Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did Kerry ever say this about killing in Vietnam?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 07:51 AM
Original message
Did Kerry ever say this about killing in Vietnam?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/24/133019/409

Kerry was compelled to pander to a fear driven culture easily manipulated by a national security state and their enablers within the corporatist media. I cringed when Kerry boasted, "I've killed people in war ... personally." He was desperate to break through and did what it took. Hence, Kerry's stature was easily diminished and once again a lesser man prevailed.





I thought the only time he said anything remotely like this was in the 1996 debate with Weld when he said "I know something about killing" in response to a question on the death penalty, but admittedly, I wasn't paying attention to every single word he said in '03/'04, so maybe I missed this. I only remember him saying "I will hunt down and kill the terrorists". I was under the impression he is uncomfortable talking that frankly about his experience about Vietnam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. if he ever said that, you can be SURE it wasn't a "boast"n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Exactly! I have googled the quote and I come up with NOTHING.
I think lefties are sometimes just as bad as right wingers about lying about Senator Kerry. If you really delve in, he's somebody who does NOT like talking about what he did in Vietnam -- he'll talk about the missions, he'll talk about the politics and dynamics of what was happening there -- but personal stuff like what he actually DID -- no way (which was why that quote from the Weld debate was such a big deal, because he revealed something he hadn't before nor since -- imo). But I'm still putting the question out here, because I don't recall this quote (and feel like I would, if he said it), and wonder if anyone else does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. totally totally agree
especially with that first sentence. It's just unbelievable how simplistically many lefties persist in viewing Kerry's record. If they'd just give this man CREDIT for what he's done, and what he's doing, and take the time to really see who he is, they should see, and should have seen, that he is someone they should be behind 1000%. SO SO frustrating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I agree here
He has many times spoke of knowing what it is to be a soldier. But as the Weld debate statement clearly shows, he has far too much respect for live to boast of killing. There was also some 80s or 90s interview where he spoke of being troubled by having to kill the man in the Silver Star award.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
5. Yeah, right. He did say this in the Senate once
In the debate on the first Gulf War, which, by the way, was the first Iraq War vote that he got endless, endless shit for because of the vote he cast:

Late on Friday, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) gave a good speech, which he ended with a quote from a book by the Hollywood screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, "Johnny Got His Gun."

In this story, a soldier loses his arms and legs, his voice, his sight, his hearing and his face in war. He decides to become an educational exhibit. His idea is to be put in a glass case and carried around.

Sen. Kerry quoted from the soldier's statement.

"Take me wherever there are parliaments and diets and congresses and chambers of statesmen," he says. "I want to be there when they talk about honor and justice and making the world safe for democracy and fourteen points and the self-determination of peoples. I want to be there . . . Put my glass case upon the speaker's desk and every time the gavel descends let me feel its vibration through my little jewel case. Then let them debate . . . the course of empire and why should we take all this crap off Germany or whoever the next Germany is . . .

"(But) before they give the order for all the little guys to start killing each other let the main guy rap his gavel on my case and point down at me and say here gentlemen is the only issue before this house and that is are you for this thing here or are you against it."

There was silence in the chamber of the Senate.

From: CONGRESS AT ITS BEST - AND WORST
Newsday (01-13-1991)
By Paul Vitello


Yeah, because people who read things like that on the Senate floor, yeah, they are real gung-ho about killing. (Honestly, some people have no more brains than your common average potato.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Even in "Going up River"
Edited on Mon Feb-26-07 09:40 AM by karynnj
there is far more attention on what Vietnam was like, the sadness and horror come through and that was his motivation for potentially throwing a future career away to speak out. During the VVAW protest, I was struck by some video of the press asking him about potential violence. His answer that they were speaking out against violence was said in a voice that somehow conveyed both gentleness and strength.

In the Senate testimony itself, he spoke (for all soldiers) of wishing that a merciful God would erase the memories of war. He also did not speak at all about his medals - other than responding "yes" when a Senator listed the medals. It was downplayed enough that I remembered his protest and that he was a vet - but not that he was a war hero.

