Deadlines and Dissent (my Kerry speech analysis + interview)

[WilliamPitt]

Deadlines and Dissent
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Sunday 23 April 2006

The plaque on the side of the old brick building read, "This is Fanueil Hall, the cradle of liberty, built and given to the town of Boston by Peter Fanueil, 1742." Below this tribute, in larger letters, is a declaration: "Still used by a free people." It was a fitting statement, and a fitting spot, for the speech that was delivered within those hallowed walls on Saturday morning.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts chose the 35th anniversary of his historic testimony before the Senate regarding Vietnam to deliver an address titled "Patriotism and Dissent in America." The stage for his speech was set by way of a Boston Globe editorial published on Saturday morning which the Senator authored, titled "Patriotism is truth, today as in Vietnam."

"Thirty-five years later," wrote Kerry, "in another war gone off course, I see history repeating itself. It is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a president who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a course in Iraq that weakens the nation. Again, we must refuse to sit quietly and watch our troops sacrificed for a policy that isn't working while Americans who dissent and ask tough questions are branded unpatriotic. Just as it was in 1971, it is again right to make clear that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves the American people and our principles."

(snip)

The speech delivered on Saturday by Senator Kerry was as important for its timing as it was for its content. Kerry is by far and away not the first Democratic politician to demand a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq; indeed, he has with this speech joined a long and important line of officeholders who have worked for more than a year to apply pressure on the Bush administration regarding this issue. He is, however, the highest-profile Democrat to do so.

As for the timing, it can be argued that Kerry chose the perfect moment to speak as he did. Every poll on the planet has Bush's popularity scraping historic lows, the chief millstone around his neck being his handling of Iraq. A number of the falsehoods that were used to trick the American people into war - the uranium from Niger claims, the biological weapons labs claims, the attacks upon whistleblowers - have been widely exposed in the last month. Previous attempts by Democratic officeholders to push the issue of withdrawal have withered on the vine, but given Kerry's high visibility and the timing of his remarks, a breakthrough on this discussion may have finally been achieved.

All of this, of course, remains to be seen, and Kerry's ability to motivate the base after the 2004 election remains suspect. Many within the Democratic grassroots are leery of anything having to do with this particular Senator. Resentment lingers over his "Yes" vote on the Iraq War Resolution, and much of the base still simmers over his decision to concede the 2004 election even as reports of widespread irregularities and fraud flooded out of Ohio. If he does choose to run for president again in 2008, he will find a good portion of the Democratic activist base eyeing him with suspicion.

Senator Kerry said, in an interview conducted after his speech on Saturday, that he has learned from the mistakes of his 2004 campaign. The jury will be out on this for some time to come, but it is possible that we are witnessing the actions of a different man than the one who campaigned so cautiously and accepted defeat so rapidly. At a minimum, Kerry has bolstered the drive towards an accounting on Iraq, and has pushed the widening demand for a withdrawal of US forces, for the time being, to the forefront of discussion. This, in and of itself, is worthy of note.

More, with interview: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042306A.shtml

[Trajan]

1. Wonderful piece, Will ...

We can never expect to fully agree with anyone on EVERYTHING: .... John Kerry would get my vote, if he wins the nomination .... I didnt like His IWR vote, but he still speaks for me .....

Again, thanks ...

[blm]

2. What withdrawal plan was put on the table before last October?

I know there was a CALL for a withdrawal plan from Congressional Dems and from Feingold in the senate, but I don't recall the details of the plans being submitted.

Can Will or someone post all the withdrawal plans with timetables that were submitted before Kerry's plan from last October? I certainly don't want to be so badly misinformed if I am wrong.

[seabeyond]

5. yet this point was made well before the article was written

i am assuming, lol lol. so my question is why the perpetuation of a non truth. it seems equally familiar what was done to kerry by the same base that had that wary eye on kerry all thru the campaign, not exactly telling the truth about what kerry said or had done. interesting

all the rest of the piece i read, i liked, though slanted. didnt mention all the numbers of people that still rally behind kerry and want him to run. leaving the feeling of general wariness of the man.

more i think about this, that article very much sets a tone i dont necessarily agree with

[blm]

6. Not just Will - alot of bloggers say Kerry finally joined others but, I am

left perplexed what plans were submitted before October that I missed? I will gladly admit I am wrong when I am - so if someone could please oblige, I'd even be grateful.

