THis is typical. Bush makes a honest heartfelt speech and this is the result. This is why I cannot stand liberals. They are the most racist judgemental assholes on earth. Thanks.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

Liberal = whoever disagrees with whatever right wing blowhard that is speaking at the moment.

THis is typical. Bush makes a honest heartfelt speech and this is the result. This is why I cannot stand liberals. They are the most racist judgemental assholes on earth. Thanks.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm


You can watch the Reverand speak here (http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2006/lowryking.320.240.mov.html)

And of course you have inside knowledge as to how this man voted in the election and know he is a "leftist"? I just don't understand how understanding that there is a VERY real crisis with health care in this country makes one an anti-american leftist or racist.

Everything that Mrs King and her family stand for is the complete opposite of what Bush stands for. In fact, I'll go out on a limb here and let you in on a secret, Bush is a "Christian" as he says, his belief is to follow Jesus Christ. Why then does he not show the compassion that Jesus spoke of being so necesary to be a Christian? Why are his views of the world more inline with an Iranian Mullah than with an average american?

I don't see where the Reverand was wrong in what he said, I would even take a wild guess and bet he knew Mrs King personally and was privy to her views.

Of course doing things like parading a dead Marines parents and family in front of the cameras at a speech is something only politicking retardicans can do.

BTW.

The absolute irony of Osgilliaths post is that both Dr. King and his wife were HUGE Liberals.

Osgillath doesn't necessarily hate someone who is "liberal", there have been times he's complimented people who have taken a "liberal" stance such as George Bush on energy concerns. Ultimately he simply hates people who think differently than him.

Kinda like Hitler.

Good to see Os is not being judgemental of those he declares to be judgemental:rolleyes:

Everything that Mrs King and her family stand for is the complete opposite of what Bush stands for

That's a pretty broad statement, Rover. Care to expound?

Kinda like Hitler.

Does that mean the thread's dead now?

Yep

Hitler reference FTW!!111oneoneeleveneleven!!

SOrry too much damn barrens chat, that place makes my eyes bleed

Does that mean the thread's dead now?

This one was born that way.

What I love is how everyone here bashes Ogi, but ignores the main fact. That was totally classless and shows how petty the Liberals are when you take a shot at the President who was there at a FUNERAL. This is the second time that the liberals have used a eulogy to bash the President. It should not be about wiretapping, or WMD.. it should be about the strides that King made in equal rights. But once again, take advantage of a situation to further your agenda.. I will predict this.. it will hurt them more then help in the long run. I am sorry, but Carter has got to go.. he is one of the fish swimming in a circle causing that whirlpool sucking the liberal cause down....


I will say, that the one speech I thought was excellent was Bill Clinton. He did not need to read it off a piece of paper and it appeared what he said was heartfelt. After watching the contrast in speaking ability between him and his wife, I am really not too worried about her as the next President..

Evidently we have a new rule: Friends and family no longer get to decide how to eulogize the departed. That's up to Osgiliath, whether he knew the person or not.

Funny, but I'd expect that the friends and family of a soldier who died in Iraq/Afghanistan should be able to speak of that soldier's belief in the cause for which he fought, in the eulogy. Or for the opposite if that's how he felt. Likewise, the friends and family of one who died in 9/11 should be free to mention 9/11 in whatever way they feel appropriate.

However heartfelt or not his speech was, I'm glad Bush went. It was the right thing to do. He could have asked Rice to go, or someone else, but he did it himself. Given that he's accustomed to pre-screened crowds of sympathizers, it must have been uncomfortable. Credit where credit is due.

I envision Kelraz' post as having been typed by some goatee'd, other-dimensional, evil version of this dimension's Kelraz. Every phrase is so out of accord with this reality, I'm surprised the very words don't have evil goatees themselves.

Simply do what we did during Carter's entire reign as our President.

Ignore him and hope he goes away soon. He was absolutely an atrocious President, the worst...bar none.

How he gained credibility after the fact is beyond me. He should've been tucked away on his peanut farm and kept out of any govt sponsored posts.

It is sad that the Dems can't seem to focus on the person they are eulogizing. But they are in dire straights, and unless they make broad strides they'll lose further elections.