I suspect that because a lot of lefties evaded the draft and didn't serve, many held it against Kerry that he did serve - and while serving, he did try to win. Some time last summer, someone posted a link to an interview in 1971 or 1972 with a black woman reporter where he was asked how he responded to people in the peace movement that he was a hypocrite because he did serve. Kerry responded by saying (with a huge grin) that they said far worse than that. These intolerant peace activists are the people who gave the Democrats the label of being against the troops - because they were.

The diary writer is also a hypocrite as he mentions Webb as an example of the good people coming in. Webb actually glorifies the Vietnam War and denies there were the type of actions that Kerry spoke of that have been proven to have happened.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. Trumbo's quote gave me absolute chills. Kerry needs to say it again
in front of the Senate. So sad that history repeats itself...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Noisy Democrat Donating Member (799 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
7. I replied in a harsher tone
than you or KarenDC, just because this kind of crap is really outrageous, and because this diary poster talks about having cross-posted it in several places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
8. I did respond
I think with some degree of forthrightness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. The diary is a couple days old, so I also commented on
his blog, but comments are on moderation, so we'll see what happens. I am glad to see my instincts were 100% correct about the falsehood of that quote and the way he called it a boast. It runs counter to everything John Kerry has been about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Noisy Democrat Donating Member (799 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Ah, if the diary is old
that would explain why we're hearing crickets after so many of us posted comments demanding proof or a retraction. I'm going to comment on his blog too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
11. Wonder if this person
cringed when Kerry testified in front of the Senate in 1971?

Note the ellipsis in the post for maximum distortion. If Kerry said this why not provide the full statement in context?

It's really amazing that people are still doing this. What's up: fear of John Kerry? He's still a threat as long as he's out there? Giving him credit for years of service that began as a relatively young man and continues today would be to acknowledge that not too many out there can hold a candle to his accomplishments?

Seriously, what's up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. What's up is the diarist is an Edwards supporter and he, like
nearly every '08 supporter of a candidate, feels the need to cut down Kerry to prop their guy up. That's what has been going on full scale.

Check this out:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/25/211132/001#c294

Quote from Obama:

This is a good place to point out... I mentioned this a little bit earlier today at one of the house parties. I know that one of the running threads, one of the narratives that’s established itself among the mainstream media is this notion "Well...ya know Obama has pretty good style. He can deliver a pretty good speech, but he seems to prioritize rhetoric over substance."

Now factually, that’s incorrect. Because the fact of the matter is that I have THE most specific plan in terms of how to get out of Iraq of any candidate. I have delivered major speeches over the course of two years before I started running for president on every major issue out here whether its education, healthcare or energy. I have written two books that have sold close to a million copies each that would probably give people more insight into how I think and how I feel about the issues facing America than any candidate in the field and probably any candidate who has run for office in recent memory. The problem is not that the information is not out there. The problem is that that’s not what you guys have been reporting on. You’ve been reporting on how I look in a swimsuit.


A couple of observations:

1. Obama says "I" a lot, and refers himself in the third person, which is a little unusual.

2. The bold part is a knock at Kerry, and possibly Gore, too. Obama is smart enough not to refer to them by name but "recent memory" HAS to be at least referring to '04, and I don't like it.

We're all going to have to get used to this -- Kerry is going to be bashed for the next year -- candidates will be quick to point out how they're unlike THAT guy who lost the election. I for one will correct when there are factual errors (which I did in the above thread about a comment on the $87 billion), but other than that, get your umbrella out so you can withstand the shit storm.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. The media will help them out too
sort of:

The Dems Get Religion

A new approach for the 2008 campaign
By Dan Gilgoff
Posted 2/25/07

John Kerry struggled to overcome his secular image in 2004, but the current crop of Democratic presidential front-runners is determined not to repeat his mistakes.

