Re: Bin Laden Still On The Loose!

Avanti_Ken wrote:

>>
>> "Avanti_Ken" <KMatson-remove-@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:CXygd.27657$Mc.17288@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>> "John Slade" <hitman86@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:Uzygd.15221$6q2.11624@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>      I guess we all heard by now that Bin Laden is alive and
>>>> kicking. He just put out a video saying that neither Bush or Kerry
>>>> can protect us. This tape signals Bush's failure to live up to his
>>>> promise of catching Bin Laden. This is going to hurt Bush badly.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>> Nope John,
>>> We now know that OBL is still alive and that he would prefer Kerry
>>> as President since Bush has given him so much trouble.  Listen to
>>> what he said again -- Listen to his deputy talk about the "river of
>>> blood".  This will help Bush and clearly will switch the votes of
>>> some of our treasured ladys to become true "security mom's."
>>
>>      Kenny Boy. Aren't you the guy who bought everything the now
>> discredited Paul O'Neil and the Swift Vets said? They were proved to
>> be liars. Yet you kept spouting their lies. Now you expect us to
>> believe Bin Laden supports Kerry? Damn. Do you think Bin Laden would
>> even give a damn who the US President is. When Clinton was in office
>> they tried to kill Bin Laden and Bush ordered them to stop trying to
>> kill Bin Laden. That's why he's still on the lose.
>>
>> John
> ===========================
> Yep John I believe the Swift Vets, all 256 of them, and I am not
> aware of anything
> in the book "Unfit for Command" that has been refuted by the Kerry
> camp. Yes,
> there are a couple typos which were corrected in the second printing
> but nothing
> of significance.  On the contrary, Kerry's folks had to admit that he
> was never into
> Cambodia -- that the whole story was fiction, next, that when the
> mine went off, it
> was only Kerry's boat that turned and ran,  That is when he came back
> and picked
> up his gunner out of the water.  Kerry had also told Brinkley that
> there was heavy
> fire.  Problem was that the other four boats said that there was no
> fire from the banks,
> only their fire to the banks for a short time until the realized they
> were not under
> attack. Next, the Kerry camp said that the Dr. that treated him for
> his first arm
> wound was "not a real doctor and he didn't sign the treatment form."
> Oops, they
> found out quickly that yes, he was treated by a real Dr. and that his
> corpman signed
> the treatment form, as is SOP, and also applied the small gause
> bandage which was
> equal to a bandade.
>
> But enough of that.  What really bothered me about Kerry was his
> statements infront
> of the Senate Committee condemming all his fellow service men and the
> whole chain
> of command.  That may not have bothered you but I had been back from
> Nam about
> a year when he gave that untruthful testimony.  I considered him a
> traitor then and my
> opinion has not changed regarding him or Jane Fonda to this day.
>
> Now this past week, Kerry is condeming our officers and troops again
> for not guarding
> a supposed 380 tons of high explosive. To me he sounded just like
> 1971 all over again.
> Making accusations and charges without being fully knowledgeable of
> the facts.  Kerry
> just throws crap against the wall, just to see if it will stick.  This
> bothers me as it indicates
> to me that he is rather a immoral person, not at all concerned with
> the truth if he calculates
> that an un-truth will be to his advantage.
>
> While the story is not yet fully fleshed out, it appears that the
> quantity of high explosive
> was considerable less then 380 tons, (per IAEA records), that a
> considerable amount
> of the  dump's weapons were detonated or otherwise distroyed (in the
> range of 200
> tons worth ) by the 3rd ID, and that it is highly unlikely if not
> impossible that any weapons
> or explosives were taken  from the Al Qaqaa facility after the 3rd ID
> arrived April 4th
> followed up by the 101st Airborne April 10th and other units.  From
> what was said today
> by the 3rd ID Brigade Weapons Commander, is that they used a
> considerable amount
> of the on site C4, one of the items on the IAEA sealed bunker  list,
> to blow up other
> weapons and stockpiles at the site including small arms, RPG,
> mortars, all sorts of
> ammunition and the remaining intact missles not previously distroyed
> by coallition bombing.
> That was his orders and that is what his 3rd ID team did.
>
> Now on to Bin Ladin. Yes, Clinton lobbed a couple of crusie missles
> at OBL. That's it.
> Bush has never ordered anyone to stop trying to find and kill Bin
> Laden to my knowledge.
> In fact, we have more troops now in Afganistan than at any time
> during the conflict.  The
> is a crack Special Forces team that has been working the boarder area
> with Pakistan
> for the better part of three years up and tell the present.  That
> team, with the help of the
> Pakistan government and troops, have caught several Islamic
> Terrorists high up in the
> OBL organization but not, of course, OBL himself.  For you to say
> that Bush has ordered
> that OBL not be caught or captured is nuts.  He still had a 10 million
> dollar price tag
> om his head if you forgot.
>
> Yes, I do believe that if you study the 17 minute statement, not just
> one sentence, you will
> see that he would much prefer Kerry over Bush.  Kerry's position on
> Islamic Terrorism,
> until very recently, has been that he viewed Islamic Terrorism as a
> "Nuisance" best fought
> with "Intelligence, Police and Lawyers."  Kerry has said that he does
> not believe that it is
> a true "War" for survival.  I think that he is wrong.  I believe we
> are in a global struggle of
> Radical Islam idology and Dictatorship against Freedom of Religion and
> Democracy and
> that this struggle will continue for many many years.  Russia has just
> awakened to this fact.
> It took the murdering of hundreds of people in a Moscow Theater and
> now several hundred
> young school children and their relatives on the first day at school
> in Breslan for  Russia to finally
> wake up to this fact, (Breslan was Russias 9 / 11.)  Russia's
> position now is exactly the same
> as ours -- Premptive Strike if necessary, anywhere in the world.
>
> Yes, I believe it is quite clear from OBL's total statement, the he
> would prefer a weeker adversary
> and the he views Kerry to be exactly that considering the statements
> he has made throughout
> the primarys going forward, until very recently.
>
> You, of course may disagree. That is one of the nice things about a
> democratic, religous tolerant
> society like ours.  This is exactly the opposite of the type of
> society that OBL would like to see.
>
> By the way, all you folks that said OBL had nothing to do with 9 /11.
> You can put that to rest.
> He said that he ordered the attacks in the name of Islam and Allah.
>
> Avanti_Ken

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in Room 4221, New
Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (Chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Fulbright, Symington, Pell, Aiken, Case and Javits

The Chairman: The committee will come to order.

Opening Statement

The committee is continuing this morning its hearing on proposals relating
to the ending of the war in Southeast Asia. This morning the committee
will
hear testimony from Mr. John Kerry and, if he has any associates, we will
be
glad to hear from them. These are men who have fought in this unfortunate
war in Vietnam. I believe they deserve to be heard and listened to by the
Congress and by the officials in the executive branch and by the public
generally. You have a perspective that those in the Government who make
our
Nation's policy do no always have and I am sure that your testimony today
will be helpful to the committee in its consideration of the proposals
before us.

I would like to add simply on my own account that I regret very much the
action of the Supreme Court in denying the veterans the right to use the
Mall. (Applause)
I regret that. It seems to me to be but another instance of an
insensitivity
of our Government to the tragic effects of this war upon our people.

I want also to congratulate Mr. Kerry, you, and your associates upon the
restraint that you have shown, certainly in the hearing the other day when
there were a great many of your people here. I think you conducted
yourselves in a most commendable manner throughout this week. Whenever
people gather there is always a tendency for some of the more emotional
ones
to do things which are even against their own interests. I think you
deserve
much of the credit because I understand you are one of the leaders of this
group.

I have joined with some of my colleagues, specifically Senator Hart, in an
effort to try to change the attitude of our Government toward your efforts
in bringing to this committee and to the country your views about the war.

I personally don't know of any group which would have both a greater
justification for doing it and also a more accurate view of the effect of
the war. As you know, there has grown up in this town a feeling that it is
extremely difficult to get accurate information about the war and I don't
know a better source than you and your associates. So we are very please
to
have you and your associate, Mr. Kerry

At the beginning if you would give to the reporter your full name and a
brief biography so that the record will show who you are.

Senator Javits:

Mr. Chairman, I was down there to the veterans' camp yesterday and saw the
New York group and I would like to say I am very proud of the deportment
and
general attitude of the group.

I hope it continues. I have joined in the Hart resolution, too. As a
lawyer
I hope you will find it possible to comply with the order even though,
like
the chairman, I am unhappy about it. I think it is our job to see that you
are suitably set up as an alternative so that you can do what you came
here
to do. I welcome the fact that you came and what you are doing.
(Applause.)

The Chairman: You may proceed, Mr. Kerry

Statement of John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War

Mr. Kerry: Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator
Symington, Senator Pell. I would like to say for the record, and also for
the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that
my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here
as one member of the group of veterans in this country, and were it
possible
for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same
kind of testimony.

I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my
statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would
hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the
night
and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.


Winter soldier Investigation
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that
several
months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably
discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes
committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed
on
a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of
command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit,
the
emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their
experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of
what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears,
cut
off heads, tape 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 Genghis Khan, shot cattle and
dogs
for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side 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 call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term
"Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke
of
the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge
because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have
to be winter soldiers now. 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, the fact that the
crimes
threaten it, no reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are
committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.


