Posted on 08/31/2004 6:42:05 AM PDT by Valin
The first time I heard the words "John Kerry" and "president" at the same time was the spring of 1971. John Forbes Kerry, 27 years old, a Yalie, a Navy vet wearing battle ribbons on a rumpled Army fatigue shirt, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he could not support the war in which he and other veterans had risked their lives and killed Vietnamese.
"Thirty years from now," he told a rapt audience, "when 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 the place where America finally turned, and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning."
"I wish John Kerry was running for president," said my mother as we watched. She was a staunch Chicago Democrat. "He's got a JFK accent. JFK hair."
"He's got JFK's initials," said my Aunt Chris, an equally stalwart Illinois Republican.
(The speech has audible Kennedy accents. Adam Walinsky, who had been Robert Kennedy's most acclaimed speechwriter, lent John Kerry advice. But he did not write the speech, as Richard Nixon's White House operatives suggested.)
Thirty-three years later, John Forbes Kerry is running for president. The testimony you can hear here ignited his political career.
But just as obviously, it still infuriates some Vietnam veterans who believe that young John Kerry veered from protest into slander when he told senators he had heard other vets confess that "they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, (and) taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power..." Some veterans still blame John Kerry's testimony for lending credibility to a caricature of Vietnam veterans as lunatic baby-killers.
Before he became the presidential nominee, many Democrats enthusiastically compared John Kerry's honored military service with President Bush's spotty record with the Texas Air National Guard. The scene of John Kerry and his old shipmates sailing into the wind across the Charles River toward the Democratic convention in Boston was a photo-op to make Karl Rove grind his teeth.
But the young man who once testified, "(W)e are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia... We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service," made his war record the metaphorical heart of his acceptance speech. Is John Kerry a mature man who is finally reconciled to his memories? Or is he a striving politician who now has the chance to make use of his past?
Interestingly, a number of John Kerry's supporters now say they wish he would denounce this administration's war in Iraq as powerfully as he once condemned the war in Vietnam. "(H)ow do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam?" he so hauntingly asked senators in 1971. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Does Senator Kerry think the Iraq war was immoral -- or merely mishandled?
Many Americans believe the American public turned against the war in Vietnam in the wake of John Kerry's testimony and scores of protest marches. Millions certainly did. All of the music, films, and popular icons of the time that we know, from John Lennon (in his rumpled fatigues), to the doctors on M*A*S*H (in their rumpled olive drabs) certainly shore up the impression that America had turned, in John Kerry's phrase.
But American voters elected Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972 -- the second time overwhelmingly, over a peace candidate, George McGovern, who had been a decorated WWII combat bomber pilot. Whatever their qualms and anguish, the majority of American voters supported the war in Vietnam until U.S. troops departed in 1975.
I doubt that John Kerry, who has scrapped his way to three senate terms in Massachusetts's rambunctious politics, has forgotten that fact. To hear his testimony from 1971 might help us see both the young vet who knew how to motivate men, and the aspiring politician who knows how to speak the language of his time.
NPR's Scott Simon is host of Weekend Edition Saturday.
Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, Retired.
Medal of Honor winner
Gonna be the last time, too. :)
As a Vietnam era veteran, I am tired of listening to this lying sack of shinola and looking at him. He should be hung for treason.
.
JOHN KERRY = Enemy of Vietnam Vets
http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1320
.
LOL!
Actually, U.S. troops had largely departed by the end of 1973 but with some U.S. troops still working with the South Vietnamese and defending a few key installations. The heavy 1974 fighting in places like An Loc was a South Vietnamese show and was their victory against powerful and well-equiped communist forces. By that time the NVA had lots of PT76 tanks and other armored vehicles in use fighting our under-equiped South Vietnamese.
You forgot the barf alert. Of course, maybe that goes without saying, since it's from NPR.
Surely you jest, Scottie. The vessel was a cross between a slow barge and a tourist boat, and Kerry was reportedly furious that something zippier hadn't been chosen. Kerry looked pathetically lame, knowing the cameras were on him, as he gestured to the horizon and tried to make conversation with his obviously bored "band of brothers."
And by the way, I found it amusing that Simon made reference to MASH. If there was ever anyone from the warm 'n fuzzy Alan Alda liberal wing of the Dem party, it's Scott Simon.