[ProSense]

7. I think the confusion is that when Feingold

called on Bush to set a deadline, he gave a timeframe.

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Resolution Calling on the President to Create a Timetable for Achieving Goals and Withdrawing American Troops From Iraq
As Prepared
June 14, 2005

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution that addresses a gaping hole in the Administration’s rhetoric and strategy with respect to Iraq. My resolution calls on the President to define the mission of our military in Iraq, and to issue a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission. It has been over two years since the President launched the war in Iraq, but we still don’t have a defined mission or timeframe that would allow us to hold ourselves accountable for giving the military the tools they need to succeed in achieving those goals. My resolution also calls for a plan for the subsequent withdrawal of US troops, so that we can provide some clarity with regard to our intentions and restore confidence at home and abroad that there is an end date in mind.

This resolution does not establish a timeframe for troop withdrawal – that is for our military commanders to determine. Any such timeframe has to be flexible – there are variables that will affect how quickly various missions can be accomplished. But it’s hard to conceive of an effective strategic plan that isn’t linked to some timetables.

The rationale for our military action in Iraq has changed over time. The projections regarding the resources that would be required were wrong. And now, we seem to be in the midst of some vague policy of muddling through. When I speak to servicemen and women in Wisconsin and in Iraq, and when I speak to their families, their pride in their service is evident and it is well-earned. But their frustration with this open-ended commitment, with the stop-loss orders and the multiple deployments, with the extensions and the uncertainties, is equally evident, and it is painful. We can do better by them, by insisting on clarity, by insisting on accountability, and by assuring them that we have a plan with clear and achievable goals.

more...

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/statements/05/06/2005614.html

Feingold made this statement on the day Murtha introduced his plan:

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On Comments by Congressman John Murtha and the
Need to Set Our Iraq and National Security Policies Right

November 17, 2005

I welcome the comments today of Congressman John Murtha about the situation in Iraq. Congressman Murtha should be commended for having the courage to stand up to the administration’s outrageous attempts to intimidate into silence those who are trying to fix our Iraq policy.

I have suggested December 31, 2006, as a target date for bringing our troops home—Congressman Murtha suggests withdrawal should begin immediately. Given the choice between staying indefinitely without a plan, which is the current situation, and bringing our troops home, I would opt for bringing our troops home, but I would prefer to do so based on a flexible timetable for achieving clear, realistic goals.

The administration’s continued efforts to change the subject and attack those who question their “stay the course” mentality are simply irresponsible. The administration must spend more time getting our Iraq and national security policies straight, and less time attacking those who question the deeply flawed course we are on.

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/statements/05/11/20051117.html

[blm]

8. I agree that could add to the confusion, but bloggers SHOULD have facts

in hand before they become exactly what the corporate media is today - shills who ignore facts to further a more narrow agenda. I'm not saying Will is, I know better than that, but the left blogosphere is filled with people who have yet to show me the many withdrawal plans that Kerry added his to, usually accompanied by the lame phrase, too little too late.

Is it wrong to ask for FACTS?

[karynnj]

13. I agree

I know there were Congressmen calling for withdrawal earlier and Kennedy did in early 2005 (and I think then backed away from it.) Feingold was in late August 2006 and his was a call for a fexible target date of Dec 2006 for getting out if conditions were right. Murtha was in Nov - he wanted out faster, but if were up to them I bet they could have reached a similar position.

What's most disturbing is that he ignores Kerry's October 2005 plan (2 months after Feingold')which was as much a call for withdrawal as Feingold's. The NYT op-ed actually went futher - while still including a diplomatic element.

I really can't understand why he wrote this.

[blm]

18. Feingold set a goal but never submitted a withdrawal plan to get there.

Kerry went to Iraq in September to talk to commanders on the ground there and Iraqi members of Parliament not aligned with BushInc. He got their input before he developed a plan that he knew would work.

