Where is the Kerry of 1971?

[politicasista]

I was posting this here to see what were everyone's thoughts on this. I know fellow and DUers and people like Cornel West ask this question alot. Some think the Kerry of 71 would have never voted for the IWR and would have called for an immediate pullout and protested just like he did in Vietnam.

I know he has come out against the Iraq war, but people will still distort the truth that he "voted for the war."

Any thoughts? Hope I am not offending you guys.

[Mass]

1. He is here, but he is a Senator with the duties of a Senator

and is not in his 60s. So I think he is still there, but he has different responsibilities.

However, I dont really know this period well, so may be somebody can answer you better.

[JI7]

2. young John Kerry also volunteered for the Navy and to fight in Vietnam

and his protests in those days were not just anti war, but about getting better benefits for the soldiers returning from war.

his group not only worked on anti war activities but raised money for the soldiers to help them.

he is the same as he was then.

but as you say "people will still distort the truth".

[ray of light]

3. Heck, it' s called responsibility and diplomacy and recognition

that sometimes there is more than one correct response.

Things in your twenty's are black an white.

Things in your 60's are grey and you have this shield that you want to use to make things better for your grandkids etc...It's called diplomacy yet also protectionism.

Me...I'm totally different from the person I was in my twenties. I grew up. I have responsibilities. I have so many more people to worry about than just myself.

AND, I'm not a public servant who is just trying to do what is right for my constituents.

And additionally, after 9-11 people wanted to trust Bush and people were afraid about being wrong.

That's smart! I don't care...as I've posted elsewhere, I am one of the 80% who followed Bush and regret it. So anyone who wants to tell me I was wrong and so I suck can just grow up and recognise that I had my own reasons for believing Bush.

The fact is: 4 years later we know a heck of a lot more than we did before the IWR. We're not so close after 9-11. And they knew that 9-11 would make people decide it was better to trust the devil you know than a bunch of devils in Al Queda...

NExt, regarding election fraud: we still don't know all of it. We have more knowledge, but not enough. Was Kerry wrong? Sure the lefties wanted him on that hill singing the blues about election fraud instead of conceeding, but he had NO PROOF of FRAUD. Only of supression! And even one year later, we don't have the complete scoop to make a difference.

Whatever Kerry did in 1971 HE had PROOF! To me, that means he still is an idealist but he works on the notion of having proof.

[TayTay]

4. That is a trap and the wrong question.

The right question is where is the support behind the Gold Star Mothers and the returning vets who question this war and it's meaning? The power that John Kerry and the VVAW wielded was because they were directly affected by the war. Cindy Sheehan lost her son. She has the moral authority to question this war. OpTruth and Iraq Veterans Against the War and Military Families Speak Out are the ones who have to go to Washington and speak up.

The anti-war movement hasn't taken off in this country, not in any really unified way. The opposition to the war is almost personal. As long as it remains diffused like this, it is only exerting minimal pressure for change in DC. That has to change.

Paul Reickert from OpTruth refused to participate in the Sept Rally in DC. It's because he didn't want to be 'one more liberal cause' and get lost in the shuffle to free Mumia and save the environment and all that. (Which are worthy and important causes. But they all can't be plead at once. No one hears anything because of the mushy din.)

Where is the John Kerry of today? Look to the vets and ask that question. Kerry is a US Senator and can be one of the people who responds to an honest plea from the Vets and the families of Vets but he can't do what he did before. It's not 'his' war. The opposition to it is one of the 'felt needs' that Kerry correctly detailed earlier this year when he talked about the need for the citizens to begin to organize and take their issues directly to Congress. Where are the protest marches, led by veterans and families of vets who have the moral authority to challenge the nation to both tell the truth and change course. This is a democracy. This movement must come from the people and cannot be imposed from above.

One more thing; this idea that we need 'one big leader' to galvanize the country is offensive. This is a fundamentally anti democratic (big and small D) idea. The reason that we got into this war was because we vested too much power in one man and one political party. This system of government works best when the branches act as a check against each other and that requires opposition and a power that is diffused across the branches. Having 'one big leader' is a recipe for disaster.

[fedupinBushcountry]

10. TayTay

you are exactly right. I hate that question, it just irritates me. The world has changed so much, since 1971, and the good thing is that JK has changed with it. He still has that 27 year old in him, and if he were one of those troops today he would do the same thing he did then. His love and caring of his brothers in arms has never wavered.

[Dr Ron]

5. But he didn't vote for the war

Forget the IWR vote. It was a political trap which Kerry tried to handle. Maybe he handled it incorrectly, but that doesn't mean he voted for the war.