He said that he had NEVER had a flashback after all the years. But, when he re-heard Kerry's 1971 testimony he REMEMBERED the way he had said "Ghehnnnnghis Khan" and THEN had his first flashback. He was back in Vietnam as a POW.
Pretty powerful stuff.
Oh, yes. I knew Scott Simon back in Chicago; he is the son of one of my father's best friends, Ernie Simon. He is the biggest lefty in the world and like most liberals is afraid of real men. We did not make a good match.
I'll settle for a very public landslide election loss against Komrade Kerry.
Hanging would be too quick.
There is no discernible POINT to this article. It, like Old Media in general, revels in ambiguity.
In the late 60s small numbers of PT-76s fought against a few ARVN outposts, successfully, and clashed with US forces in numbers a handful of times, usually losing their tanks after getting some use out of them. On one occasion, a full battalion of T-54s fought US forces. But this was the an early era in NVA armor and not comparable to later uses of it.
In the 1972 offensive the NVA used 400 tanks and lost essentially all of them. US air was the largest tank killer, including TOW armed helicopter gunships. Most of them were T-54 varieties - T-54s proper, T-55s, and Chinese made Type 59 and Type 63 copies. These were serious main battle tanks with 120mm guns, not light tanks. Used in 3 full armor regiments and lesser units, not dribs and drabs. They were accompanied by small numbers of APCs, BTR-60 and Chinese variants of it. The NVA also still had some older and lighter tanks, including PT-76, T-34/85, and SU-76.
In 1975 the NVA force was an echelon larger again, with 9 full tank regiments comprising 29 tank battalions, equipped with 600 tanks and 400 APCs. The majority of these were new Chinese T-55 variants (Type 63). It took hundreds of T-55s used en masse, this time with combined arms support made possible by flocks of APCs as well and in the absence of supporting US airpower, to defeat the ARVN.
"There is no discernible POINT to this article. It, like Old Media in general, revels in ambiguity."
And like most NPR presentations it brings its lanquid and spiritless tone to what should be interesting and energetic.
"It wasn't just PT-76s by a long shot."
Right-O! But even though the PT-76 was too light it was also very mobile and overall a good vehicle for the terrain at hand. I'm glad you had the numbers at hand on just what the ARVN was up against in '74 and '75. I remember they got lots of kills on the commie armor via the little LAW rockets which we provided. The ARVN never got any credit in our media of course.
But last Spring's commencement controversy involving Vietnamese Americans protesting the flying of the Communist flag and instead wanting the old South Vietnamese flag flown to represent them at their school shows that some Vietnamese were and are tought on political principle as well. Too bad the white liberal types were insisting on using the commie flag.
Which is it? Someone else's "war crimes" and Kerry was merely repeating the stories or his own "memories?" The NPR employee can't seem to make up his mind. A whirling dervish Kerryite for sure.
So how did we manage to lose the war here when Nixon won two elections, "the second time overwhelmingly?"
It was an era of naivety and trust. We had no reason to believe that there were Americans who wanted a victory of an enemy over U.S. forces. Our W.W.II experience wouldn't permit us to believe it -- though the Korea experience should have been a hint.
Read the rest of the Committee hearings. Kerry and the Committee chairman (unltra-liberal Fulbright, I believe) discussed ways of forcing the U.S. to "disengage" and accept the Communists' and their revolutionary "government" of South Vietnam's terms. Kerry had met with the Communists and was representing them before the Committee. The powerful chairman was most receptive.
Don't know how old the NPR employee is but the statement "Many Americans believe the American public turned against the war in Vietnam in the wake of John Kerry's testimony" is telling in two ways. First the influencing of public opinion began in earnest in 1968 (the infamous Cronkite connection) so the statement is false in that respect; but, second and please note -- contrary to beliefs today, Kerry's lies were not shocking to a public conditioned by years of media lies and distortions. We heard it everyday and knew it as BS.
Look at today's coverage of Abu Arabgrab for example -- and former Sec. of State Albright has accused the U.S. of carpet bombing -- carpet bombing?!. The word atrocity is oft used.
The Vietnam era here at home being an issue is the best thing that could happen to help us expose the enemies within who once again want a U.S. defeat. This time however, they do not want the external enemy to win. They just want the humiliation of the U.S. and our submission to their internationalist comrades.
Maybe he feels a subconcious connection to ol' Jinjus so he prefers that he has initials JK. Khan is similar to Kohn as well.
I'm not a psychiatrist, I only play one on FR.
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.