Feelings of Men Coming Back from Vietnam

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the
feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The
country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in
the
form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in
violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in
history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of
betrayal
which no one has yet grasped.
As a veteran and one who feels this anger, I would like to talk about it.
We
are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the
administration of this country.

In 1970 at West Point, Vice President Agnew said "some glamorize the
criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies
to
preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse" and this was used
as
a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam.

But for us, as boys in Asia, whom the country was supposed to support, his
statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep
sense of revulsion. Hence the anger of some of the men who are here in
Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider
ourselves
the best men of this country, because those he calls misfits were standing
up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dated to, because so
many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits
in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam,
because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and
amputees, and they lie forgotten in Veterans' Administration hospitals in
this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own
personal symbol. And we can not consider ourselves America's best men when
we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast
Asia.

In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South
Vietnam,
nothing 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 use the height of criminal
hypocrisy,
and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country
apart.

We are probably much more angry than that and I don't want to go into the
foreign policy aspects because I am outclassed here. I know that all of
you
talk about every possible alternative of getting out of Vietnam. We
understand that. We know you have considered the seriousness of the
aspects
to the utmost level and I am not going to try to dwell on that, but I want
to relate to you the feeling that many of the men who have returned to
this
country express because we are probably angriest about all that we were
told
about Vietnam and about the mystical war against communism.


What Was Found and Learned in Vietnam

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had
for
years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence
whatsoever,
but also 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 Vietcong, North
Vietnamese, or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice
paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how money
from American taxes was used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that
many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by
our
flag, as blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw
Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy
missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this
country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Vietcong.

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.

We watched the U.S. falsification of body counts, in fact the
glorification
of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back
of
the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental
human beings," with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons
against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of
using were we fighting in the European theater or let us say a
non-third-world people theater, and so we watched while men charged up
hills
because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one
platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the high for the
reoccupation by the North Vietnamese because we watched pride allow the
most
unimportant of battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't
lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many
American bodies were lost to prove that point. And so there were Hamburger
Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 881's and Fire Base 6's and so many others.

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- (Applause)

The Chairman: I hope you won't interrupt. He is making a very significant
statement. Let him proceed.

Mr. Kerry: 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. Someone has to
dies
so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first
President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man
to
be the last man to dies in Vietnam? How do ask a man to be the last man to
die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with
thousands of rationalizations, and if you read carefully the President's
last speech to the people of this country, you can see that he says, and
says clearly:
But the issue, gentlemen, the issue is communism, and the question is
whether or not we will leave that country to the communists or whether or
not we will try to give it hope to be a free people.
But the point is they are not a free people now under us. They are not a
free people, and we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think
we should have learned that lesson by now.


Returning Veterans Are Not Really Wanted

But the problem of veterans goes beyond this personal problem, because you
think about a poster in this country with a picture of Uncle Sam and the
picture says "I want you." And a young man comes out of high school and
says, "That is fine. I am going to serve my country." And he goes to
Vietnam
and he shoots and he kills and he does his job or maybe he doesn't kill,
maybe he just goes and he comes back, and when he gets back to this
country
he finds that he isn't really wanted, because the largest unemployment
figure in the country- it varies depending on who you get it from, the VA
Administration 15 percent, various other sources 22 percent. But the
largest
corps of unemployed in this country are veterans of this war, and of those
veterans 33 percent of the unemployed are black. That means 1 out of every
10 of the Nation's unemployed is a veteran of Vietnam.
The hospitals across the country won't, or can't meet their demands. It is
not a question of not trying. They don't have the appropriations. A man
recently died after he had a tracheotomy in California, not because of the
operation but because there weren't enough personnel to clean the mucous
out
of his tube and he suffocated to death.

Another young man just died in a New York VA hospital the other day. A
friend of mine was lying in a bed two beds away and tried to help him, but
he couldn't. He rang a bell and there was nobody there to service that man
and so he died of convulsions.

I understand 57 percent of all those entering the VA hospitals talk about
suicide. Some 27 percent have tried, and they try because they come back
to
this country and they have to face what they did in Vietnam, and then they
come back and find the indifference of a country that doesn't really care,
that doesn't really care.


Lack of Moral Indignation in United States

Suddenly we are faced with a very sickening situation in this country,
because there is no moral indignation and, if there is, it comes from
people
who are almost exhausted by their past indignations, and I know that may
of
them are sitting in front of me. The country seems to have lain down and
shrugged off something as serious as Laos, just as we calmly shrugged off
the loss of 700,000 lives in Pakistan, the so-called greatest disaster of
all times.
But we are here as veterans to say we think we are in the midst of the
greatest disaster of all times now because they are still dying over
there,
and not just Americans, Vietnamese, and we are rationalizing leaving that
country so that those people can go on killing each other for years to
come.

Americans seems to have accepted the idea that the war is winding down, at
least for Americans, and they have also allowed the bodies which were once
used by a President for statistics to prove that we were winning that war,
to be used as evidence against a man who followed orders and who
interpreted
those orders no differently than hundreds of other men in Vietnam.

We veterans can only look with amazement on the fact that this country has
been unable to see there is absolutely no difference between ground troops
and a helicopter crew, and yet people have accepted a differentiation fed
them by the administration.

No ground troops are in Laos, so it is all right to kill Laotians by
remote
control. But believe me the helicopter crews fill the same body bags and
they wreak the same kind of damage on the Vietnamese and Laotian
countryside
as anybody else, and the President is talking about allowing that to go on
for many years to come. One can only ask if we will really be satisfied
only
when the troops march into Hanoi.


Request for Action by Congress

We are asking here in Washington for some action, action from the Congress
of the United States of America which has the power to raise and maintain
armies, and which by the Constitution also has the power to declare war.
We have come here, not to the President, because we believe that this body
can be responsive to the will of the people, and we believe that the will
of
the people says that we should be out of Vietnam now.


Extent of Problem of Vietnam War

We are here in Washington also 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,
the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many
other
questions also, the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in
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, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction
fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners,
the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
That is what we are trying to say. It is party and parcel of everything.
An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation al
Alcataz
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.


Where is the Leadership?

We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the
leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where
are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric and so many others. Where are they
now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are
commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious
crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded.
The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all
the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude.
They
have left the real stuff of their reputation bleaching behind them in the
sun in this country.


Administration's Attempt to Disown Veterans

Finally, this administration has done us the ultimate dishonor. They have
attempted to disown us and the sacrifice we made for this country. In
their
blindness and fear they have tried to deny that we are veterans or that we
served in Nam. We do not need their testimony. Our own scars and stumps of
limbs are witnesses enough for others and for ourselves.
We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that
service
as easily as this administration has wiped 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 barbarous war, to pacify
our
own hearts, to conquer the hate and the fear that have driven this country
these last 10 years and more and so when, in 30 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 the pace where America finally
turned
and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

Thank you. (Applause.)

The Chairman: Mr. Kerry, it is quite evident from that demonstration that
you are speaking not only for yourself but for all your associates, as you
properly said in the beginning.

You said you wished to communicate. I can't imagine anyone communicating
more eloquently than you did. I think it is extremely helpful and
beneficial
to the committee and the country to have you make such a statement.

You said you had been awake all night. I can see that you spent that time
very well indeed. (Laughter)

Perhaps that was the better part, better that you should be awake than
otherwise.


Proposals Before Committee

You have said that the question before this committee and the Congress is
really how to end the war. The resolutions about which we have been
hearing
testimony during the past several days, the sponsors of which are some
members of this committee, are seeking the most practical way that we can
find and, I believe, to do it at the earliest opportunity that we can.
That
is the purpose of these hearing and that is why you were brought here.
You have been very eloquent about the reasons why we should proceed as
quickly as possible. Are you familiar with some of the proposals before
this
committee?

Mr. Kerry: Yes, I am, Senator.

The Chairman: Do you support or do you have any particular views about any
one of them you wish to give the committee?

Mr. Kerry: My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't
mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will,
in
fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and
unilaterally
and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the
date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to
say,
in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any
longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the
peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the
Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's
points
it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance
Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other
officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for
withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.

I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we
have
to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the
return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that.

As to the argument concerning the danger to our troops were we to withdraw
or state that we would, they have also said many times in conjunction with
that statement that all of our troops, the moment we set a date, will be
given safe conduct out of Vietnam. The only other important point is that
we
allow the South Vietnamese people to determine their own figure and that
ostensibly is what we have been fighting for anyway.

I would, therefore, submit that the most expedient means of getting out of
South Vietnam would be for the President of the United States to declare a
cease-fire, to stop this blind commitment to a dictatorial regime, the
Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime, accept a coalition regime which would represent all
the political forces of the country which is in fact what a representative
government is supposed to do and which is in fact what this Government
here
in this country purports to do, and pull the troops out without losing one
more American, and still further without losing the South Vietnamese.


Desire to Disengage From Vietnam

The Chairman: You seem to feel that there is still some doubt about the
desire to disengage. I don't believe that is true. I believe there has
been
a tremendous change in the attitude of the people. As reflected in the
Congress, they do wish to disengage and to bring the war to an end as soon
as we can.

