Robert Kennedy also found himself opposing a war (in his prez campaign) he had initially supported

[bigtree]

Robert F. Kennedy

Posted at HuffPo
by, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
April 4, 2007

In 1968, my father, running for President, addressed in a speech, the White House's proposal for a troop surge in Vietnam. Robert Kennedy had initially supported the U.S. intervention in Vietnam. Forty years later, as Congress and the White House debate the further escalation of yet another war that has already claimed the lives of an astounding 640,000 Iraqis, killed 3,256 U.S. soldiers and wounded another 50,000, his words should have special resonance to those of our political leaders who are still searching for the right course in Iraq:

"I do not want--as I believe most Americans do not want--to sell out American interests, to simply withdraw, to raise the white flag of surrender. That would be unacceptable to us as a country and as a people. But I am concerned--as I believe most Americans are concerned--that the course we are following at the present time is deeply wrong. I am concerned--as I believe most Americans are concerned--that we are acting as if no other nations existed, against the judgment and desires of neutrals and our historic allies alike. I am concerned--as I believe most Americans are concerned--that our present course will not bring victory; will not bring peace; will not stop the bloodshed; and will not advance the interests of the United States or the cause of peace in the world. I am concerned that, at the end of it all, there will only be more Americans killed; more of our treasure spilled out; and because of the bitterness and hatred on every side of this war, more hundreds of thousands of slaughtered; so they may say, as Tacitus said of Rome: "They made a desert, and called it peace." . . .

"The reversals of the last several months have led our military to ask for more troops. This weekend, it was announced that some of them--a "moderate" increase, it was said--would soon be sent. But isn't this exactly what we have always done in the past? If we examine the history of this conflict, we find the dismal story repeated time after time. Every time--at every crisis--we have denied that anything was wrong; sent more troops; and issued more confident communiques. Every time, we have been assured that this one last step would bring victory. And every time, the predictions and promises have failed and been forgotten, and the demand has been made again for just one more step up the ladder. But all the escalations, all the last steps, have brought us no closer to success than we were before. . . . And once again the President tells us, as we have been told for twenty years, that "we are going to win"; "victory" is coming. . . . It becoming more evident with every passing day that the victories we achieve will only come at the cost of the destruction for the nation we once hoped to help. . . .

"Let us have no misunderstanding. are a brutal enemy indeed. Time and time again, they have shown their willingness to sacrifice innocent civilians, to engage in torture and murder and despicable terror to achieve their ends. This is a war almost without rules or quarter. There can be no easy moral answer to this war, no one-sided condemnation of American actions. What we must ask ourselves is whether we have a right to bring so much destruction to another land, without clear and convincing evidence that this is what its people want. But that is precisely the evidence we do not have. . . .

"The war, far from being the last critical test for the United States, is in fact weakening our position in Asia and around the world, and eroding the structure of international cooperation which has directly supported our security for the past three decades. . . . All this bears directly and heavily on the question of whether more troops should now be sent--and, if more are sent, what their mission will be. We are entitled to ask--we are required to ask--how many more men, how many more lives, how much more destruction will be asked, to provide the military victory that is always just around the corner, to pour into this bottomless pit of our dreams? But this question the administration does not and cannot answer. It has no answer--none but the ever-expanding use of military force and the lives of our brave soldiers, in a conflict where military force has failed to solve anything yet. . . .

"But the costs of the war's present course far outweigh anything we can reasonably hope to gain by it, for ourselves or for the people of Vietnam. It must be ended, and it can be ended, in a peace of brave men who have fought each other with a terrible fury, each believing he and he alone was in the right. We have prayed to different gods, and the prayers of neither have been answered fully. Now, while there is still time for some of them to be partly answered, now is the time to stop. . . .

