This is the editorial cartoon in the Houston Chronicle today. http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/editorial/index.html
This image will change as soon as they put up Monday's cartoon.
Posted on 08/07/2004 11:59:31 PM PDT by Steven W.
132 Cong.Rec. S3564-02
AMENDMENT NO. 1718
(Purpose: To restrict assistance to the Nicaraguan democratic resistance to humanitarian assistance, and for other purposes)
**************
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Thank you, Mr. President.
**************
What is worse, Mr. President, is that the Contras bring with them the inevitability of further U.S. involvement. I know there are many in here who said in the last days, oh, no, we do not want American boys down there. We have heard it from the White House-we are not going to widen this war. We are not going to see American troops down there. That is not our intention. How many times have we heard that in the debate?
Mr. President, how quickly do we forget? How quickly do we forget? No one wanted to widen the war in Vietnam. We heard that. Let me remind you of what we said during that period of time.
"There is going to be no involvement of America in war unless it is a result of the constitutional process that is placed upon Congress to declare it. Now let us make that clear." That was the President of the United States in 1954.
"We would not get into a war except by the constitutional process which, of course, involves the declaration of war by Congress." That was the President of the United States in 1954.
"Using United States ground forces in the Indochina jungle would be like trying to cover an elephant with a handkerchief. You just can't do it." That was the Senate majority leader in 1954.
"I would go to Congress before committing combat troops." That was another President in 1962.
"I would oppose the use of United States troops as the direct means of supressing guerrillas in South Vietnam." That was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1964.
"We have no plans at present to send combat troops to South Vietnam"-Robert McNamara, 1964.
"I don't feel expanded use of American ground troops to be an effective addition to the war"-the senior Senator from Arizona, in 1965.
"The commitment of American troops anywhere on Asian soil is a mistake"-the senior Senator from Arizona, in 1966.
"There is a grave danger at the present time that the administration will go overboard in increasing American forces in Vietnam. We might be able to win the war but by doing so we would have on our hands the dependency for a long time to come. That is the wrong way to handle it"-Richard M. Nixon, in 1966.
Those words did not mean anything. Then we got into the war. We began to say, We do not want to widen it. "The United States seeks no wider war"-Lyndon Johnson, 1964.
"We can plainly say we are not escalating the war." That was the Senator from Alabama.
"We seek no wider war"-William P. Bundy.
"We seek no wider war"- White House, February 1965.
"The United States still seeks no wider war"-Lyndon Johnson, 1965.
"We still seek no wider war"-Lyndon Johnson, later in 1965.
"The United States could not win militarily in a classic sense because our national policy of not expanding the war"-General Westmoreland. And so on.
Finally, President Nixon, 1970. "In cooperation with the armed forces of South Vietnam, attacks are being launched this week to clear out major enemy sanctuaries on the Cambodian-Vietnam border."
Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.
I have that memory which is seared-seared-in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict.
Mr. President, good intentions are not enough to keep us out of harms way. The danger here is our support of the Contras. Everyone knows the Contras are our Contras. We have a proprietary interest in the Contras. So with that proprietary interest we will raise the stakes, and then will come the commitment of our prestige and worse our pride, our pride. How many battles do we fight for pride? The ultimate vote today on temporary policy to give lethal aid that everyone in this Chamber says is not enough to do the job-the job, I take it, meaning to overthrow the Sandinistas is the ultimate vote.
There is an enormous contradiction in that because we will see people come back to us at the same time next year and say to us, you know, we need more money. Now, I will hear it from the senior Senator from North Carolina, and others: We have backed these guys. We have given them guns. We have given them the hope for freedom. We have given them a stake in their own country. We cannot desert them now.
They do note that the released Kerry records do not yet include the relevant documents.
Mr. Kerry has some explaining to do.
WND: Vets say Kerry made up Cambodia story
Back when I was gainfully employed, helping/shilling for the enemy,,,,,,OOPS! Wrong speech!