Question is How to Disengage

The question before us is how to do it. What is the best means that is
most
effective, taking into consideration the circumstances with which all
governments are burdened? We have a precedent in this same country. The
French had an experience, perhaps not traumatic as ours has been, but
nevertheless they did make up their minds in the spring of 1954 and within
a
few weeks did bring it to a close. Some of us have thought that this is a
precedent, from which we could learn, for ending such a war. I have
personally advocated that this is the best procedure. It is a traditional
rather classic procedure of how to end a war that could be called a
stalemate, that neither side apparently has the capacity to end by
military
victory, and which apparently is going to go on for a long time. Speaking
only for myself, this seems the more reasonable procedure.
I realize you want it immediately, but I think that procedure was about as
immediate as any by which a country has ever succeeded in ending such a
conflict or a similar conflict. Would that not appeal to you?

Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, frankly it does not appeal to me if American men
have to continue to die when they don't have to, particularly when it
seems
the Government of this country is more concerned with the legality of
where
men sleep than it is with the legality of where they drop bombs.
(Applause.)

The Chairman: In the case of the French when they made up their mind to
take
the matter up at the conference in Geneva, they did. The first thing they
did was to arrange a cease-fire and the killing did cease. Then it took
only, I think, two or three weeks to tidy up all the details regarding the
withdrawal. Actually when they made up their mind to stop the war, they
did
have a cease-fire which is what you are recommending as the first step.

Mr. Kerry: Yes sir; that is correct.

The Chairman: It did not drag on. They didn't continue to fight. They
stopped the fighting by agreement when they went to Geneva and all the
countries then directly involved participated in that agreement.

I don't wish to press you on the details. It is for the committee to
determine the best means, but you have given most eloquently the reasons
why
we should proceed as early as we can. That is, of course, the purpose of
the
hearing.

Mr. Kerry: Senator, if I may interject, I think that what we are trying to
say is we do have a method. We believe we do have a plan, and that plan is
that if this body were by some means either to permit a special referendum
in this country so that the country itself might decide and therefore
avoid
this recrimination which people constantly refer to or if they couldn't do
that, at least do it through immediate legislation which would state there
would be an immediate cease-fire and we would be willing to undertake
negotiations for a coalition government. But at the present moment that is
not going to happen, so we are talking about men continuing to die for
nothing and I think there is a tremendous moral question here which the
Congress of the United States is ignoring.

The Chairman: The congress cannot directly under our system negotiate a
cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system we
can
advice the President. We have to persuade the President of the urgency of
taking this action. Now we have certain ways in which to proceed. We can,
of
course, express ourselves in a resolution or we can pass an act which
directly affects appropriations which is the most concrete positive way
the
Congress can express itself.

But Congress has no capacity under our system to go out and negotiate a
cease-fire. We have to persuade the Executive to do this for the country.


Extraordinary Response Demanded by Extraordinary Question
Mr. Kerry: Mr. Chairman, I realize that full well as a study of political
science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties and I realize that
even
my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator McCarthy and
others,
in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et
cetera. I understand these things. But what I am saying is that I believe
that there is a mood in this country which I know you are aware of and you
have been one of the strongest critics of this war for the longest time.
But
I think if can talk in this legislative body about filibustering for
porkbarrell programs, then we should start now to talk about filibustering
for the saving of lives and of our country. (Applause.)

And this, Mr. Chairman, is what we are trying to convey.

I understand. I really am aware that there are a tremendous number of
difficulties in trying to persuade the Executive to move at this time. I
believe they are committed. I don't believe we can. But I hope that we are
not going to have to wait until 1972 to have this decision made. And what
I
am suggesting is that I think this is an extraordinary enough question so
that it demands an extraordinary response, and if we can't respond
extraordinarily to this problem then I doubt very seriously as men on each
that we will be able to respond to the other serious question which face
us.
I think we have to start to consider that. This is what I am trying to
say.

If this body could perhaps call for a referendum in the country or if we
could perhaps move now for a vote in 3 weeks, I think the people of this
country would rise up and back that. I am not saying a vote nationwide. I
am
talking about a vote here in Congress to cut off the funds, and a vote to
perhaps pass a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to rule on the
constitutionality of the war and to do the things that uphold those things
which we pretend to be. That is what we are asking. I don't think we can
turn our back on that any longer, Senator.

The Chairman: Senator Symington?


Witness Service Decorations
Senator Symington: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kerry, please move your microphone. You have a Silver Star; have you
not?

Mr. Kerry: Yes, I do.

Senator Symington: And a Purple Heart?

Mr. Kerry: Yes, I do.

Senator Symington: How many clusters?

Mr. Kerry: Two clusters.

Senator Symington: So you have been wounded three times.

Mr. Kerry: Yes, sir.

Senator Symington: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Senator Aiken. (Applause.)

North Vietnamese and VC Attitude Toward Definite Withdrawal Date

Senator Aiken: Mr. Kerry, the Defense Department seems to feel that if we
set a definite date for withdrawal when our forces get down to a certain
level, they would be seriously in danger by the North Vietnamese and the
Vietcong. Do you believe that the North Vietnamese would undertake to
prevent our withdrawal from the country and attack the troops that remain
there?

Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, if I may answer you directly, I believe we are
running that danger with the present course of withdrawal because the
President has neglected to state to this country exactly what his response
will be when we have reached the point that we do have, let us say, 50,000
support troops in Vietnam.

Senator Aiken: I am not telling you what I think. I am telling what the
Department says.

Mr. Kerry: Yes, sir; I understand that.

Senator Aiken: Do you believe the North Vietnamese would seriously
undertake
to impede our complete withdrawal?

Mr. Kerry: No, I do not believe that the North Vietnamese would and it has
been clearly indicated at the Paris peace talks they would not.

Senator Aiken: Do you think they might help carry the bags for us?
(Laughter)

Mr. Kerry: I would say they would be more prone to do that then the Army
of
the South Vietnamese. (Laughter) (Applause)

Senator Aiken: I think your answer is ahead of my question. (Laughter)

Saigon Government's Attitude Toward Complete Withdrawal Date

I was going to ask you next what the attitude of the Saigon government
would
be if we announced that we were going to withdraw our troops, say, by
October 1st, and be completely out of there-air, sea, land- leaving them
on
their own. What do you think would be the attitude of the Saigon
government
under those circumstances?

Mr. Kerry: Well, I think if we were to replace the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime
and
offer these men sanctuary somewhere, which I think this Government has an
obligation to do since we created that government and supported it all
along. I think there would not be any problems. The number two man at the
Saigon talks to Ambassador Lam was asked by the Concerned Laymen, who
visited with them in Paris last month, how long they felt they could
survive
if the United States would pull out and his answer was 1 week. So I think
clearly we do have to face his question. But I think, having done what we
have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the
perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we
understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But
my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country-


Attitude of South Vietnamese Army and People Toward Withdrawal
Senator Aiken: I think your 3,000 estimate might be a little low because
we
had to help 800,000 find sanctuary from North Vietnam after the French
lost
at Dienbienphu. But assuming that we resettle the members of the Saigon
government, who would undoubtedly be in danger, in some other area, what
do
you think would be the attitude, of the large, well-armed South Vienamese
army and the South Vietnamese people? Would they be happy to have us
withdraw or what?

Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, this obviously is the most difficult question of
all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a
position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army
in our withdrawal. We have to consider the happiness of the people as
pertains to the life which they will be able to lead in the next few
years.

If we don't withdraw, if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South
Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic combing raids from
Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound
fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what
you
will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually
at
warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will
not
have any kind of representation.

The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some
recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered
by
the United States of America, and we can't go around- President Kennedy
said
this, many times. He said that the United States simply can't right every
wrong, that we can't solve the problems of the other 94 percent of
mankind.
We didn't go into East Pakistan; we didn't go into Czechoslovakia. Why
then
should we feel that we now have the power to solve the internal political
struggles of this country?

We have to let them solve their problems while we solve ours and help
other
people in an altruistic fashion commensurate with our capacity. But we
have
extended that capacity; we have exhausted that capacity, Senator. So I
think
the question is really moot.

Senator Aiken: I might say I asked those questions several years ago,
rather
ineffectively. But what I would like to know now is if we, as we complete
our withdrawal and, say, get down to 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or even 50,000
troops there, would there be any effort on the part of the South
Vietnamese
government of the South Vietnamese army, in your opinion, to impede their
withdrawal?

Mr. Kerry: No; I don't think so, Senator.

Senator Aiken: I don't see why North Vietnam should object.

Mr. Kerry: I don't for the simple reason, I used to talk with officers
about
their- we asked them, and one officer took great pleasure in playing with
me
in the sense that he would say, "Well, you know you American, you come
over
here for 1 year and you can afford, you know, you go to Hong Kong for R. &
R. and if you are a good boy you get another R. & R. or something you
know.
You can afford to charge bunkers, but I have to try and be here for 30
years
and stay alive." And I think that that really is the governing principle
by
which those people are now living and have been allowed to live because of
our mistake. So that when we in fact state, let us say, that we will have
a
cease-fire or have a coalition government, most of the 2 million men you
often hear quoted under arms, most of whom are regional popular
reconnaissance forces, which is to say militia, and a very poor militia at
that, will simply lay down their arms, if they haven't done so already,
and
not fight. And I think you will find they will respond to whatever
government evolves which answer their needs, and those needs quite simply
are to be fed, to bury their dead in plots where their ancestors lived, to
be allowed to extend their culture, to try and exist as human beings. And
I
think that is what will happen.

I can cite many, many instances, sir, as in combat when these men refused
to
fight with us, when they shot with their guns over tin this area like this
and their heads turned facing the other way. When we were taken under fire
we Americans, supposedly fighting with them, and pinned down in a ditch,
and
I was in the Navy and this was pretty unconventional, but when we were
pinned down in a ditch recovering bodies or something and they refused to
come in and help us, point blank refused. I don't believe they want to
fight, sir.


Obligation to Furnish Economic Assistance
Senator Aiken: Do you think we are under obligation to furnish them with
extensive economic assistance?

Mr. Kerry: Yes, sir. I think we have a very definite obligation to make
extensive reparations to the people of Indochina.

Senator Aiken: I think that is all.

The Chairman: Senator Pell.

Senator Pell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the witness knows, I have a very high personal regard for him and hope
before his life ends he will be a colleague of ours in this body.


Growth of Opposition to War

This war was really just as wrong, immoral, and unrelated to our national
interests 5 years ago as it is today, and I must say I agree with you. I
think it is rather poor taste for the architects of this war to now be
sitting as they are in quite sacrosanct intellectual glass houses.
I think that this committee, and particularly Chairman Fulbright, deserve
a
huge debt of gratitude from you and everyone of your men who are here
because when he conducted hearings some years ago when we were fighting in
Vietnam. At that time the word "peace" was a dirty word. It was tied in
with
"appeasement" and Nervous Nellies and that sort of thing. Chairman
Fulbright
and this committee really took public opinion at that time and turned it
around and made "peace" a respectable word and produced the climate that
produced President Johnson's abdication.

The problem is that the majority of the people in the Congress still don't
agree with the view that you and we have. As the chairman pointed out, and
as you know as a student of political science, whenever we wanted to end
this war, we could have ended this war if the majority of us had used the
power of the purse strings. That was just as true 5 years ago as it is
today.

I don't think it is a question of guts. We didn't have the desire to do
that
and I am not sure the majority has the desire to do that yet. Whenever we
want to as a Congress, we could do it. We can't start an action, but we
can
force an action with the purse strings.

I think it is wonderful you veterans have come down here as a cutting edge
of public opinion because you again make this have more respect and I hope
you succeed and prevail on the majority of the Congress.


Voting of Veterans and Nonveterans Concerning Vietnam War

It is interesting, speaking of veterans and speaking of statistics, that
the
press has never picked up and concentrated on quite interesting votes in
the
past. In those votes you find the majority of hawks were usually
nonveterans
and the majority of doves were usually veterans. Specifically, of those
who
voted in favor of the Hatfield-McGovern end-the-war amendment in the last
session of the Congress 79 were veterans with actual military service. Of
those voting against the amendment, only 36 percent were veterans.
Now on the sponsors of the Cooper-Church amendment you will find very much
the same statistics. Eighty-two percent were veterans as compared to 71
percent of the Senate as a whole being veterans. So I would hope what you
are doing will have an effect on the Congress.


Obligation to South Vietnamese Allies
I have two questions I would like to ask you. First, I was very much
struck
by your concern with asylum because now I see public opinion starting to
swing and Congress passing legislation. Before they wouldn't get out at
all;
now they are talking about getting out yesterday. When it comes to looking
after the people who would be killed if we left or badly ruined, I would
hope you would develop your thinking a little bit to make sure that
American
public opinion, which now wants to get out, also bears in mind that when
we
depart we have an obligation to these people. I hope you will keep to that
point.

Finally, in connection with Lieutenant Calley, which is a very emotional
issue in this country, I was struck by your passing reference to that
incident.

Wouldn't you agree with me though that what he did in herding old men,
women
and children into a trench and then shooting them was a little bit beyond
the perimeter of even what has been going on in this war and that that
action should be discouraged. There are other actions not that extreme
that
have gone on and have been permitted. If we had not taken action or
cognizance of it, it would have been even worse. It would have indicated
we
encouraged this kind of action.

Mr. Kerry: My feeling, Senator, on Lieutenant Calley is what he did quite
obviously was a horrible, horrible, horrible thing and I have no bone to
pick with the fact that he was prosecuted. But I think that in this
question
you have to separate guilt from responsibility, and I think clearly the
responsibility for what has happened there lies elsewhere.

I think it lies with the men who designed free fire zones. I think it lies
with the men who encourage body counts. I think it lies in large part with
this country, which allows a young child before he reaches the age of 14
to
see 12,500 deaths on television, which glorifies the John Wayne syndrome,
which puts out fighting man comic books on the stands, which allows us in
training to do calisthenics to four counts, on the fourth count of which
we
stand up and shout "kill" in unison, which has posters in barracks in this
country with a crucified Vietnamese, blood on him, and underneath it says
"kill the gook," and I think that clearly the responsibility for all of
this
is what has produced this horrible aberration.

Now, I think if you are going to try Lieutenant Calley then you must at
the
same time, if this country is going to demand respect for the law, you
must
at the same time try all those other people who have responsibility, and
any
aversion that we may have to the verdict as veterans is not to say that
Calley should be freed, not to say that he is innocent, but to say that
you
can't just take him alone, and that would be my response to that.

Senator Pell: I agree with you. The guilt is shared by many, many, many of
us, including the leaders of the get-out-now school. But in this regard if
we had not tried him, I think we would be much more criticized and should
be
criticized. I would think the same fate would probably befall him as
befell
either Sergeant or Lieutenant Schwarz of West Virginia who was tried for
life for the same offense and is out on a 9 months commuted sentence. By
the
same token I would hope the quality of mercy would be exercised in this
regard for a young man who was not equipped for the job and ran amuck. But
I
think public opinion should think this through. We who have taken this
position find ourselves very much in the minority.

Mr. Kerry: I understand that, Senator, but I think it is a very difficult
thing for the public to think through faced with the facts. The fact that
18
other people indicted for the very same crime were freed and the fact
among
those were general and colonels. I mean this simply is not justice. That
is
all. It is just not justice.

Senator Pell: I guess it is the old revolutionary adage. When you see the
white of their eyes you are more guilty. This seems to be our morality as
has been pointed out. If you drop a bomb from a plane, you don't see the
white of their eyes.

I agree with you and with the body count. It is like a Scottish nobleman
saying, "How many grouse were caught on the moor." Four or five years ago
those of us who criticized were more criticized.

Thank you for being here and I wish you all success. (Applause)

The Chairman: Senator from New Jersey.

Senator Case: Thank you, Mr. Chairman


Strategic Implication of Vietnam War

Mr. Kerry, thank you too for coming. You have made more than clear
something
that I think always has been true: that the war never had any
justification
in terms of Indochina itself. I wish you would take this question a little
further and touch on the larger strategic implications. It is in these
larger strategic implications, if anywhere, that may be found
justification
for our involvement. As you know, the President said the other day that it
is easy to get out and to end the war immediately.
The question is to get out and leave a reasonable chance for lasting
peace.
We have to look at this because the American people are going to see the
issue in the terms he has defined it. I would be glad to have your comment
on this matter, although I won't press you to discus it because in a sense
you have already said this is not your area.

Mr. Kerry: I do want to. I want to very much.

Senator Case: And I would be very glad to have you do it.

Mr. Kerry: Thank you, sir. I would like to very much.

In my opinion, what we are trying to do, as the President talks about
getting out with a semblance of honor is simply whitewashing ourselves. On
the question of getting out with some semblance for peace, as a man who
has
fought there, I am trying to say that this policy has no chance for peace.
You don't have a chance for peace when you arm the people of another
country
and tell them they can fight a war. That is even criminal in the sense
that
their country, if we are really worried about recrimination, is going to
have to someday face up to the fact that we convinced a certain number of
people, perhaps hundred of thousands, perhaps there will be several
million,
that they could stand up to something which they couldn't and ultimately
will face the recrimination of the fact that their lives in addition to
all
the lives at this point, will be on our conscience. I don't think it is a
question of peace at all. What we are doing is very, very, hypocritical in
our withdrawal, and we really should face up to that.

Senator Case: May I press you just a little further or at least raise the
question on which I would ask you to comment.

Mr. Kerry: I wish you would, please.

Senator Case: I think your answer was related still to the question of
Indochina, but I think the President has tried to tie in Indochina with
the
question of world peace.

Mr. Kerry: I would like to discuss that.

It is my opinion that the United States is still reacting in very much the
1945 mood and postwar cold-war period when we reacted to the forces which
were at work in World War II and came out of it with this paranoia about
the
Russians and how the world was going to be divided up between the super
powers, and the foreign policy of John Foster Dulles which was responsible
for the creation of the SEATO treaty, which was, in fact, a direct
reaction
to this so-called Communist monolith. And I think we are reacting under
cold-war precepts which are no longer applicable.