"You are the people, as President Kennedy said, who have "the least ties to the present and the greatest ties to the future." I urge you to learn the harsh facts that lurk behind the mask of official illusion with which we have concealed our true circumstances, even from ourselves. Our country is in danger: not just from foreign enemies; but above all, from our misguided policies--and what they can do to the nation that Thomas Jefferson once told us was the last, best hope of man. There is a contest on, not for the rule of America, but for the heart of America. . . . I ask you to go forth and work for new policies--work to change our direction--and thus restore our place at the point of moral leadership, in our country, in our hearts, and all around the world."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/robert-f-kennedy_b_45025.html

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. K&R

:hi:

[MADem]

2. Isn't this walk down memory lane food for thought! Great article....

[neutron]

10. Bobby was the smart one. Teddy was the dummy

of the family.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. That Isn't Nice

But I do think Bobby was the most thoughtful, the most introspective, the most vulnerable, and the most empathetic of the three...

[EffieBlack]

39. That's petty

Whatever you think about the relative gifts of the various Kennedy brothers, Ted Kennedy has stood firm and has spent his entire life working to better this country. He could have very easily walked away and led an easy, comfortable life, but he didn't. He has stayed true and strong and fights every day for the principles, causes and people we supposedly believe in.

How DARE you call him a "dummy." I wonder how far YOU would have gotten walking in his shoes.

Shame on you.

[bidenista]

3. i guess this means rfk was a corporate-shill bloodthirsty warmonger

:sarcasm:

[bigtree]

58. DLC!

:o

[libbygurl]

4. Well-thought out and considered. I like it. Bravo, RFK Jr! K & R. nt

[ClassWarrior]

5. Did he vote for a Blank Check to Invade Vietnam?

:shrug:

NGU.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. His brother, who he served under, sent troops into Viet Nam. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

15. Did Congress abdicate their responsibility and give him a Blank Check?

NGU.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Some called the Tonkin Bay Resoluton that. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

40. And did Bobby vote in favor of that?

NGU.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. Like Obama he was not in the Senate to vote. Unlike Obama

he had made no critical public statement against LBJ's policy at the time and was considered to support it.

[bigtree]

14. As a new Senator, Kennedy had originally supported the Johnson Administration's policies in Vietnam,

. . . but called for a greater commitment to a negotiated settlement and a renewed emphasis on economic and political advancement within South Vietnam.

As the war continued to widen and America's involvement deepened, Senator Kennedy came to have serious misgivings about President Johnson's conduct of the war. Kennedy publicly broke with the Johnson Administration for the first time in February 1966, proposing participation by all sides (including the Vietcong's political arm, the National Liberation Front) in the political life of South Vietnam. The following year, he took responsibility for his role in the Kennedy Administration's policy in the Southeast Asia, and urged President Johnson to cease the bombing of North Vietnam and reduce, rather than enlarge, the war effort. In his final Senate speech on Vietnam, Kennedy said, "Are we like the God of the Old Testament that we can decide, in Washington, D.C., what cities, what towns, what hamlets in Vietnam are going to be destroyed? ... Do we have to accept that? ... I do not think we have to. I think we can do something about it."

http://www.rfkmemorial.org/lifevision/biography/

[dsc]

20. I think he did

If he didn't he supported it from the campaign trail. I can't remember when the Gulf of Tonkin passed but I think it was 65.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Actually it passed in August of 1964 n/t

[OHdem10]

6. Three of Bobby's Children support Hilary.

[Tennessee Gal]

8. Bobby Kennedy was a brilliant human being.

We should learn from history.

[DiamondJay]

9. as did George McGovern

who voted yes on Tonkin Gulf, don't forget

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. And who now also supports Hillary Clinton, don't forget n/t

[bigtree]

12. good point

thanks

[maximusveritas]

16. Hillary is no Bobby Kennedy

She's not even close. And that post by RFK Jr. makes it all the more clear. Thanks.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. No insult meant to the good Senator who I like

But neither is Ted Kennedy in my book, nor Barack Obama.

[bigtree]

19. yet, his son says,

Like our father, Hillary has devoted her life to embracing and including those on the bottom rung of society's ladder -- giving voice to the alienated and disenfranchised and working to alleviate poverty and injustice, while urging that we cannot advance ourselves as a nation by leaving our poorer brothers and sisters behind.