You can't keep being seen as deriders, obstructionists and defeatists and hope to do more than bitch and moan.

Any soapbox to bitch for the pwn!!!! mantra for Democratic success atm it would appear.

Gods, I can't wait for a good centrist President. So the polar opposites here and abroad can fully neutrilize each other and some good can come of the good ole U S of A once again.

Fandros

It should not be about wiretapping, or WMD.. it should be about the strides that King made in equal rights.
The wiretapping and rights issues are strongly linked. But you're right about Bill Clinton; he's a natural orator and shone at the funeral. It's no surprise that Hillary's light didn't burn as brightly; he's a tough act to follow.

Carter can't compare to Warren Harding, an equally tough act to follow when it comes to terrible presidencies.

I'm still not seeing a reason why friends and family of a loved one cannot speak their minds at the person's funeral, especially when what is spoken is in accord with that person's history and beliefs. Saying that liberals can't extol liberal values at the funeral of a liberal is absurd. I'm sorry if it made Bush or his followers cry, but some things you just have to deal with. Had the attendant crowd booed instead of applauded I'd be more sympathetic, but clearly they appreciated the words of the speakers.

Well Thor, even tho I'm old I'm not near old enough to remember Harding's term.

Of course neither of us are, we just have history to tell us how terrible he was.

Who wrote those histories, do you ever wonder how "sculpted" they were? I can't imagine the press was anymore objective than it is today. To be honest I wonder at all the supposed historic writings.

Fandros

The "press" writes the history books?

Without explication, the post is just bizarre. Filing it with that strange bit from Kelraz.

They are the most racist judgemental assholes on earth.

Sounds like a bit of projection to me.

Sorry Thor, find it odd that you need this explained. I'll just file it under you being purposely obtuse when it comes to my posts ;P

No, the press itself doesn't write the history books. But is it really such a big leap in logic for you to understand that history books are completely objective as opposed to today's media?

Both want you to feel what they feel and see through their eyes.

SOOoOOoo I distrust the media and I wonder at the written histories.

It wasn't me that penned the following paraphrased quote.

History is written by the victors....

Fandros

So, you see nothing wrong with people saying what they believe at a funeral? Well, there is a thing called freedom of speech, and you are right people can say whatever they want. BUT... my point is that there is a time and place for everything, and that was not it.

Lets say that you are at the funeral of a loved one, and the widow stands up there and says that her late husband hated homosexuals, and pointing at your cousin who happens to be gay, says that he is an abomination of God. That would be ok? You would not think that it would be out of place?

To bash someone who is there to show respects for the deceased is just flat tasteless. But then again, Bush hates Blacks, so he must have been there to mock her.

I'm not purposely obtuse, your posts just lack grounding. There's a reasonable cautionary note regarding history faintly represented in your posts, but rather than explore it you paint with broad brushstrokes. Historians rely on multiple criteria in assessing what happened at a given time and place, and in publishing their work are subject to review and criticism. They realize full well the bias that can exist in historical writing and take it into account. When an array of presidential scholars consider Harding the worst of presidents, there's good reason to think they know what they're talking about. Suspicion should be supported by one's own examination of the topic. Simply dismissing it all with a wave of the hand only detracts from any other point.

This goes back to my previous question as to what sources you consider expert and neutral. Also, what level of corroboration (an important facet of historical study) is required for you to take an argument or position seriously, even as you disagree with it?

Shanno, I think a eulogy is an excellent place to expound upon a person's viewpoints, even to the point of mingling them with your own. Barring Bush, the speakers were friends and family of Ms. King and knew well her mind and message. Should politics come into play during her eulogy? Consider her late husband's thoughts (http://www.afsc.org/pwork/1298/declead4.htm) on the matter:
If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, I don't want a long funeral. And if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long. Every now and then I wonder what I want them to say. Tell them not to mention that I have a Nobel Peace Prize, that isn't important. Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other awards, that's not important. Tell him not to mention where I went to school.