One of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's first campaign hires was a top evangelical staffer on Capitol Hill. U.S. News has learned that an aide in Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's office tasked with religious outreach is joining his presidential campaign this week. And former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is framing poverty relief as a moral issue that's helping to drive his campaign. "Two thousand eight could be the first time since Jimmy Carter that the presidential candidate who's really good on faith issues is the Democrat," says Eric Sapp, a Democratic consultant. So the Democratic primaries could see serious competition among candidates for the faith vote.

Clinton, a scourge of the religious right, was raised in a conservative Methodist home. "Over the years, Senator Clinton has expressed her faith often in speeches and books, and I've always been impressed with its authenticity," says Burns Strider, the Capitol Hill staffer who became Clinton's new faith outreach director. But Clinton is sure to encounter skeptics. When she donned a crucifix while campaigning for re-election last year, some pundits called it a ploy to moderate her image. "I got deluged with calls from New York reporters who had this view of her as a nonreligious person," says John Green at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "But ... she's a very serious social-justice Methodist."

more...


Welcome to the post Bush pandering campaigns. Lower and lower.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. I read Obama's first book
and I knew far more about Kerry from Tour of Duty. The exerpts of journal entries and letters written by a 25 year old in extremely stressful times, intended only for himself or the friends and family written to gave a window into his soul that you don't get from a book written for the public. Obama's second book is not all that different from "Call to Service". In addition, Kerry has been a very public figure since his incredible Senate testimony.

Arguing you had best selling books as a credential is pretty weak - the second sold largely because he was a candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Now I'm just having fun with the Obama supporters
Check out this whiner talking about the "Obama haters", and scroll down to my response (for which I use your argument, Karennj, about Tour of Duty being far more revealing):

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/2/25/211132/001/140#c140

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
16. Related: the ugly side of dailykos erupted yesterday
Too late to respond (sigh), but this is just terrible and written not in a diary but on the front page:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/24/13123/3419

I thought Dean's remark was just TERRIBLE at that time. I still remember how happy I was when they caught Saddam Hussein, and I remember WHERE I was when I heard the news. Place, time, and history are very valid here, and it was one of the few pieces of good news we had received coming from Iraq at that time. And Dean wasn't just insulting the president, he was insulting the troops involved in that capture, and everyone involved in making it happen. Kerry's response was appropriate FOR THAT TIME. I remember thinking at the time, that although technically correct, it was a stupid thing for Dean to say. Timing is everything, and he proved himself to be tone deaf as to the mood of the people. It was one of those "moments" when you realized that had Dean won the nomination, we would have lost in a landslide.

So Kagro X equates Kerry to Lieberman, and people call him a scumbag in the comments. I guess I'm glad I missed '03 on the blogs, that's for sure. But this is BS to bring it up now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. That wasn't ugly,
it was irrational. The premise being that Dean was right because:

The Army's highest-ranking officer said Friday that he was unsure whether the U.S. military would capture or kill Osama bin Laden, adding, "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."


Generals from Casey to Pace to Schoomaker have made sensible and not so sensible comments about the war and fighting terrorism. The above happens to be a nonsensical comment.

Here is an excerpt from a compelling DU thread I read yesterday, I believe the person is a Kucinich supporter:

How many innocent children need to die in a war that is all about vengeance? A war that was against a nation that never attacked us. No matter what the media may imply there was not a single Afghani on any of the planes that struck on 9/11. Not one single person. Yet we used our military might to go to war with one of the most impoverished nations in the world. The war in Afghanistan was wrong, it was dead wrong and no matter how unpopular it is for me to say that I am going to keep saying that.

This war was supposed to stop bin Laden, we do not even know where bin Laden is. This war was supposed to launch a major blow to global terrorist operations, Al Qaeda is stronger than ever before. This war was supposed to make us safer, instead we are living in a time of great uncertainty when we are scared to think of what will happen next.

I am tired of watching civilians be killed in a war which accomplished nothing in the way of what it was meant to accomplish. I am not going to justify the deaths of thousands of innocents because we landed a temporary blow on the Taliban, a group which has lately been making a resurgence.

more...