She's been an equally effective champion for human rights and for women's rights, a worldwide cause that will profit enormously by her elevation to the presidency. She has worked for peace in Northern Ireland and fought to bridge religious, racial and ethnic divides from Bosnia to the Middle East to South Africa. She has shown a rare understanding that American values can only be exported by moral leadership, by a strong home economy and by a detailed understanding of the history and cultural backdrops of the nations we engage.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4347557&mesg_id=4347557

[maximusveritas]

23. I respect RFK Jr, but it's hard to take him seriously on this

after he's admitted he will run for Hillary's Senate seat if she wins.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. I will Always take RFK Jr. seriously

He has more than earned that degree of trust from me regarding his integrity and committment to causes that I believe in. His word used to be considered the Gold Standard on DU. It is possible to sincerly support Hillary Clinton for President AND have an interest in running for the U.S. Senate.

I'll say this much. For anyone who truly is sitting on the fence in this primary contest, a small tug for supporting Hillary is the prospect that NY State Democratic Governor Elliot Spitzer might appoint RFK Jr. to fill a vacent Senate Seat to follow in his father's footsteps.

Next to Al Gore Jr. I can not think of a leading Democrat who has done more for the environment than RFK Jr. And I can think of no leading Democrat who has done more for election integrity.

I would love to see RFK Jr. join Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, and Bernie Sanders in the Senate.

[maximusveritas]

44. I'd like to see him in the Senate too

but there's no doubt that this represents a conflict of interest. It's the same as all these people endorsing in order to get a spot in an administration. Of course, they don't admit it most of the time.

[Mass]

31. I take him seriously, but it does not mean the two situations are comparable.

Hillary stills refuse to say she was wrong to vote for the IWR. For her, it is all a question of bad execution and she believes in " coercive diplomacy", what others would call bullying (she said that in the latest debate).

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. The "poor execution" Hillary condemns does not start with the actual war

She condemns Bush for not executing the will of Congress and his own Administration's pledges regarding the IWR. That is very distinct from being critical over how the war in Iraq was executed after the invasion. The IWR was advocated for as leverge to get Iraq back in compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions. It succeeded in helping do exactly that. The inspectors returned to Iraq and they were investigating whether Iraq had a WMD program. Bush refused to allow the Inspectors to do their job and invaded Iraq before they could finish. In doing so he over ruled the basis of the Congressional IWR vote. Clinton condemns Bush for his execution of his responsibility as President and to Congress for having undermined the U.N. efforts and taking our nation to war needlessly. She ALSO condemns how Bush executed the war itself.

[DURHAM D]

32. How do you feel about Rahm Emanuel?

He plans to run for Obama's senate seat. He fanned the false flames of racism by "calling" Bill Clinton to tell him to lay off his candidate. Then Rahm gave interview after interview designed to hype the racist crap. For some interviews Rahm was on the record - for most he was not. Most people stupidly think Rahm is a Clinton guy.

Rahm is hiding in a closet and running a secret hate campaign against Hillary so he can get Obama's seat. Do you respect that?

[maximusveritas]

43. No, I've never respected Rahm

but if I did, I would lose respect for him for that.

[bigtree]

45. Is that a rejection of his bid to be a U.S. senator? I support that candidacy

I fail to see how that would devalue his endorsement.

[Rock_Garden]

21. You made me proud with this one, bigtree.

[PresidentObama]

22. RFK is a true American hero. And like all of us, he makes mistakes.

Just like Hillary has.

Barack has.

John Edwards has.

Every good patriot makes mistakes every now and again.

