Can someone give me complete scoopage on Paris, 1971?

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

I have been reading up on it and I don't see what the big deal is. It's something only freepers would get frothy at the mouth about.

Personally I was kinda impressed he was working so hard to end a war that was so wrong and he was so YOUNG.

So what's the big deal with it? It is coming up soon with people I know, I know it.

[Fenris]

1. He is despised by the militarists because he accepted what they can not.

That your country can do bad things. That American soldiers can and have committed atrocities. That sometimes mistakes are made and wars are fought even though they are not necessary. That "my country, right or wrong" is a lie.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

2. Ok gotcha

and I totally agree.

But is there anything crappy they can throw out, like as a private citizen, he shouldn't have been negotiating treaties? WAS he negotiating a treaty?

Maybe I just need to read up on this tomorrow when I am rested, LOL!

I'm just doing a little offense ahead of time.

[A_Possum]

5. I keep trying to do this too, Moonbeam

Mostly I get flamed or dissed for it.

However, what I've figured out so far...

Here's what he said in his Congressional testimoney

The Chairman: The congress cannot directly under our system negotiate a cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system we can advise 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.

Mr. Kerry: Mr. Chairman, I realize that full well as a student 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.)

*********

It's my opinion that if what he had done was illegal, why wasn't he arrested on the way out of the committee meeting?

But, to take your point, I agree, some pre-emptive action on this would not be amiss, because I feel sure it's gonna be brought up. I believe Kerry should just start talking about it in a matter-of-fact way, discussing that he wanted to make sure the POW's were returned as a part of any cease-fire, etc. That was his motive:

***********

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.

********

On edit: whatever one's opinion of whether he had the right to talk to the Vietnamese as a private citizen, at least he wasn't sitting around reading My Pet Goat.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

6. Thank you very much for that!

[fearnobush]

3. Thats the whole point. Kerry did waht he had to do to save lives

while these liars took it personal, as if Kerry was out to shame them directly. Kerry's actions likely saved thousands of lives by helping to end an un-winnable war.

Thats the whole gist in a nut shell.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

4. Okey dokey thanks!

Just wanted to make sure no freepers could blindside me with something about it I hadn't previously run across.