Both Gary Hart and Tom Hayden came forward and supported Kerry's withdrawal plan last fall, and I am pretty sure Feingold was supportive, too.

I think bloggers are confusing people because they don't have a grasp on the facts or the chronology. But they never seem to even try to correct that problem, and continue misinforming the public with no sense of responsibility. What a shame.

[seabeyond]

23. you got me thinking. a while ago i decided our news must be the bloggers

since we no longer have any kind of representation on msm. and in that responsibility the bloggers must walk this in intergrity. to make it powerful, and right... but

i went onto a thread that was talking about feingold and the blogger (bradblog) said

"I'll mention up front, that of the current cadre of '08 Democratic Presidential contenders -- which, of course, he claims not to be thinking about -- he's just about the only one I'd seriously consider supporting at this time (though I'd certainly be open to the idea of Al Gore if he jumped back in, and Wes Clark hasn't yet done anything to piss me off yet, but barring any other fresh ideas, I'd likely be forced to go the third-party route as usual. But I digress...)"

then we have huffington, she is not a democrat. kos never liked kerry. michael moore isnt democrat. just a couple articles with rawstory was clear they werent going to be fair to kerry and i ask....

how much trust am i going to put in these people on their interpretation? i cant see that i am going to rely on their analysis a whole lot. seeing how brad blog votes third party and is willing to again????

now i ask, with brad blog saying, so and so hasnt pissed me off yet..... where is the representation of the democrats..... it is not appearing to even be on the blogs.

this article and lack of reply to validate the oversight of kerry's plan is an example. i am not seeing a representation of democrats.

and it isnt that i am looking for someone to only say good, a paint a pretty picture, and be oh so nice, ignoring faults. i am merely looking for honest, truthful representation. facts. surely that is not so hard. opinion and belief is not the same as factual reporting

[katinmn]

19. This is a great site for answers. Updated April 10

"Positions of American Political Leaders" are in the middle of the page.

Time Frame For U.S. Military Mission in Iraq
Russ Feingold. Congressional Record Statement, 25 October 2005.

Strategy for Success in Iraq Act
John F. Kerry. Resolution introduced in U.S. Senate, 10 November 2005.

Woolsey (Jan. 2005) and Kucinich (June 2005) were the first House members to call for troop withdrawals, according to this.

http://www.comw.org/pda/0512exitplans.html

[ProSense]

20. That list is missing some of Kerry's key speeches

Text: Kerry Lays Out Iraq Plan
eMediaMillWorks
Monday, September 20, 2004; 12:10 PM
Following is the text of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's speech delivered in New York.

Snip...

Again, I repeat, every month that's gone by, every offer of help spurned, every alternative not taken for these past months has made this more difficult and those were this president's choices. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq ought to still be prepared to help the United Nations hold an election.

We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S. forces will end up bearing that burden alone.

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and to train the Iraqis to provide their own security and to develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold elections next year, if all of that happened, we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years.

That can achieved.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35515-2004Sep20?language=printer

06/28/2005
John Kerry Speaks Out on Iraq, Details Concrete Steps President Must Take to Rescue the Mission

John Kerry went to the Senate floor this afternoon to offer a concrete set of steps the President needs to take to rescue the mission in Iraq, get it right, and deal with a series of mistakes that have brought us to this point. The remarks that follow are as prepared

Snip...

“Getting it right also means putting together a real plan for the training of Iraqi troops and following through on it. This should be our top priority. It’s the key to getting our troops home and avoiding a humiliating withdrawal. It’s time to move beyond fudging the numbers and finally put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing, which includes ensuring the Iraqi government has the budget necessary to deploy them. It’s also time to stop using the in-country training requirement as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more. Why would we turn down this opportunity to give our troops the relief they deserve?

“Getting it right also means drawing up a detailed plan with the clear milestone of transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The Administration’s plan should take into account both political and security objectives, including Iraqi force structure, and be specifically tied to a defined series of tasks and accomplishments. This plan must be more than dates and numbers - it must make clear to the Iraqi government that American patience is limited.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=239696&

June 28, 2005
The Speech the President Should Give
By JOHN F. KERRY
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/headlines/pdf/kerry_6_28_05_New_York_times.pdf

10/26/2005
Senator John Kerry Lays Out Path Forward in Iraq
If Administration Acts Responsibly, We Can Stabilize Iraq and Reduce Combat Forces With Successful December Elections, Draw Down 20,000 Troops by the End of 2005
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=247764&

[blm]

34. Calling for troop withdrawals is one thing - crafting and submitting the

details and the plan to actually make that happen is another.