[bigtree]

57. well said

:thumbsup:

[dmosh42]

25. Yes, RFK was against the war some years later.......

but it was JFK who brought in McNamara and the 'domino theory'. I do remember Eisenhower did send 'advisors' in small numbers, but was reluctant to get deeply involved. As usual, we backed the dictator Diem, thinking we could overpower the viet Cong in months.(like Iraq) Generals were paraded out who were the 'experts'. It was suggested in that movie about Kennedy that he was starting to want to reverse himself, but I never read anything to back up that theory. LBJ picked up after the assassination, and the Dem leadership stayed with MacNamera's war. I would say once RFK decided that he would speak out against the war and all the civil rights violations, he did become a real activist, unlike our candidates now, who are mostly talk and little substance.

[Armstead]

26. It was a very different situation

Vietnam started as a small unnoticed involvement in the affairs of a country that was in the process of moving from colonialism towards efforts at independence. We got involves on a small level, in large part to prevent what was sees as the possibility of Vietnam becoming communist in that process.

It became a tarbaby, that sucked us in the more we tried to find a way to extricate ourselves.

There are some similarities to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, but that was basically just an attempt to legitimize what had already been started. Therefore, RFK, like many others, also got trapped by the tarbaby.

The difference is that in Iraq, there was no slow quiet buildup. Nor was there a process of transition going on, or a monolithic ideology that was behind Sadaam.

No we had the opportunity to publicly examine whether to do this before it was started. Senators and others had the opportunity to think through the likely consequences -- which, unlike Vietnam -- were already well-recognized by many opponents beforehand.

So Kennedy's evolution on this can't really be compared to Hillary's decision to endorse an invasion as a discrete act. Apples and oranges.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. No two situations ever equate

But Iraq was an ongoing situation also. N.A.T.O fighters supervised a no fly zone over most of Iraq, and U.S. Cruise missiles hit Iraq after Hussein kicked out the U.N. Inspectors that UN Security Council Resolutions mandated Iraq allow on their soil. The explicit intent of the IWR was to force Iraq to COME BACK into compliance with pre-existing U.N. Security Council Resolutions. That goal was achieved but Bush still chose to escalate it into a much larger war. Kind of like LBJ after the Gulf of Tonkin vote.

[Armstead]

37. Bush created a phony crisis as an excuse for war and it was clear at the time

There were many many other ways to keep the pressure on Sadaam to comply.

What is most important is that it wasn't a crisis, but was one of the ongoing tensions that constantly exist throughout the world at any given time.

That was so obvious to so many of us (millions and millions or ordinary people around the world, and many foreign policy and military experts). Bush's motives and intent was clear from the git go.

And, what made it worse was the fact that we really did have other serious problems after 9-11 that Iraq should have remained a low level or mid-level priority.

That obviousness is why it is so hard to equate the IWR to Vietnam. With Vietnam, we only learned what was really happened when it was too late. In Iraq, nothing that happened subsequently was a surprise.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. The "Bay of Tonkin incident" has gone down in U.S. history as

the very defiinition of creating a phony crisis as an excuse for war. That became the basis for the U.S. to begin extensive direct attacks on North Vietnamese territory.

[BootinUp]

35. You still give too much

weight to the IWR, akin to it being a declaration of war. It plainly was not.

[Armstead]

42. It was so apparent to so many people at the time

I'm sorry if I seem strident or unyielding about it, but I remember at the time how patently obvious it was.

All one had to do was listen to Bush's public statements at the time to understand what he had in mind from the very beginning. It was clearly an effort by the Bush administration to provoke a war and get Congressional justification for it.

I also know that a whole slew of former high level establishment State Department people with direct experience in that region tried to meet with the Bush administration to warn them about the real situation and the consequences, but were ignored by the White House.

(More on Post 37)

[Mass]

28. And RFK recognized he was wrong. It seems that it is something Hillary cannot bring herself to do.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. She said knowing what she knows now she would not have made that vote.

That is a clear statement even if not contrite enough for some people's standards.

[Armstead]

38. Sorry, but I believe some contrition would be totally appreciated

John Edwards made the same mistake, and owned up to it and apologized.

That's why it was somewhat easier for those of us who were totally opposed to his earlier stance to accept it.

[Jed Dilligan]

29. Why couldn't Kerry have quoted this in '04

"Let us have no misunderstanding. are a brutal enemy indeed. Time and time again, they have shown their willingness to sacrifice innocent civilians, to engage in torture and murder and despicable terror to achieve their ends. This is a war almost without rules or quarter. There can be no easy moral answer to this war, no one-sided condemnation of American actions. What we must ask ourselves is whether we have a right to bring so much destruction to another land, without clear and convincing evidence that this is what its people want. But that is precisely the evidence we do not have."

[Clinton Crusader]

30. K&R!

[jasmine621]

36. Not only that. Look at the role JFK played in the Viet Nam war...if you dare. nt

[libbygurl]

56. Indeed. Just read Barbara Tuchman's book, 'March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam'.

No one is perfect, but things must be taken in the larger context.

[no name no slogan]

41. McCarthy was also initially in favor of the war

The only Senators who voted against the Tonkin Resolution were Ernest Gruening (D-AK) and Wayne Morse (R-OR).

[bigtree]

49. RFK gave his campaign a "lift" by defending him against Johnson's attacks

for his anti-war stance . . .

"Two days before the New Hampshire primary, the wire services reported that New York Senator Robert Kennedy had given McCarthy's campaign "a late-hour lift," by indirectly upbraiding the Johnson forces for questioning McCarthy's loyalty. Kennedy denounced the Johnson campaign's radio and newspaper advertisements, which stated that a McCarthy victory would be "greeted with cheers in Hanoi." Other pro-Johnson radio spots attacked "peace-at-any-price fuzzy thinkers who say 'Give up the goal, burn your draft card and surrender.'" (These are similar tactics that the Republicans are currently using to smear critics of the Iraq occupation, branding them "terrorist sympathizers.")

Robert Kennedy told an audience in Des Moines, Iowa that McCarthy was "setting forth his honest views on what is best for our nation, just as President Johnson is carrying out policies which he believes are best for our nation. The motives of neither should be impugned." He then paid McCarthy what was for him a high compliment by comparing the criticisms of the Minnesota senator to similar charges "made in 1960 against President Kennedy."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/obama-jfk-rfk-gene-mcc_b_80306.html

[Zueda]

46. But did he refuse to apologize for his vote?

[Straight Shooter]

47. Thank you for posting this.

My grandmother adored JFK, I adored RFK.

RFK Jr.'s association with the National Resources Defense Council is one reason I donate money to their organization. He is the sterling member of the Kennedy clan.

ETA: correction of typo

[BlackVelvet04]

48. I want to make a point about Obama's judgment

It's easy to have great judgment when you aren't called upon to actually use that judgment (like by placing a vote.) But, let's look at his judgment concerning the property deal with Rezko. When he was actually called upon to made a judgment in a transaction he showed poor judgment and admits that he did. It's easy now to say, oh, sorry boneheaded move, but the fact is he still got what he wanted by engaging in a transaction that at best shows poor judgment.



His judgment hasn't always been so pure and wonderful. If his judgment was so poor when he was dealing with something that he really wanted and could only get by dealing with someone who had a terrible reputation (and I'm being generous here) then what might he have done when his political career was on the line?


What would he have really done if he had been called upon to vote on the IWR? We'll never know and he himself said he doesn't know.

[libbygurl]

50. "he himself said he doesn't know" - Precisely. Obama supporters conveniently forget...

...to mention this. He had a way out, just because he wasn't there to cast that vote.

[BlackVelvet04]

52. It's damn easy to brag about great judgment

if you didn't actually have to make a judgment on the vote in the Senate.

[libbygurl]

55. And really, if this is their only issue, there was Dennis Kucinich, who was...

...'right about everything'!

But not a very effective legislator.

HRC has a workable plan on Iraq withdrawal going forward. In general, I also like her all-points-considered manner of coming to a decision.

But that IWR vote is the only thing that matters to some! Her explanation isn't enough, she's probably got to get down on her knees and grovel and beg for forgiveness from these folks (like 'personally offended' Rachel Maddow) - but even that will not pass muster for many of the anti-Clintonites!