I'd like somebody to mention that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day, that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day, that I did try, in my life, to clothe those who were naked. I want you to say, on that day, that I did try, in my life, to visit those who were in prison. I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity.
Emphasis mine. Rev. King wasn't interested in being remembered for accolades, as some might wish had been the topic of speeches for Coretta King. Rather, he wished to be remembered for his political and social activism and the goals thereof; one can easily imagine Coretta King wishing the same. Certainly her friends and family know better than you or I. And note, they did not bash the man (no one said, "George Bush hates black people"); they bashed the policies.

IMO the bashing took the focus off of Mrs. King and ended up putting it on Bush (which seemed to be the intention). That should not be the purpose of a eulogy. I agree that it was classless in that time and in that place. There are plenty of other forums available to voice the disapproval of Bush's policies. The focus should have been on the life and accomplishments of Loretta Scott King.

Or, Coretta Scott King. :p

That too :)

I still dont understand why its inappropriate to say something political at the funeral of a person who devoted their lives to political activity.

Isnt the purpose of a funeral to honor that person? And what better why to honor a person than by doing what they themselves would have done if they were alive at that very second.

And I love the faux Republican shock.
"OMG ITS SO SHOCKING... THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS"

Mark Antony:
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interréd with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar…. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it….
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
(For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral….
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man….
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason…. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

I still dont understand why its inappropriate to say something political at the funeral of a person who devoted their lives to political activity.

IMO its because the funeral, especially the eulogy, is to remember the person. It is not to argue politics. Look what happened here. Instead of the story being about her life, now its about an ongoing political argument and about Bush in particular. That is why it was inappropriate (again, in my opinion).

IMO its because the funeral, especially the eulogy, is to remember the person. It is not to argue politics. Look what happened here. Instead of the story being about her life, now its about an ongoing political argument and about Bush in particular. That is why it was inappropriate (again, in my opinion).

On the other hand, her life was devoted to furthering and protecting the civil rights of ALL Americans, and Bush represents those who wish to infringe on those rights (the example of her and her husband being wiretapped was at the very least humorous, with Bush being in attendance). While I would not have introduced those elements into the eulogy, I don't think any of us sitting here and throwing our values at the event is any more appropriate, or inapporpriate; people use what forums are available to make their points, and using the funeral of a staunch civil rights activist to reference attacks on civil liberties was apparently the right thing to do for some.

I put it in the same category as promoting one's favorite political cause during an oscar acceptance speech. It's done on occasion (because some people think it is OK to use each and every moment in front of a camera to do so), but it makes many of the listeners cringe. Wrong venue.

She may have agreed completely with the statements that were made, but her life was much more than just politics. Not every public and private occasion need be seeped in political grandstanding just because there are cameras around. Again it is just my opinion but funerals, weddings, bar mitzvahs etc. should be free from turning into political rallies and debates. Unfortunately, they too often are nothing more than political events these days.

This is a very subjective topic. I've said where I weigh in on the subject, but I don't expect everyone to agree. I also think way too much protest is coming from the right as I see them doing much the same thing when opportunity arises.

I held off forming an opinion until I had a chance to watch the speeches. I'm a bit pissed. I don't care about the morality of it all; my concern is that this was an ineffective - perhaps detrimental - way to further a cause. I agree with most of what was said, but there are better forums to debate those topics; this only amounts to more baseless political shit-slinging.

That being said, watching George and Laura Bush squirm was hilarious. I've never seen hemorrhoids that bad before.

And, as a last comment, it was the man so many love to demonize who returned the service to the woman they were there to celebrate.

Bill Clinton is definitely one of the best speakers many of us will have the opportunity to see and hear, politics aside. Great orators are becoming small in number.

Keep politics out of funerals. It's pathetic that it's even an issue.

I wonder where the outrage was when the lies about Pat Tillman's death were told at his funeral (remember that? The Bush administration contrived hero who supposedly saved his whole unit only to find out it was a friendly fire accident), or where was the outrage when Pat Robertson said that 9/11 was Gods punishment for liberalism? It seems playing politics at funerals is also a republican virtue, only that they parade the dead like puppets.


So a person who personally knew Mrs King basically said this at her funeral:

"We knew and Corretta knew there were weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance, poverty abounds, for war billions more but no more for the poor."