Bringing bin Laden to justice is still very important.

I linked to the thread and a recent JK blog post here.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. That whole diary is a mess
The fact that one general apparently agrees with Bush that capturing OBL won't really help because capturing Saddam didn't help doesn't make it so. The fact is that once Saddam was captured, Bush could have begun the diplomacy that he is still avoiding.

At the time, it certainly was better to capture Saddam than to have him as a focal point of a Sunni resistance movement. At minimum, politically it was an awful statement as it seemed to deny the American military a victory moment. The other candidates were asked to comment and had they all backed Dean, 2004 would have been over. It just seemed a very begrudging giving credit comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
20. Beachmom, the diaryist has a post responding to you
that shows he is looking into what he said and trying to find a link. (He says he remembers it probably from a primary debate. I think I saw all the debates - and I would have remembered and been horrified by that had it occured. Especially as it would have completely been at odds to the Kerry I remembered seeing in 1971.

Anyway he said he would correct it if he can't prove it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. He updated and retracted. I just think he's typical of lefties who
thought they heard things that they hadn't, because their view of Kerry was of a warmonger because that's what the Dean campaign said he was. I've been hearing him referred to as a "pro-war Democrat" a lot lately. I think they're as blind about Kerry as the Right, who has the exact opposite view of him also based on selective, often a bad memory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
21. i remember he brought it up to defend his position on death penalty
his opposition to the death penalty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
23. Keep this around. It's the most he's really ever said
IF someone can read this and think that Kerry boasted about killing, then that person is insane or lying for an advantage or just lying because they choose to believe the lies instead of the truth.

The War That Will Not Go Away -
Bob Kerrey's Account of Murdered Civilians Underscored How Little We Understand the Vietnam Experience - If We Understand War at All


Boston Globe -- 4/29/2001 (About 30 years after that famous testimony in front of the SFRC.)

America learned last week that, in 1969, a Navy SEAL unit commanded by Lieutenant Bob Kerrey killed Vietnamese civilians in Thanh Phong village.

Precisely what happened is obscured by murky memories, but the central fact - that American military killed women and children - is not in dispute. In official accounts, the dead were listed as Viet Cong.

We probably would not have read about Thanh Phong last week if that unit's commander had later been killed, as he very nearly was; or if the 25-year-old Kerrey had not subsequently earned the Congressional Medal of Honor; or if he hadn't somehow managed to leave a military hospital in Philadelphia, reenter civilian life supported by the love of family and his brothers-in-arms; or if his love of country had taken him no further in his political career than the governor's mansion in Nebraska.

Thanh Phong is dominating headlines because Bob Kerrey is now a respected and accomplished political leader.

But if the fact that innocent people were killed in Vietnam is the news, it is hardly a revelation to the villagers of Thanh Phong, nor to the many Americans who listened to us speak out 30 years ago about our experience. It's certainly not news to America's Vietnam veterans, who have never stopped wrestling with the slippery truths of our nation's least understood war.

The reality is that there were many Thanh Phongs, literally thousands of cases where shots were fired, bombs dropped, and rockets launched without any sure knowledge of the targets' loyalties, capabilities, intentions, or age. People shake their heads and ask how the boys next door could have done such things.

They forget - or perhaps can never really know - what Vietnam was. Americans were outsiders in a complex war among Vietnamese. Our allies were corrupt. Our adversaries were ruthless. Enemy territory was everywhere.

Reporters have been busy researching the rules of war as though it were a board game. The truth is, there were no rules - only instinct and minute-by-minute, second-by-second judgments that we carry around inside for the rest of our lives.

It is easy today to forget that a free-fire zone was just that. Imagine a unit of seven young men venturing alone in the pitch black of a moonless night, believing because it was true that any sound could mean death, with no helicopter backup, no margin for mistakes, no time for hesitation, and no knowledge of what might happen in the next moment.

With cause - having heard shots ring out - or out of fear when you thought you heard shots, you fired your weapon. We tried to protect innocent people, but sometimes danger and confusion prevailed. As Neil Sheehan documented so pointedly, the "bright shining lie" that evolved in military doctrine was, simply, "if they're dead, they're V.C."

It has long been evident that American soldiers have truths to tell. Thirty years ago, a number of us, as self-proclaimed "winter soldiers," testified that there were terrible things happening in Vietnam. Some veterans have taken longer than others to come to terms with the war; others still have not done so. Either way, they have paid a high personal price.

"I lived with this privately for 32 years," my friend Bob Kerrey (who retired from the US Senate last year after two terms) said last week. "I can't keep it private any more. My conscience tells me some good should come from this."

It is never too late for Americans to understand the anger that many Vietnam veterans - myself among them - felt toward the body-counting, career-promoting leaders sitting safely in Washington, and of the unfairness of sending to the killing fields troops that were disproportionately poor and black.

I wonder, still, how we could ask anyone to be the last man to die in Vietnam; the last man to die for a mistake.

It seems almost cliched to talk about the death of innocence. But what else is it when the children of America are pulled from front porches and living rooms and plunged almost overnight into a world of sniper fire, land mines, ambushes, rockets, buddies going home in body bags, explosions in the night, sleeplessness, and the confusion created by an enemy who was sometimes invisible firing, and sometimes right next to you smiling?

If innocence died, it was replaced by almost nothing. The magnetic north of our moral compass had been ripped from the heavens. We had been raised to cherish human life, and then taught to exterminate, based on a differentiation among Vietnamese that our senses could not comprehend, and that we too often felt we could not apply and still stay alive.


We did not find Hitler among the enemy; we did not see Roosevelt among those we had been sent to protect.

But, despite that confusing moral backdrop, we tried to make sense of our mission, to do the job we were sent to do.

We returned home to an America that was indifferent, even hostile. There were no parades, only nightmares. Veterans were spat upon, called baby-killers, our uniforms themselves targeted us for ridicule from those who could never understand our pain. The war stories we had did not uplift, but rather repelled. For many vets, it was simply impossible to explain, so silence became the only option.

Most deadening was our realization that the anguish we felt about the Vietnamese was not shared by any part of the American political spectrum; certainly not by the White House or Pentagon; and certainly not by extremists who saw the My Lai massacre as a political opportunity and the Tet Offensive as a debating point for the vindication of views.

We veterans found, when we returned, that America thought the war was all about America - when we had thought it was about Vietnam. This seemed a betrayal, but in reality it could not have been any different. For us, the war was personal; we had lost our friends and many had watched brothers lose arms and legs; we had seen Vietnamese fight and curse, weep and die. Most Americans had not lived our experience, and could not fully understand - and we thought them lucky for that kind of ignorance.

The fissures created by Vietnam have long been stubbornly resistant to closure. Each step was its own drama as activists battled government secrecy and the willful amnesia of a society that did not want to remember.

Led by veterans and family members, advocates 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.

Slowly, the truth was understood. The faults in Vietnam were those of the war, not the warriors.

Year by year, our nation has moved to heal what was healable, but we have still not fully recognized the wounds that only God can mend.


Yeah, some boast about killing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Thanks for posting this -- I had never read this before
This part rang especially true:

Most deadening was our realization that the anguish we felt about the Vietnamese was not shared by any part of the American political spectrum; certainly not by the White House or Pentagon; and certainly not by extremists who saw the My Lai massacre as a political opportunity and the Tet Offensive as a debating point for the vindication of views.


I think that this is sadly true today about Iraq -- from BOTH sides. Many on the Left and Right are more interested in scoring political points than taking a moment to consider the continued suffering of the Iraqi people. I still remember my disdain for Armando on dailykos who posted how the insurgency continued to bomb after the January '05 Iraqi election -- an election that was a BIG DEAL for people there. He just gleefully posted that the attacks continued, and the election didn't mean a damned thing. Ultimately, the election led to the civil war because it shifted power to the Shi'ites, but the fact that those on the Left couldn't take ONE moment to acknowledge the feelings of the people there has stayed with me to this day. All this OUT NOW talk is also a showing of disdain for the Iraqis -- Kerry would never advocate that position because it would hurt Iraq and the region almost as much as the invasion itself. And yet, I continue to read this over and over again.