That's the part that has left me wondering what facts bloggers are using to make the statements they do. In my view, they are being as irresponsible to their audience as the corporate media.

[MH1]

29. Kerry's plan during the 2004 campaign

called for beginning to withdraw troops 6 months after he took office as President.

[blm]

37. That is another fact that is constantly IGNORED by those who claim

that Kerry was the same as Bush on Iraq.

They really don't even CARE that they lie as long as they feel they are getting hits at Kerry.

Disgusting behavior in my book.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. Insightful And Well Written As Always, Will. And Just Know, That I

am jealous as hell of you for actually having had the experience of being able to speak directly with such an honorable Senator. It must be awesome to have that ability and rewarding to know you have achieved that capability. I'd love to be able to have a one on one with the great Senator.

Great piece as usual, and I, like you, look very forward to seeing more of this from him and the right issue brought to the forefront, fought on the forefront, and kept on the forefront, for the sake of us all.

[DemReadingDU]

4. Excellent, Kerry's speech was great! K&R!

[proud patriot]

9. I just watched the speech on C-span

there were a couple of goose-bump moments for me .

[sandnsea]

10. Thanks Will

I got sidetracked with Grandma duties and just found this. Nice overview, glad you added the work he's doing for 2006 candidates. Still, nobody will ever accuse you of hometown favoritism, is that a Boston thing?? :)

[Peace Patriot]

11. I'm not at all into "white knights" saving our country. I don't trust

ANYBODY with power these days, even Will Pitt (and getting a meeting with Kerry IS power). I'm not saying anything against Will--a great patriot and a wonderful writer. I'm telling you my mood. Nobody is going to save this country except we, the people. THAT's the lesson that we must learn.

So I grow wildly inflamed when this "horse-race" of '08 comes up. It is perfectly obvious to me that our candidates should be Al Gore and John Kerry, in that order, in '08--the two men whom the American people elected president, and who were unfairly denied that office. Gore was the first to win, has eight years experience as v-p, a heartbeat away from the presidency, and is by far the hotter and better focused of these two politicians. So he should be head of the ticket. But Kerry also won--not as provable as with Gore (because of quite deliberately planned non-transparency in the election system), but still, the case for a Kerry win is overwhelming. And whatever *I" may think of him, at any point in time, is not relevant. The point is to RESTORE DEMOCRACY--to put the two people in the White House who BELONG there. Both are highly competent, highly experienced public servants. Both were elected. And most Americans know damn well that both elections were rigged.

Also, Gore/Kerry is the only ticket that can beat the Bushite voting machines. The American people will support them overwhelmingly, because this is the Poetic Justice ticket--the Restoration ticket, if you will. They are the RIGHTFUL residents of the White House and the RIGHTFUL heads of government. The American people will see this immediately. Gore-Kerry will win a smash-up victory--by a 20% margin. My prediction. You heard it here first. Although the machines may only record half of that margin.

And here is where we, the people, come in. In order to insure that the will of the majority is enforced, we must inspire a MASSIVE turnout--both this year and in '08--specifically designed to beat the machines--which, in my opinion, are giving a 5% to 10% advantage to Bushites and warmongers, and which, in 2004, were combined with intense vote switching, vote stealing and vote suppression in Ohio. That is OUR job--to tell the American people the truth about the election system, get them engaged in overcoming it with massive turnout, AND creating large-scale oversight of the election itself--to gather evidence for challenges of suspicious results, and ultimately to reform the election system.

A Gore/Kerry ticket will be a tremendous boon. It is the ONE ticket with regard to which the American people will not tolerate another stolen election. You want 500,000 people in the streets, as they had in the Ukraine over a stolen election?--nominate Gore/Kerry as the ticket, and you will get millions, if the Bushites dare to steal it again.

Will they do the same for Feingold? Boxer? Hillary? Obama? Or any of the others who have been mentioned? Some of them are great people--but what a Gore/Kerry election will involve is JUSTICE. Not personalities. Not policies. Not "business as usual" politics. JUSTICE--with that beautiful word "poetic" in front of it. And there is NOTHING that Americans love more than that.

And once we do this--once we RESTORE ORDER in this democracy--then the work of we, the people, really begins. And I guarantee you the most amazing, galvanized, inspired civic effort of reform this country has ever seen, bar none--under a Gore/Kerry administration. Restoration of our right to vote. Restoration of transparent elections. Restoration of our sovereignty as a people. Restoration of the "good society" that we were all a part of, prior to the Bush junta. Restoration of lawfulness and ethics in government. Re-thinking of everything, and serious reform--especially with regard to Corporate Rule, military budgets, and wars of choice.

Let's do it! Let's stop all this shilly-shallying around about '08, draft the two men who were elected president, put them in office, and start planning American Revolution II.

[kentuck]

12. I'm one of those that remain "suspect" over another Kerry run...

However, I harbor no resentment or anything of that sort. I just think his many years in the Senate hurt him. He was not able to speak in a manner that "average" people could understand, and I'm not just talking about rednecks and race-car drivers. He just seems to have difficulty putting the simplest explanation into anything other than a complex sentence. He's a good man and I would vote for him again if he is the nominee but I now have doubts that he is the best person for the times.

[blm]

17. Kerry spoke the same way when he was 27, the difference is the way media

has changed and how they control perception.

Back then, Kerry was lauded widely for being eloquent and charismatic - most regular media continued to describe him that way until 2001, when Kerry became aloof and elitist.

The corporate media tells people that Bush would stop and help you change a flat tire while no way would Kerry - Kerry, who turned back into machine gun fire to save a stranger in the water. Bush, who passed over other waiting men to get into a TANG spot to avoid Vietnam duty and couldn't even show up for that.

But, media tells America they WANT fuckups like Bush because he's just like one of them - and they tell Americans that eloquent and intelligent people are to be shunned and ignored.

Next, they'll be telling people that schools are elitist and people WANT to stay in the fields and pick fruit.

[kentuck]

22. I think the Senate does affect people...

So many years of double-talk and "my dear friend" bullshit becomes a habit that is difficult to break. I was one of John Kerry's biggest fans then and now - I am just suspect at his ability to communicate.

[seabeyond]

24. are you saying kentuck, that you dont understand kerry

when he talks? is this for real. cause i gotta tell you, i am not a genius, but i can understand his words. they are not big words.

i am not trying to be snarky. but kentuck, i am finding it hard to believe that you dont understand kerrys speeches.

[blm]

25. Sorry - I think America is getting past its dumbed down stage and will

crave someone leading them who has solutions to complex problems - they know now that dumbed down doesn't fit the shoes of the presidency. They learned it the hard way - and I don't think media can tell then they didn't at this point.

[seabeyond]

26. honestly i think so too blm. and i continually say it to the people

around me. ignorant doesnt work. they are purposely depriving our schools of funds. fucking with our kids educations. adults are having issues, and recognizing the dumbing down, and how really it wont behoove us as a nation to become that people

[KoKo]

38. Agree...about the "Senate" getting to him. He can give a wonderful

speech that inspires, but he doesn't have the follow through to not appear "nuanced" when he's on the campaign trail. I don't think he understood the internet and what was going on since Bush vs. Gore in the minds of many Democrats who were horrified at what went on. Frankly only Dean and Kucinich seemed to get the anger out here for those of us who don't have lobbyists and campaign ops telling us what to think or do.

But, I thought his speech was excellent in that it laid out a good "talking point" plan on Iraq for Democrats. Sadly Dems don't hang together when we have the DINO's like Lieberman trying to change the conversation about Iraq closer to the Repugs.

[Faryn Balyncd]

14. an excellent analysis

of a remarkable, timely, and powerful speech.

[wisteria]

15. I'm grassroots and a part of the base, and I would support Senator Kerry

again if he ran. I can see through some of these grass root bloggers and their agendas. They use the same tactics as the Republicans in order to smear him. They misinterpreter his words and positions on purpose. I believe the same "types" were around in 2003 and 2004.

What is needed are counters to blogs such as Daily Kos,MYdd and Huffington. None of those blogs present Democratic opinions and beliefs in a context I am comfortable reading. I don't like the inaccuracies that go unchallenged, the opinions stated as fact, and the way incorrect information is never acknowledged and is allowed to continue.Believe me, Kerry has a lot of support out there, you just would never know it reading, Daily Kos and the others.

[seabeyond]

16. i agree. those bloggers you mentioned actively worked against

kerry. and still i come back to this thread wondering why will has not cleared up why kerry's oct 2005 plan was ignored to the point of suggesting kerry has said and done nothing about iraq until this very moment and speech

[BooScout]

21. I liked this piece....

Well thought out and addresses many of my concerns as well. Whatever any politician can do towards ending the war in Iraq is of utmost importance in my book.

[mdmc]

27. I don't think that anyone was "tricked" into supporting the war

I think that people wanted to go to war, only because standing up against an invasion was unpopular. If anti-war anti-invasion opinions were popular, the Dems would have stood up against the invasion.

[blm]

28. Except BushInc found it necessary to even lie to Powell who was the one

telling senators that the IWR would give them the leverage they needed to get the weapons inspections and help the diplomatic efforts and military action would only be used if necessary.

I thought initially Powell was doing the lying on purpose, but his chief of staff that has been speaking against BushInc has convinced me that Powell was lied to as well, and he really thought he could exert more control over Bush's decisions. I believe senators who trusted Powell believed that, too.

If you saw Wilkerson speak on Cspan you would understand why I say that.

I also come down on the side that IWR is not what took us to war, no matter how the media spins it. Bush VIOLATED the IWR when he declared military action was necessary when the weapons inspections were proving otherwise.

I believe the congress should include Bush's violation of the IWR as a big part of the impeachment case.

[mdmc]

31. Even with Powell lying

once the bombs started to fall, all elected officials were, essentially, "I support the troops, I support the war." I was against it at this point, and I was disappointed that the Dems took the easy, "patriotic" route instead of truly supporting the troops and keeping them out of harms way.

[blm]

32. To some extent - but I also heard alot of Bush didn't have to go to war

and it was a war of choice because the weapons inspections WERE working. Bush rushed to war. Kerry and Dean both said so repeatedly.

[mdmc]

35. there definitely was a rush to war

most cheered this rush. Few spoke out against it.

[seabeyond]

33. i remember firmly i support the troops, no quivering in that

statement. i do not remember a single dem saying they supported the war. ever. i remember they kept a distinction between the two and something that pissed repugs off. they would say you cant support the troops without supporting the war. do you remember that?

[mdmc]

36. i think that i do

But in NYS, eliot spitzer, chuck schumer, hillary clinton all supported the war. Or at least they never opposed the war.

[TayTay]

30. Also, please, please, please remember the context.

Remember the Senator who did read these letters from constituents. Maybe there is a reason he spoke so eloquently. Maybe this genuinely is a cause that lives close to his heart:

http://www.mfso.org/article.php?list=type&type=32

These letters were written by members of Military Families Speak Out and were delivered to the Senator in mid-March. Go, see them, remember the context and who and what this is about. It's also about a US Senator responding to his constituents. It's about the anguish of families who are in hell because the Bush Admin won't let their loved ones get out of endless tours of Iraq due to Stop-Loss. It's about the wounded and the dead and the forgotten and those who just don't care.

Please, don't let this just be about '06 and '08. That has a place, but the calling to set your country on the moral and right path, the call not to forget who is actually paying the price for this war and the call to full conscience override that.

"We fought the forgetting..."

Go see this video or skim it. Watch Max Cleland talk about reliving all that Vietnam pain because of the IRaqi vets coming home. Catch a glimpse of the taller Senator from Massachusetts when his buddy and former swift boat shipmate talks about the hell of having PTSD. Then come back and tell me that this isn't personal on some level, that this isn't in conscience.

http://ksgaccman.harvard.edu/iop/events_forum_video.asp?ID=2973