What was the eulogy supposed to be about? It seems it basically celebrated what Mrs King stood for. No? What was the reverand supposed to say? Welcome to REAL AMERICA George, unlike the republican convention, or his hand picked audiences, where it seems the only black faces are the ones on the stage. Bush has to deal with how his policies and mismanagement effect the Americans who weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths.

Correta Scott King spent a lifetime fighting for the basic things that Bush and the right wing has basically pissed on. I find it very hypocritical that Bush even attended the funeral.

Actually Rover I found the Tillman escapade lacking in class as well.

He was a great man, who gave deeply to his country. But his death was used and I found it revolting.

When I die, and my crew carries me out I've left one simple set of wishes.

1) A good bottle of scotch that all must sip and recall happier times
2) A very short haircut, never could stand my hair touching my ears and I know it continues growing after death. ( silly I know ;P)
3) Leave my very vocal and well known views out of the last event. See it wouldn't be fair since I couldn't vocalize my thoughts with those still dissenting with me ;P

I hardly think Mrs King would've wanted to have her death used as a platform to bash Pres Bush. She never thought any of our Administrations were doing enough for Civil Rights. I doubt she'd have singled Pres Bush out over the others...

And yes....Pres Clinton's speech was spot on. I was and have always been impressed with how the man can speak. He's the definition of a great politician. Dirty to the core, but able to act as tho he's a saint in front of others.

Fandros

http://daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/02-09-2006.gif

I still dont understand why its inappropriate to say something political at the funeral of a person who devoted their lives to political activity.There was a time when doing politics meant being polite. I'm no language expert, but I believe that's the root of the word. There was nothing polite about this affair.

Had Bush not been invited to this "honor ceremony", the whole affair would have been just bad taste. Instead, he had to sit there next to his wife and bear the attacks on his honor and character without so much as being able to defend himself. He did not come for a debate, he came to celebrate her life's legacy...

Isnt the purpose of a funeral to honor that person? And what better why to honor a person than by doing what they themselves would have done if they were alive at that very second. If Ms King would have done this in life, my previous approval of her character would seriously be degraded. However, I believe the King family had more fortitude and mettle to debate their politics in the most civil and peaceful ways possible. This was an embarrassment of a magnitude that only further enlightens me to depth at which the Democrats have fallen in order to get their "message" out. For shame.

The Soviets used to put on public trials where the verdict was a forgone conclusion. The purpose of the trial was for propaganda. The present day Dems have found another way to get their propoganda out. When a Democrat hero dies, make their funeral nothing but propaganda if that's the only way you can get boradcast time for your ideals. By all means, DO IT! Celebrate their lives in the best way you can. Bash the president and Republicans, make it all about paranoia and hate. Broadcast it to the world. And continue to alienate a huge portion of the voting bloc. Too bad this didn't happen in late October huh? They could've really changed the political landscape with this performance.
Mark Antony:
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;And L2, Marc Anthony came to the funeral to bury Caesar, yes. Had Carter and Lowerey just came to the funeral to bury Ms King, we wouldn't have this thread would we? "We came not to celebrate Ms King, but to bash Bush!" would have been more appropriate. Pathetic.

Now about Carter's speech ... Anyone notice what was missing? Robert Kennedy, that beloved family name. Democrat hero, and was the one who wiretapped MLK. Funny how that gets glossed over.

So Carter wants to talk about wiretaps and basically compares bin Laden to MLK. Let's see, OBL flies planes into buildings and kills thousands of people... MLK does a peaceful sit-in Ghandi style. Wow, the similarities are shocking!

Amen brother Carter, preach it again!

