Replies

Yes, I like the reference to 2-3000 in "recrimination," too. But if you watch the O'Neil/Kerry debate on Cavett, he got the Dien Bien Phu recriminations wrong, too (and that's ignorance of history not just absence of judgment). Got a few others tho--all from testimony to the SFRC:
1. (In response to a question by Sen. Aiken) "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 . . ." So much for his staff's claim that Kerry was merely repeating what came out of the Detroit protest.

2. (In response to question by Sen. Fulbright): "If this body [the Senate] 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 [cutting off appropriations for Vietnamization]. 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 . . .:" Cutting off funding to the troops is nothing new for this big spender. (And of course, the people DID rise up in November 1972 with a landslide Nixon victory. So much for Lt (jg) Kerry's finger on the pulse of the nation.)

But the best is 3). (In response to Fulbright): "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 Sen. 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 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." This from a so-called student of history? But, more seriously, this from an unauthorized and commissioned officer: relaying the public relations goals of a foreign enemy power in wartime, recommending the enemy's #1 negotiating goal ("date certain") as a self-proclaimed representative of the U. S. forces in Southeast Asia. If this isn't "aid and comfort," nothing is. (On the lighter side, tho, it gives us a pretty good picture of his future negotiating skills--rule 1 being ACCEDE to demands!