Folks like Kerry have never accepted nor rationalized this and it is at the heart of why this concoction of Kerry's is so perverted & irrational. Something was seared into his soul which not only never happened but is totally out of context in the logic he then forever employs in his reasoning, positioning and political posturing all these years hence, whether it's bailing from Vietnam and testifying against the troops or here supporting Daniel Ortega (who he fervently believed in) or when he sought to dismantle the intelligence agences throughout his years of public life and the way he decries Republicans, lying and war even on the stump today.
Thanks for posting this!!
Swifties are saying that Kerry was never in Cambodia.
RELEASE THOSE RECORDS BOTOX BOY!
John Kerry keeps telling me he was in Vietnam. I feel bad for those who were there with him. He was a danger. He never knew where he was while he was there.
Last night I appeared on the Alan Colmes radio show to talk about the book. The guest host was Bill Press, an old friend, but someone who had obvioulsy not read the book and also was obvioulsy not inclined to plug it. He opened with a series of silly questions on whether President Bush ought to repudiate the swift boat ads. My reply, and the reply of everyone else who gets hit with this Kerry campaign talking point, ought to be to point out first that the 527 problem is greatest on the Dem side, but also to point out that the swift boat vets and the new book assert that Kerry is a liar, and that it does indeed seem true that Kerry is lying at least with regards to the myth Kerry invented of an illegal mission to Cambodia. Any denunciation of the swift boat ad has to be postponed until the media has done a thorough investigation into Kerry's credibility given we have at least one large example where he is lying.
I wasn't there in 68, but I would not be surprised that we had men up there then. But it wasn't Kerry or any PCFs. It would have bee a few lonely SEALS dropped in by chooper or their special boats. Perhaps even a GB or two. The job was to monitor insurgents. The end of the Ho Chi Minh Trail was where the Mekong crossed Cambodia into South Vietnam. These brave men would be there for a week at a time on their own, within breathing distance of Charlie.
check his story reported by the boston herald ..he says Nixon...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1185354/posts
Kerry also described, for example, for the Boston Herald his vivid memories of his Christmas Eve spent in Cambodia:
I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.
As recently as July 7, 2004, Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe repeated Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia story on FOX News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes, indicating that it was a critical turning point in Kerry’s life. Kranish had no knowledge, even after his extensive study of Kerry, that he was simply repeating a total fabrication by Kerry. And Kranish was right: Study of the Christmas in Cambodia story is central to understanding John Kerry.
The story is also in the pages of the 2004 biography written by Krahish and other Boston Globe reporters. As we have come to expect, the story is twisted at the end to provide justification for yet another of Kerry’s political ruses, this time used to justify what Kerry portrays as his noble and continuing distrust of government pronouncements:
To top it off, Kerry said later that he had gone into Cambodia, despite President Nixon’s assurances to the American public that there was no combat action in this neutral territory. The young sailor began to develop a deep mistrust of the U.S. government pronouncements, he later recalled.
you've got the thought trail he's tried to convey here & the writers took it hook, line & sinker (the same one trying to trash the SwiftVets, note) - regardless of any "nuance" of the stories he's told, the whole thing is an obviously concocted collection of garbage and it's the centerpiece of the many legends in his own mind.
it's worse than waffling because he leans towards the socialists / communist (or baathist) thugs & doesn't learn from history ... EVER ... while maintaining this incredible mind set that he's empirical in his worldly views and observation while - in truth and fact - he is a phony & a liar. He was so idiological & extreme in his opposition to supporting the freedom fighting contras, just like he turned his back on the troops in Vietnam or unwilling to back the people of Iraq in their quest for freedom & security for the US and the world. it's scary & dangerous.
your point brings light to another of the many absurdities in Kerry's story - what would be the point of such a mission, in truth or reality? There would be no serious objective in sending him up there for the quick little jaunt he's come to expect people to be so gullibly accepting.
This is the editorial cartoon in the Houston Chronicle today. http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/editorial/index.html
This image will change as soon as they put up Monday's cartoon.
True, but their bias won't.
So true! I add that notice, so people viewing the thread the next day will understand why the cartoon has no connection to the thread. I also do it, so those who might want to "save" it will know to do it now and not wait until later because it will be gone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.