![]() |
01/09/09
|
|||||||||||||||
![]()
|
July 16,
2004 Ironic, isn’t it, that a man can change so very much in 30 years just by becoming well ensconced in the government apparatus? John Kerry knows full well that if he goes against the powers that be, who depend on wars for their wealth, he will not only not be elected president, but will not be reelected into the Senate. President Woodrow Wilson knew of this power cabal back in the early years of the previous century. He spoke of it in this manner. "Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's' views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above a whisper in condemnation of it." John Kerry knows how he got the Democratic nomination. He knows why he was chosen. He is not about to go against the cabal. The fact that we have two candidates for president who are both members of the "Skull and Bones" and are so similar in ideology is no accident. They put voice to their differences, but in reality they are the same. Bush says he is a conservative and does all things liberal. Kerry says that he can accomplish anything, just as long as we give him more of our money. Kerry is probably the only guy around who could possibly grow government faster than ole Dubya. Let us take a look at the Kerry of 1971, who saw war for empire in the proper perspective, and contrast that with the career politician he has become today. Speaking of Vietnam Veterans who had met in Detroit several months before, Kerry said: “…these were the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. …We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.... In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart. …we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from. We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong. We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum. We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals. Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese. Each day, to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam, someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country…and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; … the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything. An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end. We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? …….These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so when thirty years from now 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 where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning. * All we have to do to understand these words by a younger Kerry, is to just replace a few names in his speech of 33 years ago with the new players on the field in the debacle that is Iraq. Circumstances have not changed all that much. We are still torturing and killing innocents. We are still killing our own youth. We are still making those in the power cabal wealthy beyond imagination. Instead of the lies of the Gulf of Tonkin we now have the lies of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saddam’s connection to 9/11 and a “New Pearl Harbor.” When you read the above; ask yourself: What happened to John Kerry? The answer is: government and wealth. John, it is over 30 years later and now you are one of the leaders you mentioned when you asked those years ago, “We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? …….These are the commanders who have deserted their troops.” *This text, made available by the Sixties Project, is copyright (c) 1993 by the Author or by Viet Nam Generation, Inc., all rights reserved. This text may be used, printed, and archived in accordance with the Fair Use provisions of U.S. Copyright law. This text may not be archived, printed, or redistributed in any form for a fee, without the consent of the copyright holder. This notice must accompany any redistribution of the text. The Sixties Project, sponsored by Viet Nam Generation Inc. and the Institute of Advanced Technology in the Humanities at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, is a collective of humanities scholars working together on the Internet to use electronic resources to provide routes of collaboration and make available primary and secondary sources for researchers, students, teachers, writers and librarians interested in the 1960s.
|
The Constitution Is Not The Answer Watch Out Gun Owners: The Republicans Are Selling Us Out Again Who Profits From Insider Trading? There Aint No SouthIts Just North Of Mexico How The Hell Did These People Get In Our Army? Massive Gun Owner Sell Out Of Basic Rights Republican Presidents And War Crimes - Nothing New Here It Depends On Your Definition of "Support The Troops" We Are Not Even Fighting The War We MUST Win The Land of The Free and The Home of The Brave? Challenge to Focus on the Family Complete Archives for Michael Gaddy | |||||||||||||
|
Submit
Feedback
|
|
|||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |