Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 16, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Wages of Millions Seized to Pay Past Debts




On the Run


Truthdig Bazaar
1876

1876

By Gore Vidal
$16.00

more items

 
Report

Tribute: Sen. George McGovern on the Presidency From Lincoln to Obama

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 6, 2009
Collage of photos taken by Alexander Gardner / Truthdig / Pete Souza

(Page 2)

Transcript:

PART 1: ‘A moral center. An unwillingness to pander.’

Robert Scheer: Let me introduce our speaker. I can’t think of anyone around that I would be more honored to be able to introduce. I know that’s sort of a trite thing, but I did dedicate my own last book to both Gen. Eisenhower and George McGovern. And I just want to tell one little story. I was on a Nation magazine cruise; I think we were going up to Newfoundland or something—where were we going?—Alaska, oh sorry, was it Alaska? Anyway, it was very cold. And I remember we were talking on the back of this boat—that’s Nikki Keddie by the way, the nation’s leading expert on Iran, if you want to chat with somebody about what’s going on in the world, and a great heckler—and we were on the back of this boat, and I had interviewed Richard Nixon, I actually ended up being one of the few people who saw anything positive about Richard Nixon. I thought compared to Ronald Reagan he was positively enlightened, and compared to George W. Bush he was a flaming liberal. So I kind of wrote this, and Nixon liked what I wrote for the L.A. Times—this was I guess in ’84—so he invited me to come see him and I got to talk to him, so I have a more charitable view of Richard Nixon than most people in this room would have. But when I met with George McGovern on this boat, I asked him this one question that really confounded me. I said: You know, you were a major war hero. The Distinguished Flying Cross. Thirty-five suicide missions over Germany. Crash-landed your plane to save the crew. Received the Distinguished Flying Cross—that’s, you know, one of the really top medals you can get—an incredibly heroic figure from World War II. Richard Nixon was a parade guard in the Navy who did not see combat. Yet in that campaign, as is often the case, Richard Nixon played the patriotism card—who’s really willing to defend the country, who’s really willing to stand up for America, and so forth. And I asked Sen. McGovern, I said: “How come you didn’t bring up your war record in response to this and talk about your own personal heroism, which was considerable?” And George McGovern gave me an answer—it was the best answer I ever got from any politician to any question I ever asked—he said, “It would have been unseemly.” And I thought to have a classy guy like that be president, what a gift. Now, some of us think maybe it’s happening, maybe it’s not happening right now, we’ll have a lively discussion about it. But when I look back on Sen. McGovern’s life, the key thing that stands out is integrity. A moral center. An unwillingness to pander, to cater, to do things just for political advantage, and I just think it’s an amazing life story. I won’t go through all the details, but we’ll have a discussion, but people should know that George McGovern is a Methodist minister, that he has a doctorate in history, that he’s a major writer of books, that he’s a major intellectual, as well as having had a distinguished political career. And he’s written the book—the reason we’re here is because of our [Truthdig’s] Arts and Culture and our commitment to books—and he’s written, in a series on the presidency, the book on Abraham Lincoln. And I thought broadly we would ask you: “Where did we go wrong after Lincoln, or how do we get back there.” Let me introduce Sen. McGovern. 

George McGovern: First, let me thank Zuade [Kaufman] for opening up her beautiful home. I can’t wait to jump in that pool someday when I come with more time. And I want to express my appreciation to Robert Scheer. When I announced for president a year ahead of the normal time, that’s the only time up until then in American history that anyone had announced two years before the election. But I come from a little state, South Dakota, with three electoral votes; I was a freshman senator, I had no money, and I was running against pretty tough people. I knew they were coming up—eventually 15 opponents, all trying for the nomination. But I said in that announcement speech in Sioux Falls, S.D., that I’d make one pledge above all others, and that is to seek and to speak the truth. I ran into Lyndon Johnson, the former president of the United States, at a reception, and he said he had heard my announcement speech and he liked it. I asked him if he had any criticisms. He said “nothing other than to say you’re going to find it a lot harder to know the truth than it is to speak it.” It’s actually very tough to do both. Some of these problems that faced us then or that faced Abraham Lincoln—probably he inherited the toughest problem of all, a four-year civil war in which Americans chose up sides and killed each other for four years. Six hundred thousand young Americans in that war—that’s equal to the combined American losses in World War I and World War II. Lincoln was a man of peace, but he was also a man of character and courage, and he saw no way out other than to resist the secession. … So he had a very tough decision to make that carried an enormous cost to the nation. But I want to say about Robert Scheer—of all the reporters I know, he’s been the best in digging out the truth and in expressing it, day after day. He had both the intelligence to dig out the truth and the courage to publish it. So he won in my book both on the intellect part and the courage part, Bob. [Applause] I was more than pleased when I picked up his recent book, called “The Pornography of Power.” It’s an analysis of what power does to people who have power, and what are the sources of power that shape our own country’s national agenda. For example, why, with the biggest military budget in the history of the world, by any country, equal to the combined military budgets of all the other 185 countries of the world—why are we so afraid? Why do we continue that kind of allocation year after year? Obviously we all want an adequate defense; this is a dangerous world, and I don’t think any reasonable person would object to an appropriate allocation to the military. But does it really have to be as big as all the rest of the world put together? And these are some of the questions raised by Bob. So I was pleased that he dedicated that book to President Eisenhower and to me.

PART 2: Breaking Through the Barrier of Fear

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
McGovern: Since I didn’t talk about it when it might have helped, maybe I might just take a couple of minutes to tell you why I volunteered to be a combat bomber pilot in World War II. I had taken a course at the little college I went to, Dakota Wesleyan, in flying. The government had announced that if you could get 10 students to sign up for the course, the government would provide an airplane, an instructor and an airfield. So one of the guys in my class was desperate to learn how to fly. And he had talked to me about it several times before I finally decided to go. One of the reasons I did that is that when I was in junior high school, we had a coach by the name of Joe Quentle. He was a good coach, but one of the meanest son of a guns I think I’ve ever known. You really got a tongue-lashing for any kind of mistake. And one day when I was about 13, maybe 14, junior high school, and he had us in a gymnastic class, and one of the things you had to do was run across that gymnasium as fast as you could go, and when you got to the end, dive over one of these big leather horses. I think probably you’ve—you all look like you’re in shape, so you’ve probably been through this. But anyway, you had to dive over it, duck your head, and then roll. I’d run up to that thing—I could not do it, I just couldn’t; I knew I’d break my neck if I did. Finally the loudest whistle I’ve ever heard from Joe Quentle. He said, “Mac, what the hell’s the matter with you?” I said “Well, Mr. Quentle, I’ll do anything for you, but I just can’t dive over that horse.” He said, “You want to know why? You’re a moral coward.” I thought I would die. I really thought I’d die right there. I didn’t think anybody would ever speak to me again, you know, the 60 young guys that were doing this—not all of them, but practically all. So that bothered me for a long time. Four years later, when I was 19, Pearl Harbor came. And I thought, here’s my chance to show Joe Quentle. So I signed up as a bomber pilot. There wasn’t any Air Force then, there was the Army Air Corps and the Navy Air Corps, and all 10 of us who had taken this course in flying, we borrowed a couple of cars—in those days, no student had a car—so we borrowed a car from the president and one from the dean, and drove to Omaha, where both of the recruiting stations are. And we’re debating, you know, should we join the Air [Corps], and one guy says, “Oh boy, trying to land on a carrier at night in a storm?” You know, that scared us a little, but another guy says, “You know, they do this and they do that,” silly arguments, we didn’t know what we were talking about. When we got there, one of the guys picked up a rumor that if you signed up with the Army Air Corps or even went to the recruiting station, the Air Corps would give you a free meal at a downtown cafeteria in Omaha. So on the strength of that unsubstantiated rumor and a meal ticket probably worth about a dollar, all 10 of us joined the Army Air Corps. It’s the cheapest I’ve ever sold out. So anyway, that’s the background on why you listed me as a hero. I was trying to get over the coward in me. So I hope I succeeded. [Applause] I can honestly tell you that the first time I stood up on the floor of the United States Senate, again as a freshman congressman—I’d only been there six months, 1963, and I had worked for the previous two years at the White House with President Kennedy, whom I loved. But I stood up and made my first speech saying the war in Vietnam was a mistake, that we had no business being there, and the quicker we disengaged, the better. That was the first speech in either the House or the Senate against the Vietnam War. [Applause] And I knew it was right at the time, but the political problem is that most people thought it was not right, and I never recovered from that politically, in terms of the millions of people that thought that was outrageous. I did it in considerable part because I know what war does. Half of the bomber crews that I flew with in World War II never survived the war—50 percent casualty rates. I’m proud of my role in World War II. I thought Hitler was a madman that had to be stopped—among other things, killed 6 million innocent Jewish people, mostly his own citizens. So I’m proud that I played some role in helping to smash his military machine. But I’m also proud that I stood up against a war that I thought was wrong, that killed 58,000 young Americans, probably the best troops we ever sent overseas, and all of this for naught.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, November 15, 2009 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment

«What is revealing is not that McGovern didn’t use his war record during the ‘68 campaign ...»

I fear, Claire, that you’re confounding Senator McGovern with Vice-President Humphrey….

Henri

Report this

By wearnoevil, November 14, 2009 at 7:16 pm Link to this comment

What is revealing is not that McGovern didn’t use his war record during the ‘68
campaign, but that Nixon knew how to take advantage of McGovern’s sense of
what is “unseemly.”  Nixon defines contemporary political bad behavior.

Report this

By Ray Duray, November 10, 2009 at 12:40 am Link to this comment

doubledementia,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8339647.stm

Of course we’re grumpy. Who wouldn’t be if they paid attention?

But the difference between people of your ilk and the honest among us is that you are a fraud. Apparently this is in high regard in certain circles. Perhaps you are a fellow Ayn Rand acolyte along with Alan Greenspan who has recently been outed as a criminal of the first order:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/etc/script.html

JOE NOCERA: He said something to the effect that, “Well, Brooksley, we’re never going to agree on fraud.” And she said, “Well, what do you mean?” And he said, “`You probably think there should be rules against it.” And she said, “Well, yes, I do.” He said, you know, “I think the market will figure it out and take care of the fraudsters.”

INTERVIEWER: The Alan Greenspan lunch did it actually happen? Where he says

BROOKSLEY BORN: I’m not going to talk about it. I’m not going to talk about it on camera.

NARRATOR: Born is reluctant to speak about her meetings with Greenspan or others in the Clinton administration. Greenspan refused to speak to FRONTLINE at all. But Born’s advisers did.

MICHAEL GREENBERGER: Greenspan didn’t believe that fraud was something that needed to be enforced, and he assumed she probably did. And of course, she did. I’ve never met a financial regulator who didn’t feel that fraud was part of their mission.

MANUEL ROIG-FRANZIA: And this is an absolute stunner for the new head of this tiny agency who is charged with making sure people don’t commit fraud.

NANCY DUFF CAMPBELL: Well, I think she was taken aback about how far he would go towards deregulation, that even the notion that we should police fraudulent activity he didn’t think was something that was a given.

MICHAEL GREENBERGER: That was her introduction to Alan Greenspan.

NARRATOR: The clash with Greenspan didn’t intimidate Born.

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, November 9, 2009 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The cynicism of much of the left blogosphere is
appalling.  I have to tune out for long periods. 
Several recent studies have shown that people who pay
attention to the news every day suffer from depression
at nearly double the rate of those who don’t.  I
suspect that that number is even higher for people of
leftist persuasion - they work at it so much harder.

Report this

By Ray Duray, November 8, 2009 at 11:07 pm Link to this comment

doublethink/bafflegab,

You wrote: “You had to have been there, I guess.”

Sigh…

I was there. Saw an entirely different reality from the one you soliloquize about.

Amy Goodman has a good reprise on the film “One Bright Shining Moment”. Most of us remember the more common “One Brief Shining Moment” which was a rhapsody in blues about John Kennedy’s magical moment. The First Run Film title is either an homage or a clever rip-off. I’m leaning toward the latter.

Here’s Amy’s take: http://www.democracynow.org/2006/7/19/one_bright_shining_moment_the_forgotten

For those who really give any kind of a bowel movement about what’s going on, however… I strongly recommend this emetic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI&NR=1

Among the crowd that I was part of in 1972, we were already so cynical, so convinced that the American political system was hopelessly controlled by a corporate cabal of fascist lunatics that the candidacy of George McGovern appeared to us to be so goofy, so quixotic and so

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, November 8, 2009 at 8:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You had to have been there, I guess.  “One Bright
Shining Moment: The Forgotten Summer of George
McGovern”  A great documentary film about the election
of 1972 narrated by Amy Goodman with commentary by Gore
Vidal, Howard Zinn, Ron Kovic, Gloria Steinem, and
others.  You can see the trailer here:
http://www.firstrunfeatures.com/trailers_onebright.html

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, November 8, 2009 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

Interestingly enough, there exists a parallel to the opposition by Senators Gruening and Morse to the infamous Tonkin Gulf Resolution, in which the US Congress abdicated - as it was again to do in a similar situation 38 years later - from its constitutional responsibility to determine war or peace. I’m thinking of the so-called «spot resolutions» introduced by Abraham Lincoln in the House of Representatives on 22 December 1847, which requested President James K Polk to provide the Congress with the exact location upon which blood had been spilt on American soil (Polk’s ostensible reason for requesting the Congress to declare war on Mexico). Pity that in the above article, neither Mr Scheer nor Senator McGovern, despite their no doubt profound knowledge concerning Lincoln, saw fit to compare the latter’s resolutions questioning the rationale behind one jingoistic war, with the Senator’s refusal to stand up and be counted along with his two colleagues in opposition to another in 1964….

Henri

Report this

By Ray Duray, November 8, 2009 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment

dihey,

You wrote: “If General Powell knew that he was forced to lie to the world he should have resigned, should he not? If he willingly chose to lie his act at the UN was much worse than that.”

You might want to take a look at Powell’s early rise through the ranks in the Army. While in Viet Nam he served with the Americal Division which was exposed by Seymour Hersh among others for the My Lai Massacre and a number of other such brutal incidents. Major Powell was less than forthright about the war crimes of his Division.

Reporter David Corn has more here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010514/corn20010502

My point is that professional dissembling has been a hallmark of Gen. Powell’s succesful rise through the ranks.

Report this

By anyfool, November 8, 2009 at 8:31 am Link to this comment

I think both McGovern and you are great. However this is really,really poor on both your parts: McGovern saying ” It would have been unseemly” (like from Etiquette by Emily Post or Miss Manners ) and you saying ” it was the best answer I ever got from any politician to any question I ever asked”.

McGovern being concerned about being “unseemly” so we had Nixon with 58,000 of our forces killed and several millions of Vietnamese killed not to mention the injured on both sides. Scheer’s best answer means he hasn’t bothered to think through the results of concern with being unseemly.
______
And I asked Sen. McGovern, I said: “How come you didn’t bring up your war record in response to this and talk about your own personal heroism, which was considerable?” And George McGovern gave me an answer—it was the best answer I ever got from any politician to any question I ever asked—he said, “It would have been unseemly.”

Report this

By dihey, November 8, 2009 at 5:35 am Link to this comment

If General Powell knew that he was forced to lie to the world he should have resigned, should he not? If he willingly chose to lie his act at the UN was much worse than that. If his was not intellectual laziness to get well informed it was much worse than that namely moral turpitude/intellectual cowardice.
Thanks for correcting me!

Report this
Ouroborus's avatar

By Ouroborus, November 8, 2009 at 3:55 am Link to this comment

Ray Duray, November 8 at 3:58 am #
dihey,

You wrote: “Time and again the world has suffered
death and destruction due to intellectual laziness
(Iraq; General Powell!!!). McGovern’s vote on Tonkin
without demanding a thorough investigation in what
really happened prior to voting is absolutely
inexcusable.”
=================================================

I read dihey’s comment as “NOT” excluding Powell from
being guilty of intellectual laziness and, as you
say, blatant lies.

Report this
Ouroborus's avatar

By Ouroborus, November 8, 2009 at 1:47 am Link to this comment

john crandell, November 8 at 3:47 am #
“I’ve gradually disabused myself of all of these
romantic notions of Lincoln’s America. Let it go, I
say. Give it up. “
=============================================
Feels good, doesn’t it?

Report this

By Ray Duray, November 7, 2009 at 11:58 pm Link to this comment

dihey,

You wrote: “Time and again the world has suffered death and destruction due to intellectual laziness (Iraq; General Powell!!!). McGovern’s vote on Tonkin without demanding a thorough investigation in what really happened prior to voting is absolutely inexcusable.”

I agree 100% that McGovern has a record of acquiescing to the lies of Lyndon Johnson on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

I disagree with you about Colin Powell. Within one day of his Feb. 5, 2003 liefest in the UN Security Council chambers there was a posting on the Internet from one of my altie websites citing 38 specific lies that Powell told and had to be perfectly cognizant that he was telling. For one example, Powell deliberately lied about “mobile biological warfare” trailers which the U.S. intel community knew full well to be hydrogen generators for weather balloons. Powell had to know this. There is some evidence to the effect that Powell tried to fight against Abe Shulsky and Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans and the propaganda that they wanted Powell to hurl like feces at the Security Council presentation. Powell did remove the most egregiously ridiculous propaganda from his presentation, but he will go down in history as an ignominious yes man who willfully lied to the world on that day.

Report this

By Ray Duray, November 7, 2009 at 11:49 pm Link to this comment

doublestandards,

You wrote: “He said that he called for a complete withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam in a speech on the senate floor during the summer of 1963,”

I was a very well-read anti-war activist in the late 1960s. I spent a couple hundred hours actively working in the Eugene McCarthy campaign in 1968. I subscribed to Ramparts Magazine and I.F. Stone’s Weekly among other publications. I was keenly interested in the anti-war movement in the 1960s. Unless you can find the Federal Register citation for McGovern calling for withdrawl in 1963 I’m inclined to disbelieve both you and Sen. McGovern. I’ve never heard of such a speech before.

If McGovern did make such a speech, it is highly likely he did so during “morning business” in which Senators are at liberty to speak to an empty chamber and enter items “into the record”. From 1964 until the early 1970s George McGovern was essentially a nullity in the anti-war movement from what I could determine from the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Report this

By john crandell, November 7, 2009 at 11:47 pm Link to this comment

To think that Obama’s viewing these videos would make a whit of difference, well, such is the height of naivete.

Over the past year I’ve come to feel that Obama is one savagely dispassionate cynic. ALL policy decisions are, must be based upon political calculation and necessity. That and NOTHING ELSE. I for one suspect that now, in the wake of the Fort Hood incident, there will be no announcement regards don’t ask, don’t tell.

Vietnam simply does not resonate with him. He is too young.

I had come home from my own Once Upon A War in 1970 and immediately joined VVAW. I helped in McGovern’s ‘72 campaign and was present among the small group of supporters who remained on election eve at Long Beach Airport, waited for forty five minutes while the plane could be fixed and prepared for the flight home to South Dakota. So George came out and waved to our motley group of die-hards. I later read that that brought many on the plane to tears.

Nothing has changed. After all of the horror of Vietnam and the corruption of the Nixon regime, the American public that year really showed it’s moxie, two plus years following Kent State, shortly after which a majority of polled Americans had said yes, that they felt that if it were their son or daughter who had been present at the Kent State protest, then they as well ought to have been shot down by the Ohio State Guardsmen.

That’s America for you. I’ve gradually disabused myself of all of these romantic notions of Lincoln’s America. Let it go, I say. Give it up. Imagine: The Pacific States of America, The Atlantic States of America and the North-Central States of America and all of the others can form a hideous constitution of their own and go their own way. Let’s be rid of them forever.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 7, 2009 at 9:27 pm Link to this comment

An incredible interview, engaging…. even more engaging the second time it is read.

Quote: (Robert Scheer) “And I asked Sen. McGovern, I said: “How come you didn’t bring up your war record in response to this and talk about your own personal heroism, which was considerable?” And George McGovern gave me an answer—it was the best answer I ever got from any politician to any question I ever asked—he said, “It would have been unseemly.” And I thought to have a classy guy like that be president, what a gift. Now, some of us think maybe it’s happening, maybe it’s not happening right now, we’ll have a lively discussion about it. But when I look back on Sen. McGovern’s life, the key thing that stands out is integrity. A moral center.”

Absolutely, very much so.  Integrity is something that CONCRETELY can’t be bought.  Integrity is the bane of corruption, it is the voice of the other, it is empathetic, imperfect by ideological standards yet, overridingly integrity always cares, this is the REAL bottom line.

Article quote: (George McGovern)“Since I didn’t talk about it when it might have helped, maybe I might just take a couple of minutes to tell you why I volunteered to be a combat bomber pilot in World War II.” (pg. 2)

I would enamor that some might want to reread your experience and those of the many others who “went to war” and their sense of it…. then and now.

Article quote: “Scheer: Speaking of that, you got to be close to Sen. [Barry] Goldwater later in life.

McGovern: I did; I liked his bluntness,”

Bluntness, rightly or wrongly is genuine… this is the important factor.  The circumspect aspect of bluntness is found within the reality of its speaker, again… rightly or wrongly.

An excellent interview.

Report this

By Milt Waxman, November 7, 2009 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think both McGovern and you are great. However this is really,really poor on both your parts: McGovern saying ” It would have been unseemly” (like from Etiquette by Emily Post or Miss Manners ) and you saying ” it was the best answer I ever got from any politician to any question I ever asked”.

McGovern being concerned about being “unseemly” so we had Nixon with 58,000 of our forces killed and several millions of Vietnamese killed not to mention the injured on both sides. Scheer’s saying it was the “best answer I ever got” means you haven’t bothered to think through the results of concern with being unseemly.
——-
And I asked Sen. McGovern, I said: “How come you didn’t bring up your war record in response to this and talk about your own personal heroism, which was considerable?” And George McGovern gave me an answer—it was the best answer I ever got from any politician to any question I ever asked—he said, “It would have been unseemly.”

Report this

By dihey, November 7, 2009 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

What makes you conclude that I question McGovern’s integrity? Whatever he said before the vote on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution are speeches. He voted for the resolution which was an action. In my book actions trump speeches. I question his vote which he obviously believed to be correct/necessary at that moment. I question his intellectual laziness at the time in the light of Morse and Gruening’s questions. Time and again the world has suffered death and destruction due to intellectual laziness (Iraq; General Powell!!!). McGovern’s vote on Tonkin without demanding a thorough investigation in what really happened prior to voting is absolutely inexcusable.

Report this
Ouroborus's avatar

By Ouroborus, November 7, 2009 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

When all is said and done; this is merely a paean to
McGovern and of little real value today. Sorry but, it
just rings hollow.

Report this
Ouroborus's avatar

By Ouroborus, November 7, 2009 at 12:31 am Link to this comment

dihey, November 6 at 5:39 pm #

I remember well; my parents were ardent Morse
supporters and I was a H.S. senior in 1963 facing the
prospect of being drafted. My parents were willing to
take me to Canada to avoid going to Viet Nam. Bad times
and bad juju.

Report this
Ouroborus's avatar

By Ouroborus, November 7, 2009 at 12:26 am Link to this comment

dihey, November 6 at 11:53 am #

Thanks, that smacked me hard as well. I lived in Oregon
during that time. Morse was one of the last great
senators.

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, November 6, 2009 at 8:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Those of you who are questioning McGovern’s integrity
should actually watch the video.  He said that he
called for a complete withdrawal of American forces
from Vietnam in a speech on the senate floor during the
summer of 1963, more than a year before the Tonkin gulf
episode.  This is a matter of public record.

Report this

By dihey, November 6, 2009 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment

Senators Morse and Gruening did not merely oppose the resolution; they demanded that the ship’s log be provided to the Senate before the voting on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution because they had information that led them to suspect that the ship had been in the territorial waters of North Vietnam when the “attack” occurred. They even doubted that an attack had actually occurred and said so publicly. Senator McGovern had plenty of opportunity to join them before voting aye or nay. He was not “misled” he simply refused to become better informed. Today we know that Morse and Gruening were correct on both counts.

Redhound: there is no difference between the Senators who voted for the Iraq resolution and those who voted for the Bay of Tonkin resolution. Once the war machine gets rolling no amount of remorse will stop it as we have learned from Vietnam and Iraq. Let us recall that candidate Obama and his blind followers pilloried Hillary Clinton for having voted aye on the Iraq resolution. If any of you participated in that rounding on Hillary you are a hypocrite if you defend Senator McGovern today.

The huge lesson is: Congresspersons and Presidents: read/research/question/think before you act because you may save lives.

Report this

By Ray Duray, November 6, 2009 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

To the Truthdig Editors,

The following statement that George McGovern was “the first senator to oppose the Vietnam War” is at best a distortion and at worst an outright lie.

As another commenter stated, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was not opposed by Senator McGovern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution

Please correct yourselves, lest you lose credibility.

And then remove this comment. Thank you.

Report this

By redhound, November 6, 2009 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

McGovern voted in favor of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and he soon expressed his remorse for authorizing LBJ unlimited power. He knew it was a mistake and owned up to it. I would like to see the senators who authorized Bush to go into Iraq and Afghanistan would express their lack of good judgement. Alas our Senate is still made up of chicken hawks.

Report this

By mick koz, November 6, 2009 at 9:58 am Link to this comment

Thank you Bob…a brilliant interview..as always, you know how to get out of the way…to allow the true essence of the man to be revealed.

George McGovern is and always will be the quintessential American patriot and hero…a national treasure…Lincolnesque in his bearing…humble yet noble…plainspoken yet eloquent…

This transcript should be required reading for President Obama…please find someway for him to have access to it.

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, November 6, 2009 at 9:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

McGovern had some great ideas in that ‘72 campaign
including a guaranteed minimum income for all citizens
and universal health care.  Of course the republicans
and conservative democrats became hysterical about
“government give-aways” but hey, giving a couple
trillion to wall street bankers - nothing wrong with
that.  He was the best either party has had to offer
for potus in my lifetime.

Report this

By surfnow, November 6, 2009 at 8:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Good point,dihey. I’m sure like so many other politicians he is especially well endowed with the psychological defense mechanism of rationalization- enough so that like Hillary in 2003 regarding the Invasion of Iraq, he too always claim that"he was misled.”

Report this

By dihey, November 6, 2009 at 7:53 am Link to this comment

Why do you give us wrong information? The Gulf of Tonkin resolution which gave President Johnson carte blanche in Vietnam was opposed by Senators Morse and Gruening only. Where was your hero McGovern on that day? Where was he? He became a US Senator in 1963. So, where was your hero in August 1964? On his farm in South Dakota? If he was in the Senate, how did he vote?

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.