I say that because so long as we have the kind of strike force we have,
and
I am not party to the secret statistics which you gentlemen have here, but
as long as we have the ones which we of the public know we have, I think
we
have a strike force of such capability and I think we have a strike force
simply in our Polaris submarines, in the 62 or some Polaris submarines,
which are constantly roaming around under the sea. And I know as a Navy
man
that underwater detection is the hardest kind in the world, and they have
not perfected it, that we have the ability to destroy the human race. Why
do
we have to, therefore, consider and keep considering threats?

At any time that an actual threat is posed to this country or to the
security and freedom I will be one of the first people to pick up a gun
and
defend it, but right now we are reacting with paranoia to this question of
peace and the people taking over the world. I think if we are ever going
to
get down to the question of dropping those bombs most of us in my
generation
simply don't want to be alive afterwards because of the kind of world that
it would be with mutations and the genetic probabilities of freaks and
everything else.

Therefore, I think it is ridiculous to assume we have to play this power
game based on total warfare. I think there will be guerilla wars and I
think
we must have a capability to fight those. And we may have to fight them
somewhere based on legitimate threats and that is what I would say to this
question of world peace. I think it is bogus, totally artificial. There is
no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald
hamburger
stands. (Laughter)

Senator, I will say this. I think that politically, historically, the one
thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is
an
attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those needs with
almost any kind of political structure, giving it one name or the other.
In
this name it is democratic; in other it is communism; in others it is
benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that
structure will exist.

But when you start to neglect those needs, people will start to demand a
new
structure, and that, to me, is the only threat that this country faces
now,
because we are not responding to the needs and we are not responding to
them
because we work on these old cold-war precepts and because we have not
woken
up to realizing what is happening in the United States of America.

Senator Case: I thank you very much. I wanted you to have a chance to
respond to the question of Indochina in a large context.

Mr. Chairman, I have just one further thing to do. Senator Javits had to
go
to the floor on important business, and he asked me to express his regret
that he couldn't stay and also that if he had stayed he would have limited
his participation to agreement with everything Senator Symington said.
(Applause)


Background of Vietnam War
The Chairman: Mr. Kerry, I have one other aspect of this I would like to
explore for a moment. I recognize you and your associates, putting it on a
personal point of view, feeling the seriousness and the tragedy of the
experience in Vietnam. But I am disturbed very much by the possibility
that
your generation may become or is perhaps already in the process of
becoming
disillusioned with our whole country, with our system of government. There
was much said about it. You didn't say it, but others have said this. I
wonder if we could explore for a moment the background of this war.

It has seemed to me that its origin was essentially a mistake in judgment,
beginning with our support of the French as a colonial power, which, I
believe, is the only time our country has ever done that. Always our
sympathies has been with the colony. If you will recall, we urged the
British to get out of Egypt and India, and we urged many thought too
vigorously, the Dutch prematurely to get out of Indonesia. I think there
was
much criticism that we acted prematurely in urging the Belgians to get out
of the Congo. In any case, the support of the French to maintain their
power
was a departure from our traditional attitude toward colonial powers
because
of our own history.

It started in a relatively small way by our support of the French. Then
one
thing led to another. But these were not decisions, I believe, that
involved
evil motives. They were political judgements which at that time were
justified by the conditions in the world. You have already referred to the
fact that after World War II there was great apprehension, and I think
properly. The apprehension was justified by the events, especially from
Stalin's regime. There was apprehension that he would be able, and if he
could he would, impose his regime by force on all of Western Europe, which
could have created an extremely difficult situation which would amount to
what you said a moment ago. You said if our country was really threatened,
you would have no hesitancy in taking up a gun. So I think, in trying to
evaluate the course of our involvement in this war, we have to take all of
this into consideration. It was not a sign of any moral degradation or of
bad motives. They were simply political judgments as to where our interest
really was.

In retrospect I think we can say that our interest was not in supporting
the
French, that it was not in intervening, and it was not in undoing the
Geneva
Accords by the creation of SEATO, but that is all history. I am not saying
this in order to try to lay the blame on anyone, but to get a perspective
of
our present situation, and hopefully to help, if I can, you and others not
be too disillusioned and not to lose faith in the capacity of our
institutions to respond to the public welfare. I believe what you and your
associates are doing today certainly contributes to that, by the fact that
you have taken the trouble to think these things through, and to come
here.
I know it is not very pleasant to do the things you have done.

While I wouldn't presume to compare my own experience, I have taken a
great
deal of criticism since I myself in 1965 took issue with the then
President
Johnson over his policies. I did what I could within my particular role in
the Government to persuade both President Johnson and subsequent political
leaders that this was not in the interests of our country. I did this, not
because I thought they were evil men inherently or they were morally
misguided, but their political judgment was wrong. All of us, of course,
know that as fallible human beings we all make errors of judgment.


Possibility of Making U.S. Institutions Work Effectively
I think it is helpful to try to put it in perspective and not lose
confidence in the basically good motives and purposes of this country. I
believe in the possibility of making our institutions work effectively. I
think they can be made responsible to the welfare of the people and to
proper judgments. I only throw this out because I have a feeling that
because of the unusual horror that has developed from this war too many
people may lose confidence in our system as a whole. I know of no better
sys
tem for a country as large as this, with 200-plus millions of people. No
other country comparable to it in history has ever made a democratic
system
work.

They have all become dictatorships when they have achieved the size and
complexity of this country. Only smaller countries really have made a
democratic system work at all.

So I only wish to throw it out hopefully that, in spite of the tragic
experiences of you and so many other people and the deaths of so many
people, this system is not beyond recall and with the assistance of people
like yourself and the younger generation we can get back on the track, and
can make this system operate effectively.

I know that the idea of working within the system has been used so much,
and
many people have lost confidence that it can be done. They wish to destroy
the system, to start all over, but I don't think in the history of human
experience that those destructions of systems work. They usually destroy
everything good as well as bad, and you have an awful lot of doing to
recreate the good part and to get started again.

So I am hopeful that the younger generation- and I am certainly getting at
the end of my generation because I have been here an awfully long time-
but
that you younger people can find it possible to accept the system and try
to
make it work because I can't at the moment think of a better one given the
conditions that we have in this country and the great complexity and
diversity.

I really believe if we can stop this war- I certainly expect to do
everything I can. I have done all I can with all my limitations. I am sure
many people have thought I could do better, but I did all that I was
capable
of doing and what wisdom I may have has been applied to it. I hope that
you
and your colleagues will feel the same way or at least you will accept the
structure of the system and try to make it work. I can see no better
alternative to offer in its place.

If I thought there was one, I would certainly propose it or try.


Can Basic System Be Made To Work

Have you yourself arrived at the point where you believe that basic
structural changes must be brought about in our system or do you believe
it
can be made to work?
Mr. Kerry: I don't think I would be here if I didn't believe that it can
be
made to work, but I would have to say, and one of the traits of my
generation now is that people don't pretend to speak for other people in
it,
and I can only speak as an individual about it, but I would say that I
have
certainly been frustrated in the past months, very, very seriously
frustrated. I have gone to businessmen all over this country asking for
money for fees, and met with a varying range of comments, ranging from
"You
can't sell war crimes" to, "War crimes are a glut on the market" or to
"well, you know we are tired now, we have tried, we can't do anything." So
I
have seen unresponsiveness on the racial question in this country. I see
an
unwillingness on the part of too many of the members of this body to
respond, to take gutsy stands, to face questions other than their own
reelection, to make a profile of courage, and I am -although still with
faith- very, very, very full of doubt, and I am not going to quit. But I
think that unless we can respond on as a great a question as the war, I
seriously question how we are going to find the kind of response needed to
meet questions such as poverty and hunger and questions such as birth
control and so many of the things that face our society today from low
income housing to schooling, to recent reaction to the Supreme Court's
decision on busing.

But I will say that I think we are going to keep trying. I also agree with
you, Senator. I don't see another system other than democracy, but
democracy
has to remain reponsive. When it does not, you create the possibilities
for
all kinds of other systems to supplant it, and that very possibility, I
think, is beginning to exist in this country.

The Chairman: That is why I ask you that. The feeling that it cannot be
made
responsive comes not so much from what you have said but from many
different
sources. I can assure you I have been frustrated too. We have lost most of
our major efforts. That is we have not succeeded in getting enough votes,
but there has been a very marked increase, I think, in the realization of
the seriousness of the war. I think you have to keep in perspective, as I
say, the size and complexity of the country itself and the difficulties of
communication. This war is so far removed. The very fact, as you have
said,
you do not believe what happens there to be in the vital interest of this
country, has from the beginning caused many people to think it wasn't so
important.


Gradual Development of Concern About Vietnam War
In the beginning, back in the times that I mentioned when we first
supported
the French and throughout the 1950's up until the 1960's, this whole
matter
was not very much on the minds of anybody in the Congress. We were more
preoccupied with what was going on in Western Europe, the fear,
particularly
during Stalin's time, that he might be able to subjugate all of Western
Europe, which would have been a very serious challenge to us. This grew up
almost as a peripheral matter without anyone taking too much notice until
the 1960's. The major time when the Congress, I think, really became
concerned about the significance of the war was really not before 1965,
the
big escalation. It was a very minor sideshow in all the things in which
this
country was involved until February 1965. That was when it became a matter
that, you might say, warranted and compelled the attention of the country.
It has been a gradual development of our realization of just what we were
into.

As I said before, I think this came about not because of bad motives but
by
very serious errors in political judgment as to where our interest lies
and
what should be done about it.

I am only saying this hopefully to at least try to enlist your
consideration, of the view that in a country of this kind I don't believe
there is a better alternative from a structural point of view. I think the
structure of our Government is sound.

To go back to my own State certainly, leaving out now the war, its affairs
are being well managed. The people are, as you may say, maybe too
indifferent to this.

Mr. Kerry: As it does in Massachusetts, too.

The Chairman: I have often thought they were too indifferent to it, but
they
have responded to the arguments as to where our interest lies quite well,
at
least from my personal experience. Otherwise I would not be here. But I
think there is a gradual recognition of this.

War's Interference With Dealing With Other Problems

I also feel that if we could finish the war completely within the
reasonably
near future, as some of the proposals before this committee are designed
to
do if we can pass them, I think the country can right itself and get back
on
the track, in a reasonably quick time, dealing with the problems you
mentioned. We are aware and conscious of all of them.

The thing that has inhibited us in doing things about what you mention has
been the war. It has been the principal obstacle to dealing with these
other
problems with which you are very concerned, as, I think, the Congress is.
Always we are faced with the demands of the war itself. Do you realize
that
this country has put well over $1,000 billion into military affairs since
World War II?

I think it now approaches $1,500 billion. It is a sum so large no one can
comprehend it, but I don't think outside of this war issue there is
anything
fundamentally wrong with the system that cannot be righted.

If we can give our resources to those developments, I don't have any doubt
myself that it can be done. Whether it will be done or not is a matter of
will. It is a matter of conviction of the various people who are involved,
including the younger generation.

In that connection, I am say, the recent enactment of the right of all
people from 18 years up to vote is at least a step in the direction where
you and your generation can have an effect.

I hope that you won't lose faith in it. I hope you will use your talents
after the war is over, and it surely will be over, to then attack these
other problems and to make the system work.

I believe it can be made to work.

Do you have anything else you would like to say?

Mr. Kerry: Would you like me to respond at all, sir?

The Chairman: If you care to.

Mr. Kerry: Well, my feeling is that if you are talking about the ideal
structure of this country as it is written down in the Constitution, then
you or I would not differ at all. Yes, that is an ideal structure.


Developments in United States Requiring Fundamental Changes
What has developed in this country, however, at this point is something
quite different and that does require some fundamental changes.

I do agree with you that what happened in Vietnam was not the product of
evil men seeking evil goals. It was misguided principles and judgments an
other things.

However, at somepoint you have to stop playing the game. At some point you
have to say, "All right we did make a mistake." At some point the basic
human values have to come back into this system and at this moment we are
so
built up within it by these outside structures, other interests, for
instance, government by vested power which, in fact, you and I really know
it is. When a minority body comes down here to Washington with a bill,
those
bodies which have the funds and the ability to lobby are those which
generally get it passed. If you wanted to pass a health care medical bill,
which we have finally perhaps gotten to this year, we may, but in past
years
the AMA has been able to come down here and quash them. The American
Legion
has successfully prevented people like Vietnam Veterans against the War
from
getting the programs through the Veterans' Administration. Those bodies in
existence have tremendous power.

There is one other body that has tremendous power in this country, which
is
a favorite topic of Vice President Agnew and I would take some agreement
with him. That would be the fourth estate. The press. I think the very
reason that we veterans are here today is the result partially of our
inability to get our story out through the legitimate channels.

That is to say, for instance, I held a press conference here in
Washington,
D.C., some weeks ago with General Shoup, with General Hester, with the
mother of a prisoner of war, the wife of a man who was killed, the mother
of
a soldier who was killed, and with a bilateral amputee, all representing
the
so-called silence majority, the silent so-called majority which the
President used to perpetuate the war, and because it was a press
conference
and an antiwar conference and people simply exposing ideas we had no
electronic media there.

I called the media afterward and asked them why and the answer was, from
one
of the networks, it doesn't have to be identified, "because, is, new
business is really partly entertainment business visually, you see, and a
press conference like that is not visual."

Of course, we don't have the position of power to get our ideas out. I
said,
"If I take some crippled veterans doesn't to the White House and we chain
ourselves to the gates, will we get coverage?" "Oh, yes, we will cover
that."

So you are reduced to a position where the only way you can get your ideas
out is to stage events, because had we not staged the events, will all due
respect, Senator, and I really appreciate the fact that I am here
obviously,
and I know you are committed to this, but with all due respect I probably
wouldn't be sitting at this table. You see this is the problem.

It goes beyond that. We really have a constitutional crisis in this
country
right now. The Constitution under test, and we are failing. We are failing
clearly because the power of the Executive has become exorbitant, because
Congress has not wanted to exercise its own power, and so that is going to
require some very fundamental changes.

So the system itself on paper, no, it is a question of making it work, and
in that I would agree with you, and I think that things are changing in a
sense. I think the victory of the ABM was a tremendous boost.

The Chairman: SST

Mr. Kerry: SST, excuse me.

The Chairman: I hope the ABM. (Applause)

Mr. Kerry: Wrong system. I think the fact that certain individuals are in
Congress today, particularly in the House, who several years ago could
never
have been. I would cite Representative Dellums and the Congresswoman Abzug
and Congressman Drinan and people like this. I think this is a terribly
encouraging sign, and I think if nothing more, and this is a really sad
poetic justice, if nothing more, this war when it is over, will ultimately
probably have done more to awaken the conscience of this country than any
other similar thing. It may in fact be the thing that will set us on the
right road.

I earnestly hope so and I join you in that.

But meanwhile, I think we still need that extraordinary response to the
problem that exists and I hope that we will get it.


Impact of Vietnam War and Others on Constitutional Balance
The Chairman: I am glad to hear you say that. I have the same feeling. But
you must remember we have been through nearly 30 years of warfare or cold
war or crises which I think have upset the balance, as you say, in our
constitutional system. Senator Javits has introduced a bill with regard to
the war powers in an effort to reestablish what we believe to be the
constitutional system in which you say you have confidence. I introduced
and
we passed a commitments resolution. There are a number of others. I won't
relate them all, but they are all designed to try to bring back into
proper
relationships the various elements in our Government. This effort is being
made.

I think the culprit is the war itself. The fact we had been at war, not
just
the Vietnam War but others too, diverted the attention of our people from
our domestic concerns and certainly eroded the role of the Congress. Under
the impact of this and other wars we have allowed this distortion to
develop. If we can end the war, there is no good reason why it cannot be
corrected.


Representation of Constituencies
You mentioned some new faces in the Congress. After all, all these people
get here because of the support back home, as you know. They are simply
representatives of their constituents. You do accept that. I believe.

Mr. Kerry: Partially, not totally.

The Chairman: Why not?

Mr. Kerry: As someone who ran for office for 3 ½ weeks, I am aware of many
of the problems involved, and in many places, you can take certain
districts
in New York City, the structure is such that people can't really run and
represent necessarily the people. People often don't care. The apathy is
so
great that they believe they are being represented when in fact they are
not. I think that you and I could run through a list of people in this
body
itself and find many who are there through the powers of the office itself
as opposed to the fact they are truly representing the people. It is very
easy to give the illusion of representing the people through the frank
privileges which allow you to send back what you are doing here in
Congress.
Congressman insert so often.

You know, they gave a speech for the Polish and they gave a speech for the
Irish and they gave a speech for this, and actually handed the paper in to
the clerk and the clerk submits it for the record and a copy of the record
goes home and people say, "Hey, he really is doing something for me" But
he
isn't.

The Chairman: Well-

Mr. Kerry: Senator, we also know prior to this past year the House used to
meet in the Committee of the Whole and the Committee of the Whole would
make
the votes, and votes not of record and people would file through, and
important legislation was decided then, and after the vote came out and
after people made their hacks and cuts, and the porkbarrel came out, the
vote was reported and gave them an easy out and they could say "Well, I
voted against this." And actually they voted for it all the time in the
committee.

Some of us know that this is going on. So I would say there are problems
with it. Again I come back and say they are not insoluble. They can be
solved, but they can only be solved by demanding leadership, the same kind
of leadership that we have seen in some countries during war time. That
seems to be the few times we get it. If we could get that kind because I
think we are in a constant war against ourselves and I would like to see
that come- they should demand it of each other if can demand it of people.

The Chairman: Take the two cases of what goes on in the House about the
secret votes. That is not a structural aspect of our Government. That is a
regulation or whatever you call it of the procedures in the House itself.