There was a time when doing politics meant being polite. I'm no language expert, but I believe that's the root of the word. There was nothing polite about this affair.
The root is polus, for "city"; polite is from polre, literally "to polish." Yes, politics used to be polite. Members of either party would drink, dine, and entertain together outside the halls of Congress. It's a shame that that's no longer the case, but Republicans are hardly innocent in this. Instead, he had to sit there next to his wife and bear the attacks on his honor and character without so much as being able to defend himself.
The attacks were on his policies and fully in line with Ms. King's anti-war and anti-poverty beliefs. I wouldn't worry about him having to defend his "honor and character." He has plenty of surrogates to handle that for him, and there is far more time following a funeral than the funeral itself. I'm sure Karl Rove has plenty to say on honor and character. I believe the King family had more fortitude and mettle to debate their politics in the most civil and peaceful ways possible. This was an embarrassment of a magnitude that only further enlightens me to depth at which the Democrats have fallen in order to get their "message" out. For shame.
It might have proven embarrassing to Bush, who debates nothing. It would have been embarrassing had the assembled booed, but they did not. No, Bush gets a little egg on his face and those who deify him predictably rush to his defense, hands wringing in faux shock and outrage at those mean ol' Democrats. Thinking of the thousand ways the Repubs have gotten their own "message" out, your tsk tsking is a joke. There is no boundary they will not cross, which is how Bush passed his own primary and was twice elected in the first place.
Now about Carter's speech ... Anyone notice what was missing? Robert Kennedy, that beloved family name. Democrat hero, and was the one who wiretapped MLK. Funny how that gets glossed over.
A little aside (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-katzenbach16jan16,0,2941426.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions) on that wiretap, requested by J. Edgar Hoover: When Hoover asked for the wiretaps, Bobby consulted me (I was then his deputy) and Burke Marshall, head of the Civil Rights Division. Both of us agreed to the tap because we believed a refusal would lend credence to the allegation of communist influence, while permitting the tap, we hoped, would demonstrate the contrary. I think the decision was the right one, under the circumstances. But that doesn't mean that the tap was right. King was suspected of no crime, but the government invaded his privacy until I removed the tap two years later when I became attorney general. It also invaded the privacy of every person he talked to on that phone, not just Levinson.

But what we didn't know during this period was that Hoover was doing a lot more than tapping King's phones. As King's criticism of the FBI continued, and as Hoover became more and more convinced there must be communist influence even though no evidence ever materialized, he determined to discredit and destroy King. He went further, putting bugs in King's hotel bedrooms across the country. (He claimed that Atty. Gen. Herbert Brownell had authorized him to use such listening devices in cases involving "national security" back in the 1950s, and that he did not require further permission from the current attorney general, who in any case had no idea that the FBI was doing it.)
So Carter wants to talk about wiretaps and basically compares bin Laden to MLK.
Now you're just being purposefully obtuse. Carter's comments didn't compare OBL and MLK's actions (did he even mention OBL?). His comments were entirely about injustice against Ms. King's husband as compared to current events. I'm sure Ms. King had an opinion or two about wiretapping US citizens.

What really cracks me up about this and similar "events" that seem to get folks so full of righteous indignation is the simple matter of context.

This was a single afternoon's funeral serivce, where some people gave some speeches that served as hooks for the arguers to jump at, and have resulted in such silly statements as "the depths the Democrats will sink to", LOL. How many of these same folks were talking about the depths the Republicans will sink to when they spent so many millions of dollars (I think the total came in at a bit over $106 miliion) trying to find something to make a criminal case against Clinton for, because he won the election instead of letting Bush Sr have the White house for four more years.

And then, they actually sank to such depths they allowed illegally obtained evidence to be used to make the case of infidelity because they could not find anything else that would stick, and then let the criminal that illegally recorded a conversation to go scot-free. (And then several of the accusers at the fore-front were ultimately disgraced due to their own infidelties, hehe)

And you are going to whine and moan about some ill-advised comments in a speech during a eulogy as being poor taste or bad politics, and make it seem like the worst thing that has ever happened. Give me a break.

I know many like myself that left the Republicans because of their conduct during that fiasco; I wonder how many Democrats are going to take similar action over those comments at the funeral.

Please. If MLK were alive today he would be a prime target of the attack dogs on the Right. People like Limbaugh, Rove, Hannity and Coulter would be trying to demonize him at every turn.

OMG HE IS ANTI AMERICAN! HE IS A TRAITOR IN A TIME OF WAR! HANG HIM! (http://www.africanamericans.com/MLKjrBeyondVietnam.htm)

Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on.

A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.
And a filthy communist!

We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

HE IS PLAYING THE RACE CARD!

If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read "Vietnam." It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that "America will be" are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.
SEE! HE HATES AMERICA!

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need
for land and peace.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.


Anyway.. read the rest of that speech.
Truely amazing.