Iraq in 2006
I support John Kerry’s Senate resolution for a timely withdrawal from Iraq.

I believe that American combat troops should come home from Iraq in 2006 - not the distant future as President Bush does. Furthermore, I believe we must set a May 15th deadline for the Iraqis to form an effective unity government. And, if the Iraqi politicians choose to ignore that deadline, then I believe things will only get worse and we will have no choice but to withdraw immediately.

We want democracy in Iraq, but it’s now the job of Iraqis to build it. Our troops have performed gallantly and heroically. The best way to keep faith with them is to set deadlines for bringing our troops home and getting Iraq on its own two feet. That’s the only way to give their sacrifice its best chance of resulting in success.

Signed,

Your name here
http://www.johnkerry.com/action/deadline/

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 04, 2006 09:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My lie, or yours Acoustic?

Let's see...end of 2006 is 7 months away. Middle of May was 5 weeks from when the traitor, John Kerry said it.

Treason, an epidemic in the democrat party.

Kerry says US should leave Iraq this year
Ties timetable to a stable regime
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | April 6, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Senator John F. Kerry yesterday called for the United States to remove its troops from Iraq by the end of the year and to start a withdrawal by the middle of May if Iraqis fail to quickly establish a stable government that's acceptable to its major ethnic groups.
http://www.boston.com/

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 04, 2006 10:07 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Haven't read Kerry's testimony before the Senate in 1971, Jwhop but if he said that you know damn well he was telling the truth because there were documented evidences of rape, torture, mass killings, and even trials and sentencing in the aftermath of the Viet War. The Mai Lai (sp,?) massacre comes to mind, Jwhop.

Kerry served in Viet Nam, was wounded in the line of duty, received more than one medal and Jwhop had his ass sitting on a national guard base in Calif. to avoid the war. Just like his hero Bush. But they feel they know more about the war than the men who lived the horrors on a daily basis and they feel that they have the right to judge men who did serve and smear their names just because they are either Democrats or came home and testified to what they saw and exercised their right in a democracy to oppose the war.

Jwhop, you were a draft evader during the Viet Nam war just like Bush so you have no right to judge a man like John Kerry, who was wealthy and had the the same political pull from his father that Bush did his to get out of the draft, yet Kerry chose to serve his country while Bush got drunk everyday and did drugs and didn't even show up for his national guard duty most of the time. And you were sitting in Calif.

Kerry spoke from experience. You just speak from bias and stupidty.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 04, 2006 10:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yep, you're right Petron. I wouldn't trust anything the bald faced liar Kerry says.

I did get the date Kerry says he was on a secret mission..Nixon sent him into Cambodia at Christmas...wrong. Kerry says it was Christmas, 1968.

Nixon became President...instead of President Elect in January, 1969. I wonder if President Lyndon Johnson knew Nixon had taken over Johnson's duties as Commander in Chief in 1968?

Special Report
Swimming From Cambodia
By Thomas Lipscomb
Published 8/16/2004 12:08:26 AM

NEW YORK -- John Kerry is desperately trying to slide safely away from the collapse of his "Christmas in Cambodia" fairy tale. Two embarrassing "failures of memory" now permanently scar Senator Kerry's campaign to gain trust and demonstrate strength as he tries to move from war hero to war president.......

And now the new book by Kerry's fellow Swiftboat veterans, Unfit for Command, has inspired another "failure of memory." Kerry has maintained for years that he was forced to go on a secret mission to plant a CIA agent in Cambodia during Christmas 1968 under President Richard Nixon.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6980


IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a