Necessity of Informed Electorate

Fundamentally you said that the people can bamboozle their constituents;
they can fool them. Of course, that is quite true of any system of a
representative nature. The solution to that is to inform the electorate
itself to the extent that they recognize a fraud or a phony when they have
one. This is not easy to do, but it is fundamental in a democracy. If you
believe in a democratic system, the electorate who elect the
representatives
have to have sufficient capacity for discrimination. They have to be able
to
tell the difference between a phony, someone who simply puts pieces in the
record, and someone who actually does something, so that they can
recognize
it in an election, if they are interested.
Now if they are apathetic, as you say they are apathetic, and don't care,
then democracy cannot work if they continue to be apathetic and don't care
who represents them. This comes back to a fundamental question of
education
through all different resources, not only the formal education but the use
of the media and other means to educate them. Our Founding Fathers
recognized that you couldn't have a democracy without an informed
electorate. It comes back to the informing of the electorate; doesn't it?
That is not a structural deficiency in our system. You are dealing now
with
the deficiencies of human nature, the failure of their education and their
capacity for discrimination in the selection of their representatives.

I recognize this is difficult. All countries have had this same problem
and
so long as they have a representative system this has to be met. But there
is no reason why it cannot be met.

A structural change does not affect the capacity of the electorate to
choose
good representatives; does it?


Cost of Election Campaigns

Mr. Kerry: Well, no, sir; except for the fact that to run for
representative
in any populated area costs about $50,000. Many people simply don't have
that available, and in order to get it inevitably wind up with their hands
tied.
The Chairman: That is a common statement, but we had an example during
this
last year of a man being elected because he walked through Florida with a
minimum of money. As he became attractive to the people he may have
received
more, but he started without money. You are familiar with Mr. Chiles.

Mr. Kerry: Yes, I am familiar. I understand it.

The Chairman: I know in my own state, our Governor started without any
money
or with just himself and came from nowhere and defeated a Rockefeller. So
it
is not true that you have to have a lot of money to get elected. If you
have
the other things that it takes, personality, the determination and the
intelligence, it is still possible. There were other examples, but those
are
well known. I don't think it is correct to say you have to have a lot of
money. It helps, of course. It makes it easier and all that, but it isn't
essential. I think you can cite many examples where that is true.


Essential Question Will Be Response to Vietnam Issue

Mr. Kerry: Senator, I would basically agree with what you are saying and
obviously we could find exceptions to parts of everything everywhere and I
understand really the essential question is going to be the response to
the
issue of Vietnam.
The Chairman: I agree with that. I can assure you that this committee and,
certainly, I are going to do everything we can. That is what these
hearings
are about. It is just be coincidence you came to Washington in the very
midst of them. We only opened these hearings on Tuesday of this week. I
personally believe that the great majority of all the people of this
country
are in accord with your desire, and certainly mine, to get the war over at
the earliest possible moment. All we are concerned with at the moment is
the
best procedure to bring that about, the procedure to persuade the
President
to take the steps that will bring that about. I for one have more hope now
than I had at any time in the last 6 years because of several things you
have mentioned. I think there is a very good chance that it will be
brought
about in the reasonably near future.


Commendation of Vietnam Veterans Against the War

I think you and your associates have contributed a great deal in the
actions
you have taken. As I said in the beginning, the fact that you have shown
both great conviction and patience about this matter and at the same time
conducted yourself in the most commendable manner has been the most
effective demonstration, if I may use that word. Although you have
demonstrated in the sense that has become disapproved of in some circles,
I
think you have demonstrated in the most proper way and the most effective
way to bring about the results that you wish and I believe you have made a
great contribution.
I apologize. I am not trying to lecture you about our Government. I have
just been disturbed, not so much by you as by other things that have
happened, that the younger generation has lost faith in our system. I
don't
think it is correct. I think the paranoia to which you referred has been
true. It arose at a time when there was reason for it perhaps, but we have
long since gone out of that time, and I think your idea of timing is
correct. But I congratulate you and thank you very much for coming.
(Applause)

Senator Symington would like to ask a question.

Senator Symington: Yes. Mr. Kerry, I had to leave because we are marking
up
the selective service bill in the Armed Services Committee. But I will
read
the record.

Attitude of Servicemen Toward Congressional Opposition to War The staff
has
a group of question here, four of which I would ask. Over the years
members
of this committee who spoke out in opposition to the war were often
accused
of stabbing our boys in the back. What, in your opinion, is the attitude
of
servicemen in Vietnam about congressional opposition to the war?

Mr. Kerry: If I could answer that, it is very difficult, Senator, because
I
just know, I don't want to get into the game of saying I represent
everybody
over there, but let me try to say as straightforwardly as I can, we had an
advertisement, ran full page, to show you what the troops read. It ran in
Playboy and the response to it within two and a half weeks from Vietnam
was
1,200 members. We received initially about 50 to 80 letters a day from
troops there. We now receive about 20 letters a day from troops arriving
at
our New York office. Some of these letters- and I wanted to bring some
down,
I didn't know we were going to be testifying here and I can make them
available to you- are very, very moving, some of them written by hospital
corpsmen on things, on casualty report sheets which say, you know, "Get us
out of here." "You are the only hope we have got." "You have got to get us
back; it is crazy." We received recently 80 members of the 101st Airborne
signed up in one letter. Forty members from a helicopter assault squadron,
crash and rescue mission signed up in another one.

I think they are expressing, some of these troops, solidarity with us,
right
now by wearing black arm bands and Vietnam Veterans Against the War
buttons.
They want to come out and I think they are looking at the people who want
to
try to get them out as a help.

However, I do recognize there are some men who are in the military for
life.
The job in the military is to fight wars. When they have a war to fight,
they are just as happy in a sense, and I am sure that these men feel they
are being stabbed in the back. But, at the same time, I think to most of
them the realization of the emptiness, the hollowness, the absurdity of
Vietnam has finally hit home, and I feel if they did come home the
recrimination would certainly not come from the right, from the military.
I
don't think there would be that problem.

Senator Symington: Thank you.

Has the fact Congress has never passed a declaration of war undermined the
morale of U.S. service men in Vietnam, to the best of your knowledge?

Mr. Kerry: Yes; it has clearly and to a great, great extent.


Use of Drugs By U.S. Servicemen in Vietnam

Senator Symington: There have been many reports of widespread use of drugs
by U.S. servicemen in Vietnam. I might add I was in Europe last week and
the
growth of that problem was confirmed on direct questioning of people in
the
military. How serious is the problem and to what do you attribute it?
Mr. Kerry: The problem is extremely serious. It is serious in very many
different ways. I believe two Congressmen today broke a story. I can't
remember their names. There were 35,000 or some men, heroin addicts that
were back.

The problem exists for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the
emptiness. It is the only way to get through it. A lot of guys, 60, 80
percent stay stoned 24 hours a day just to get through the Vietnam-

Senator Symington: You say 60 to 80 percent.

Mr. Kerry: Sixty to 80 percent is the figure used that try something,
let's
say, at one point. Of that, I couldn't give you a figure of habitual
smokers, let's say, of pot, and I certainly couldn't begin to say how many
are hard drug addicts, but I do know that the problem for the returning
veteran is acute because we have, let's say, a veteran picks up at $12
habit
in Saigon. He comes back to this country and the moment he steps off an
airplane that same habit costs him some $90 to support. With the state of
the economy, he can't get a job. He doesn't earn money. He turns criminal
or
just finds his normal sources and in a sense drops out.

The alienation of the war, the emptiness of bath and forth, all combined
adds to this. There is no real drug rehabilitation program. I know the VA
hospital in New York City has 20 beds allocated for drug addicts; 168 men
are on the waiting list, and I really don't know what a drug addict does
on
the waiting list.

And just recently the same hospital gave three wards to New York
University
for research purposes.

It is very, very widespread. It is a very serious problem. I think that
this
Congress should undertake to investigate the sources because I heard many
implications of Madam Ky and others being involved in the traffic and I
think there are some very serious things here at stake.

Senator Symington: In the press there was a woman reporter. I think her
name
was Emerson. In any case she stated she bought drugs six or nine times
openly, heroin, in a 15-mile walk from Saigon. The article had a picture
of
a child with a parasol and a parrot. She said this child was one of the
people from whom shad had bought, herself, these drugs; and that the cost
of
the heroin was from $3 to $6.

If we are over there, in effect, protecting the Thieu-Ky government, why
is
it that this type and character of sale of drugs to anybody, including our
own servicemen, can't be controlled?

Mr. Kerry: It is not controllable in this country. Why should it be
controllable in that country?

Senator Symington: It isn't quite that open in this country; do you think?

Mr. Kerry: It depends on where you are. (Applause)

Senator Symington: We are talking about heroin, not pot, or LSD.

Mr. Kerry: I understand that, but if you walk up 116th Street in Harlem I
am
sure somebody can help you out pretty fast. (Laughter.)


Accuracy of Information Through Official Military Channels

Senator Symington: Mr. Kerry, from your experience in Vietnam do you think
it is possible for the President or Congress to get accurate and
undistorted
information through official military channels?
(Shouts of "No" from the audience.)

Mr. Kerry: I don't know-

Senator Symington: I am beginning to think you have some supporters here.

Mr. Kerry: I don't know where they came from, sir, maybe Vietnam.

I had direct experience with that. Senator, I had direct experience with
that and I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made
after
each mission, and including the GDA, gunfire damage assessments, in which
we
would say, maybe 15 sampans sunk or whatever it was. And I often read
about
my own missions in the Stars and Stripes and the very mission we had been
on
had been doubled in figures and tripled in figures.

The intelligence missions themselves are based on very, very flimsy
information. Several friends of mine were intelligence officers and I
think
you should have them in sometime to testify. Once in Saigon I was visiting
this friend of mine and he gave me a complete rundown on how the entire
intelligence system should be re-set up on all of its problems, namely,
that
you give a young guy a certain amount of money, he goes out, sets up his
own
contacts under the table, gets intelligence, comes in. It is not reliable;
everybody is feeding each other double intelligence, and I think that is
what comes back to this country.

I also think men in the military, sir, as do men in many other things,
have
a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to
see.
And this is a very serious thing because I know on several visits-
Secretary
Laird came to Vietnam once and they staged an entire invasion for him.
When
the initial force at Dang Tam, it was the 9th Infantry when it was still
there- when the initial recon platoon went out and met with resistance,
they
changed the entire operation the night before and sent them down into the
South China Seas so they would not run into resistance and the Secretary
would have a chance to see how smoothly the war was going.

I know General Wheeler came over at one point and major in Saigon escorted
him around. General Wheeler went out to the field and saw 12 pacification
leaders and asked about 10 of them how things were going and they all
said,
"It is really going pretty badly." The 11th one said, "It couldn't be
better, General. We are really doing the thing here to win the war." And
the
General said, "I am finally glad to find somebody who knows what he is
talking about." (Laughter)

This is the kind of problem that you have. I think that the intelligence
which finally reaches the White House does have serious problems with it
in
that I think you know full well, I know certainly from my experience, I
served as aide to an admiral in my last days in the Navy before I was
discharged, and I have seen exactly what the response is up the echelon,
the
chain of command, and how things get distorted and people say to the man
above him what is needed to be said, to keep everybody happy, and so I
don't- I think the entire thing is distorted.

It is just a rambling answer.

Senator Symington: How do you think this could be changed?

Mr. Kerry: I have never really given that aspect of it all that much
thought. I wish I had this intelligence officer with me. He is a very
intelligent young man.


Reporting of Vietnam War in the Press

Senator Symington: There has been considerable criticism of the war's
reporting by the press and news media. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Kerry: On that I could definitely comment. I think the press has been
extremely negligent in reporting. At one point and at the same time they
have not been able to report because the Government of this country has
not
allowed them to. I went to Saigon to try to report. We were running
missions
in the Mekong Delta. We were running raids through these rivers on an
operation call Sealord and we thought it was absurd.

We didn't have helicopter cover often. We seldom had jet aircraft cover.
We
were out of artillery range. We would go in with two quarter-inch aluminum
hull boats and get shot at and never secure territory or anything except
to
quote Admiral Zumwalt to show the American flag and prove to the Vietcong
they don't own the rivers. We found they did own them with 60 percent
casualties and we thought this was absurd.

I went to Saigon and told this to a member of the news bureau there and I
said, "Look, you have got to tell the American people this story." The
response was, "Well, I can't write that kind of thing. I can't criticize
that much because if I do I would lose my accreditation, and we have to be
very careful about just how much we say and when."

We are holding a press conference today, as a matter of fact, at the
National Press Building- it might be going on at this minute- in which
public information officers who are members of our group, and former Army
reporters, are going to testify to direct orders of censorship in which
they
had to take out certain pictures, phrases they couldn't use and so on down
the line and, in fact, the information they gave newsmen and directions
they
gave newsmen when an operation was going on when the military didn't want
the press informed on what was going on they would offer them
transportation
to go someplace else, there is something else happened and they would fly
a
guy 55 miles from where the operation was. So the war has not been
reported
correctly.

I know from a reporter of Time- showed the massacre of 150 Cambodians,
these
were South Vietnamese troops that did it, but there were American advisers
present and he couldn't even get other newsmen to get it out let alone his
own magazine, which doesn't need to be named here. So it is a terrible
problem, and I think that really it is a question of the Government
allowing
free ideas to be exchanged and if it is going to fight a war then fight it
correctly. The only people who can prevent My Lais are the press and if
there is something to hide perhaps we shouldn't be there in the first
place.

Senator Symington: Thank you, Mr. Chairman

(Applause)


Request for Letters Sent to Vietnam Veterans Against the War

The Chairman: With regard to the letters you have mentioned, I wondered
about them. I have received a great many letters, but usually particularly
in those from Vietnam, the men would say that they would not like me to
use
them or use their names for fear of retaliation. Of course, I respected
their request. If you have those letters, it might be interesting, if you
would like to, and if the writer has no objection, to submit them for the
record which would be for the information of the committee.

Changing Mood of Troops in Vietnam

Mr. Kerry: Senator, I would like to add a comment on that. You see the
mood
is changing over there and a search and destroy mission is a search and
avoid mission, and troops don't- you know, like that revolt that took
place
that was mentioned in the New York times when they refused to go in after
a
piece of the dead machinery, because it didn't have any value. They are
making their own judgments.
There is a GI movement in this country now as well as over there, and soon
these people, these men, who are prescribing wars for these young men to
fight are going to find out they are going to have to find some other men
to
fight them because we are going to change prescriptions. They are going to
have to change doctors, because we are not going to fight for them. That
is
what they are going to realize. There is now a more militant attitude even
within the military itself, among these soldiers evidenced by the
advertisements recently in the New York Times in which members of the
First
Air Cavalry publicly signed up and said, "We would march on the 24th if we
could be there, but we can't because we are in Vietnam." Those men are
subject obviously to some kind of discipline, but people are beginning to
be
willing to submit to that. And I would just say, yes, I would like to
enter
the letters in testimony when I can get hold of them and I think you are
going to see this will be a continuing thing.

(As of the date of publication the information referred to had not been
received.)

The Chairman: If you would like to we can incorporate some of them in the
record.


Document Entitled "The Selling of the Pentagon"

This is inspired by your reply to the Senator from Missouri's question.
Did
you happen to see a documentary called, "The Selling of the Pentagon"?
Mr. Kerry: Yes, I did. I thought it was the most powerful and persuasive
and
helpful documentary in recent years.

The Chairman: But you know what happened to CBS? They have been pilloried
by
the-

Mr. Kerry: They are doing all right.

The Chairman: You think they can defend themselves?

Mr. Kerry: I think they have; yes, sir. I think the public opinion in this
country believes that, "The Selling of the Pentagon." I was a public
information officer before I went to Vietnam and I know that those things
were just the way they said because I conducted several of those tours on
a
ship, and I have seen my own men wait hours until people got away, and I
have seen cooks put on special uniforms for them.

I have seen good food come out for visitors and everything else. It really
happens.

The Chairman: The Senator from New York has returned. Would he care to ask
a
question?


Resolution Concerning Vietnam Veterans' Encampment

Senator Javits: I don't want to delay either the witness or the committee.
Senator Case was tied up on the floor on your resolution on the encampment
and the expected occurred, of course. It has gone to the calendar.
Senator Symington: If you will yield, Senator. I have to preside at 1
o'clock. I thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Kerry: Thank you, Senator. (Applause)

Senator Javits: It has gone to the calendar but I think the point has been
very well made by, I think, the total number of sponsors. There were some
27
Senators.


Witness' Credentials

Senator Case was kind enough to express my view. I wish to associate
myself
with the statement Senator Symington made when I was here as to your
credentials. That is what we always think about with a witness and your
credentials couldn't be higher.
The moral and morale issues you have raised will have to be finally acted
upon by the committee. I think it always fires us to a deeper sense of
emergency and dedication when we hear from a young man like yourself in
what
we know to be the reflection of the attitude of so many others who have
served in a way which the American people so clearly understand. It is not
as effective unless you have those credentials. The kind you have.

The only other things I would like to add is this:

I hope you will understand me and I think you will agree with me. Your
testimony about what you know and what you see, how you feel and how your
colleagues feel, is entitled to the highest standing and priority. When it
comes to the bits and pieces of information, you know, like you heard that
Madam Ky is associated with the sale of narcotics or some other guy got a
good meal, I hope you will understand as Senators and evaluators of
testimony we have to take that in the context of many other things, but I
couldn't think of anybody whose testimony I would rather have and act on
from the point of view of what this is doing to our young men we are
sending
over there, how they feel about it, what the impact is on the conscience
of
a country, what the impact is on even the future of the military services
from the point of view of the men who served, than your own.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kerry: Thank you, Senator. (Applause)

The Chairman: Mr. Kerry, I am sure you can sense the committee members
appreciate very much your coming. Do you have anything further to say
before
we recess?


Expression of Appreciation

Mr. Kerry: No, sir; I would just like to say on behalf of the Vietnam
Veterans Against the War that we do appreciate the efforts made by the
Senators to put that resolution on the floor, to help us, help us in their
offices in the event we were arrested and particularly for the chance to
express the thoughts that I have put forward today. I appreciate it.
The Chairman: You have certainly done a remarkable job of it. I can't
imagine their having selected a better representative or spokesman.

Thank you very much. (Applause)

(Whereupon, at 1 p.m. the committee was adjourned subject to the call of
the
Chair.)

-- 
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"