One final note -- has anyone read Amy Goodman's latest book? She talks of her triumphant grilling of Bob Kerrey at a press conference during this time period. She rubbed his nose in it, talking about how the Vietnamese were DEAD and they had no choice in the matter, and mocking his "anguish" like it was only because he was caught -- a lot of judgmentalism and without any mercy. I think we need to acknowledge this ugliness that resides on our side of the aisle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Excellent observation
Edited on Tue Feb-27-07 10:07 AM by TayTay
There are a lot of people who preach compassion by weeding out compassionate feelings. That is beyond awful. It is remarkable to see this in political discussions. At it's root, politics is about people and about human nature and the good and the bad sides of it. I sometimes think that the farther you go on the extremes, the less you can see the people and the less insight you actually have into the human condition. This is beyond sad. The left sometimes prizes being right above everything else. This is emotionally blind and sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. I was struck by the same paragraph you quoted
because I was a college student, thus in the middle of people nearly all (90+% - we voted on it at IU) against the war, it is very true. One thing I thank Kerry for is that he has made people like me move out of that group, who saw anything that made the war look bad as good for forces arguing for an end to war.

I didn't read Goodman's book, but heard a lot in the NYT etc about the treatment Kerrey got. He had just become President of New School, one of the most leftish colleges in the country. (My oldest was there in 2004 and for both the students ans professors, the voting choices were Kerry, random third party, and not voting for President.) In fact, the DailyKos poster may have read one of the lefty freepers saying Kerry said this - and in his mind, it morphed into his having heard it. I saw the review in Counterpunch of Tour of Duty - and it was one of the sickest things I ever saw, in that he came out with the view that Kerry had "no remorse" for what he had done.

The other point that rang true was that people in America thought it was all about America. This is what strikes me when most people - on either sides - other than Kerry and a very few others speak of Iraq. That was real clear in the NECN interview yesterday. It also shows again what was lost in 2004, this op-ed is a mature, forgiving, while still stating the truth version of his comments throughout 1971 and 1972. So much healing will be needed when this is over, could Hillary or Edwards even understand this? (Webb can't because he is still in denial on Vietnam. If he admits things happened in Iraq, but refuses to see they did in Vietnam - won't that lead him to say the fault is the Iraq vets eventually. But if he accepts the description - so similar to Kerry's descriptions of what the US soldiers face in Iraq, won't he have to admit that in the fog of war bad things happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ray of light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
26. very offensive post!
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/2/24/13123/3419/103#c103

Whoever he supports, I'm not! That is exactly the type of post that draws people away from supporting our causes or candidates!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Talk about stuck in 2003/2004
He is a victim of the Dean/Trippi conflation of the vote and the war. He also seems oblivious that in addressing events in late 2003, you have to play it like it as it lays. It was not pro-war to suggest that things had to be done smarter - it was realistic. We were at war - and that was fact.

As it was, in the debates, Bush hit Kerry with the charge he couldn't fight the war as he hadn't agreed with it and asked if like in 1971 he thought people were dying for a mistake. To get elected, the Democrat had to convince the country that he could lead the war better. If the war is going on in 2008, that will still be true, but at least the expectations are lower. As most Americans were happy that Saddam was caught and convinced it would make a difference, the Dean comment seemed to lack graciousness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. The diarist and this poster also
ignore the statements and the DNC video from 2006 lambasting Bush for not capturing bin Laden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. I responded and said that Dean chose "being right" over showing
grace. I still remember when Dean said that. Stupid, stupid, stupid. What a disaster he would have been had he won the nomination. Give the primary voters in Iowa and NH some credit for seeing him for what he was as a presidential candidate. As DNC chairman -- not too shabby -- but not as a presidential candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC