Posted on 08/29/2004 6:19:18 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
........When John Kerry decided to take part in anti-war activities, he became a star. Because he was articulate and highly decorated, he was immediately designated a leader of an organization called Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He was the public face of the group, testifying before a congressional committee, going on "The Dick Cavett Show," getting arrested at demonstrations and appearing at anti-war rallies.
In the course of these appearances, he adopted some of the rhetoric of the war crimes tribunals and repeated testimony that he had heard about the atrocities. He clearly left the impression that these crimes were commonplace, and he has since acknowledged that some of his statements were "over the top" and apologized for offending veterans. As events of recent days have shown, he has not been forgiven.
Kerry, of course, was right in the larger sense. The war was a waste of lives and inflicted untold misery on this country and on Vietnam. Our attitude toward the Vietnamese, the people for whom we were presumably fighting, was uniformly contemptuous. If we did not kill them indiscriminately, we ruined their country with bombing and the moral degradation that occupying armies always inflict.
One can see, therefore, why the lasting legacy of the conflict is one of betrayal. Those against the war felt betrayed by their government, which lied about the objectives, the costs and the likely outcome. The soldiers who answered their country's call felt betrayed by the contradictions between what they saw and what they were told.
These are the emotions that drive the current debate. The hedonistic youth and blue-state intellectuals who turned out to be right about Vietnam are again battling the support-our-troops, America-love-it-or-leave-it Republicans who still believe we could have won. .....
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Yeah, a SuperNova. BBBBBOOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!
It figures that this trash would come out of San Francisco. Socialist Capital of the U.S..
You're right. The author doesn't have a clue; just spitting out the same ole trash.
San Francisco Chronicle = just another media whore for Kerry/Soros '04'
Upon his return from Vietnam, Kerry eagerly believed anyone who claimed Americans had done evil things without any effort to verify their charges or even bother to see if they were who they claimed to be. The SF Chronicle and George Soros believe it will be good for America if President Kerry does the same thing.
I am speechless at that. Listen to O'Neill when he was on Cavett's TV program. The author of this piece could not be more wrong, but that parpagraph clarifies the contrast in world views between Kerry/supporters & everybody else.
No accountability, no responsibility, selfish ambition.
Needs a SUPER BARF ALERT in the title
It makes one wish that the Democrats had chosen somebody more likeable to represent themselves as candidate for President. John Kerry comes across as both petulant and fraudulent. And maybe just a little arrogant.
John Kerry does not seem to be a happy person.
They don't consider communism a threat.
***.....If others could understand your truth, you would not think of yourself as a "vanguard." You would no longer inhabit the morally charmed world of an elite, whose members alone can see the light and whose mission is to lead the unenlightened towards it. If everybody could see the promised horizon and knew the path to reach it, the future would already have happened and there would be no need for the vanguard of the saints.
That is both the ethical core and psychological heart of what it means to be a part of the left. That is where the gratification comes from. To see yourself as a social redeemer. To feel anointed. In other words: To be progressive is itself the most satisfying narcissism.
That is why it is of little concern to them that their socialist schemes have run aground, burying millions of human beings in their wake. That is why they don't care that their panaceas have caused more human suffering than all the injustices they have ever challenged. That is why they never learn from their "mistakes." That is why the continuance of Them is more important than any truth.
If you were active in the so-called "peace" movement or in the radical wing of the civil rights causes, why would you tell the truth? Why would you tell people that no, you weren't really a "peace activist," except in the sense that you were against America's war. Why would you draw attention to the fact that while you called yourselves "peace activists," you didn't oppose the Communists' war, and were gratified when America's enemies won?
What you were really against was not war at all, but American "imperialism" and American capitalism. What you truly hated was America's democracy, which you knew to be a "sham" because it was controlled by money in the end. That's why you wanted to "Bring the Troops Home," as your slogan said. Because if America's troops came home, America would lose and the Communists would win. And the progressive future would be one step closer.
But you never had the honesty-then or now-to admit that. You told the lie then to maintain your influence and increase your power to do good (as only the Chosen can). And you keep on telling the lie for the same reason. ....***Source
We need to get some Vietnamese people out front to tell the real story. Unfortunately, the lost youth is now the aging hippy and they STILL refuse to comprehend what they did.
Bump!
Bump!
He's Ted Kennedy's protege.
That's why Kerry had to include Nixon in his Cambodia lie - it made it a Republican war.
Thanks!
No, Kerry was wrong. He estimated that the North Vietnamese would execute maybe 5,000 enemies if they took over. The real number was twenty times that and the Vietname boat people exodus inflicted misery on many more. The problem is that the press never seems to look at what the North Vietnamese did when they took over and since, nor to they mention what happened in Cambodia, after Senate Democrats made the same sort of "it's better to just let the Communists win" argument and stopped supporting the Lon Nol government with aid.
Our attitude toward the Vietnamese, the people for whom we were presumably fighting, was uniformly contemptuous. If we did not kill them indiscriminately, we ruined their country with bombing and the moral degradation that occupying armies always inflict.
And the Communists didn't do anything to ruin the country and morally degrade the people when they took over? Compare the status of Japan, bombed, nuked, and occupied by the United States, with Vietnam. Compare the status of South Korea, which suffered the same sort of war and occupation that Vietnam did, with Vietnam. Now remember that Johnson and others offered massive economic aid packages to North Vietnam if they'd just stop attacking the South. Now tell me again how the Vietnamese people are better off under Communist rule and how their problems are all America's fault.
Well for Pete's sake. We were all happy being "through with Vietnam". It's just that J F'n Kerry keeps bringing it up, and shoving it in our faces.
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.