Look at Kerry's Senate Floor statement. Look at Kerry's op-ed in the NY Times around the time of the vote. Look at Kerry's Georgetown speech before the war. Look at Kerry's statement calling for regime change in the United States in protest over going to war.

That's the John Kerry of 1971--except that he's grown up and in the United States Senate. Anyone who expects he to still act exactly as he did in 1971 has some growing up of their own to do.

[TayTay]

6. But the power of that earlier movement

was that it was the vet's themselves speaking out and acting independently of either political party. These folks took it upon themselves to demand changes in DC. And Sens. like Fulbright and others were able to respond.

The question is a trap as well. It fundamentally misunderstand both the history of what happened in VN and what is going on now.

[beachmom]

8. I was talking to a retired military person tonight who was passing

on stories. Stories from soldiers who have been in Iraq. They went into a town, took the town, and then Washington said "no, pull back" so they pulled back and then two weeks later they were told, "No, go back in", and then they had to go throught it all over again. These soldiers need to come forward. Like Tay Tay said, this is not John Kerry's war. He didn't fight in it, but there are voices that need to be heard. Unfortunately, it appears that Cindy Sheehan has been completely smeared and marginalized. Part of it may have been her own miscalculations, but whatever the reason, we need more soldiers and military families to step forward. Senator Kerry is willing and able to listen. But THEY need to come forward and tell their stories just like he told his in 1971. That's what he was talking about when he talked about "citizen". He's saying that he alone can't do it. He needs citizen soldiers and families to come forward.

[TayTay]

9. It's like the attention that Cong. Murtha got

Why did he cause an uproar? Because he was a military guy who is known to be in close touch with the guys on the ground in Iraq. Murtha was not someone who played the role of 'dove.' He is, and remains, a hawk. Because he went against type, he was heard and caused a great deal of trouble to the White House and the necons who still strongly back this war.

What is John Kerry to do? Strongly come out against the war? Been there, done that, still working on it. But someone else has to apply outside political pressure, not on John Kerry, but on the Rethugs in Congress who have a death-grip on power and are determined to not investigate anything or change anything about this war. (They are going for the minimum amount of change they can get away with in front of the media. And the media is still not confronting this war and it's awful consequences.)

We need that 'in-your-face' confrontation by people who are speaking about this and only this to those in power. The reason that 1971 protest was so successful was because it was a 'bottom-up' thing and because it was single-minded in it's objective. You simply could not ignore these guys or marginalize them. They were the troops, they had the moral authority to command attention. This is what we need now.

[wisteria]

7. The Kerry of 1971 has grown older and wiser.

He signed up for duty in VN to defend his country and promote freedom. He understands that unfortunately, not all men can be reasoned with and not all men are good. Sometimes it is necessary to use force as hard of a decision as it may be.
I wrote a letter to the editor recently,where I provided an answer to the question of how could the Dems vote for the IWR. I suggested that many Democrats voted for the war because they were concerned about the security of this country and its citizens.A love of your country and the desire to protect it at all costs would seem to me to weigh heavily on any decision to decide to strike out or not. I do not think any of the Dems who voted for the IWR deserve our scorn. There first thoughts were to protect what they were sworn to protect and what they truly loved, imagine if it had turned out that Bush was correct and we did nothing? Leaders are suppose to lead and cannot always do what is popular. As a mother, I wouldn't hesitate to do whatever was necessary to protect my children, that would include using force if necessary.

[blm]

11. Cornel doesn't like the Kerry who uncovered IranContra, BCCI and illegal

wars in Central America and CIA drugrunning in the 80s and early 90s?

Cornel doesn't see any value in Kerry's 1997 book The New War that alerted this nation about the growing dangers of global terrorism and its funding by international financiers and institutions?

Sorry, but if Cornel approached me with that question, I'd think he was a shortsighted dumbass who missed about 30 years of SERIOUS HISTORY.

[ProSense]

13. Agree. Another esoteric question in the ridiculous series

Analyzing Kerry Because We Can: Part Whatever.

Where the hell were all these dogmatic defenders of the 1971 Kerry during the campaign?

They'd serve the world better, if they'd ask the question: What the hell is wrong with Bush?

[LittleClarkie]

12. He isn't at that point in this conflict yet

He's more like Kerry 69 or 70.

If the war continues, he'll get there eventually.

But I also think that he cringes a bit when he hears that kid talk. He thinks some of the word he used were ill-advised, though he knows the kid was speaking from his gut.