|
JOHN KERRY DELIVERING HIS TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
On the Vietnam War - Page 2
|
|
Go here for more about
 John
Kerry.
Go here for more about
John
Kerry's Testimony.
Go here for more about the
Vietnam
War.
It follows the full text transcript of
John Kerry's Testimony, his speech delivered
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington
D.C. — April 22, 1971. |
This is page 2 of 2 of John Kerry's speech. Go to
page 1.
STRATEGIC
IMPLICATIONS 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 discuss 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 here, I am dying 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 not peace; that is fighting
a war; that is continuing a war. That is even
criminal in the sense that this country, if we
are really worried about recrimination, is going
to have to some day face up to the fact that we
convinced a certain number of people, perhaps
hundreds 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.
INDOCHINA AND
QUESTION OF WORLD PEACE
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 the 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 guerrilla wars and I think we must have
a capability to fight those. And we may have to
fight them somewhere based on legitimate
threats, but we must learn; in this country, how
to define those 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 others
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 judgments
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
to 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 responsive
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 system 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 very
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 bettor, 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 responsive. 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 interests 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 lie
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 of 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 may 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 and other
things.
However, at some
point 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
squash them. The American Legion has
successfully prevented people like Vietnam
Veterans against the War from getting their
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 silent 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, sir, news 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 down 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 with 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 became
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 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 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 relationship
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
representative 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 31⁄2 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 we
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 througn 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 lust by 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 questions 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. servicemen 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 a $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 back 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 she 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 a 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
called 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 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 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.
DOCUMENTARY
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 the 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
thing I would like to add is this:
EVALUATION OF
TESTIMONY
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.)
This is page 2 of 2 of John Kerry's speech. Go to
page 1.
More History
|
