Mustafa Hussein

Kerry treason?

Recommended Posts

File not found, so I can't comment on the ad. But after one 'swift boat vet for truth' admitting that he had no first hand knowledge of Kerry's service, even though he blasted the circumstances of Kerry's Purple Hearts, I don't believe them anymore. It's just politics as usual.

And Bush's dereliction of duty is okay? His neglect for the state of our security during his first 8 months in office? His lying to the American public about our reasoning to go to war with Iraq? His complete and utter mishandling of the aftermath of the war? His decision to pursue a personal vendetta in ousting Saddam rather than pumping any serious effort into finding Osama Bin Laden?

Our president has committed acts that have been declared illegal by the secretary general of the U.N., while president, and we're worried about what the other guy did 30 years ago, and has since stopped supporting? Why not just call Bush an alcoholic, whose binges make him unfit for the presidency. (Never mind that he went clean over a decade ago.)

Hell, I don't care if Kerry slept with Jane whats-her-face, or if Bush got his daddy to give him a 'permission slip' to avoid Vietnam. I want a leader who will actually protect America, but promoting a positive image of the U.S. internationally. What Bush has done has endangered the American public more than just 'letting well enough alone' would have done. The goodwill of the world after 9/11 has been squandered. One-time close allys have been doing everything in their power to stop our warmongering and chaos. Do you think North Korea would be as eager to prove they have nukes if Bush hadn't called them part of the 'Axis of Evil'? No. If we actually TRY to peacefully change the world, who knows, it might work!

Come on, Mustafa, at least present some real arguments, rather than just linking or quoting heavily biased sources. Tell me about how Kerry's plan to revive the economy is flawed, tell me how his CURRENT actions make him unfit for command, tell me why his plans for international cooperation won't work. You do that, and I'll take your points seriously. I'm not going to point you to any Air America diatribes, or MoveOn.org ads, because I know that they are just as biased to the left, and adept in stretching the truth as Rush Limbaugh and the Swiftboat Vets are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So does that mean that you think his meetings in Paris with the Viet Cong were treasonous or not?

It seemed pretty clear to me that he said they were in essence irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's just politics as usual.

And Bush's dereliction of duty is okay?  His neglect for the state of our security during his first 8 months in office?  His lying to the American public about our reasoning to go to war with Iraq?  His complete and utter mishandling of the aftermath of the war?  His decision to pursue a personal vendetta in ousting Saddam rather than pumping any serious effort into finding Osama Bin Laden?

Our president has committed acts that have been declared illegal by the secretary general of the U.N., while president, and we're worried about what the other guy did 30 years ago, and has since stopped supporting?  Why not just call Bush an alcoholic, whose binges make him unfit for the presidency.  (Never mind that he went clean over a decade ago.)

Hell, I don't care if Kerry slept with Jane whats-her-face, or if Bush got his daddy to give him a 'permission slip' to avoid Vietnam.  I want a leader who will actually protect America, but promoting a positive image of the U.S. internationally.  What Bush has done has endangered the American public more than just 'letting well enough alone' would have done.  The goodwill of the world after 9/11 has been squandered.  One-time close allys have been doing everything in their power to stop our warmongering and chaos.  Do you think North Korea would be as eager to prove they have nukes if Bush hadn't called them part of the 'Axis of Evil'?  No.  If we actually TRY to peacefully change the world, who knows, it might work!

Come on, Mustafa, at least present some real arguments, rather than just linking or quoting heavily biased sources.  Tell me about how Kerry's plan to revive the economy is flawed, tell me how his CURRENT actions make him unfit for command, tell me why his plans for international cooperation won't work.  You do that, and I'll take your points seriously.  I'm not going to point you to any Air America diatribes, or MoveOn.org ads, because I know that they are just as biased to the left, and adept in stretching the truth as Rush Limbaugh and the Swiftboat Vets are.

Agreed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The site is receiving too many hits apparently. At any rate the ad is narrated as follows;

"Even before Jane Fonda (search) went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy and mock America, John Kerry secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris. Though we were still at war and Americans were being held in North Vietnamese prison camps. Then, he returned and accused American troops of committing war crimes on a daily basis. Eventually Jane Fonda apologized for her activities, but John Kerry refuses to. In a time of war, can America trust a man who betrayed his country?"

For those of you who think what happened thirty years ago doesn't matter, I can only say that you better tell canidate Kerry that because he seems to think that it does. In fact he has made the events of thirty years ago the center piece of his campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice as most people have that Kerry hasn't said a thing about his, what, 20+ years in the Senate? If he didn't do anything to be proud of then, why would he do anything different in the top job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  It's just politics as usual.

Agreed!

The rest will sound like I'm defending Bush. I suppose I am. Not because I'm a fan, but he's gotten a really raw deal.

The only reason I plan on voting for him this time, is the Democrats still haven't found anyone with charisma, or that can tell a joke for that matter.

And Bush's dereliction of duty is okay?  His neglect for the state of our security during his first 8 months in office?  His lying to the American public about our reasoning to go to war with Iraq?  His complete and utter mishandling of the aftermath of the war?  His decision to pursue a personal vendetta in ousting Saddam rather than pumping any serious effort into finding Osama Bin Laden?

What dereliction? Is it any more solid than the attacks on Kerry?

Neglect? How? Was it any different than his predecessor?

(Besides Pres. Clinton admitted dodged the draft. Nobody cared.)

Lying? If the information you based a decision on is wrong (false) did you lie? Or were you mislead with everyone else? Seriously. Not making excuses.

Besides, the President of the United States CANNOT DECLARE WAR!

He can mobilize troops, can *commit an act of war,* but he does not have the power to declare war.

The Congress and Senate declared war on Iraq. They had equal access to intelligence. Why are we not holding Kerry and his cronies responsible?

Hell, I don't care if Kerry slept with Jane whats-her-face, or if Bush got his daddy to give him a 'permission slip' to avoid Vietnam.  I want a leader who will actually protect America, but promoting a positive image of the U.S. internationally.

To me, how well someone sticks to their marital vows tells me how much their word is worth. They take an oath of office. If a guy cannot abide by simple monogamy, what good is his oath? (Hint: It's not worth anything.)

And Kerry will protect us better than Bush? Are you going by what he says?

Kerry has "changed" his mind many times about thses issues. What makes you think this is his real opinion?

Who is going to tell him what to do and when to do it?

What Bush has done has endangered the American public more than just 'letting well enough alone' would have done.  The goodwill of the world after 9/11 has been squandered.  One-time close allys have been doing everything in their power to stop our warmongering and chaos.  Do you think North Korea would be as eager to prove they have nukes if Bush hadn't called them part of the 'Axis of Evil'?  No.  If we actually TRY to peacefully change the world, who knows, it might work!

Oh come on. I was getting spit on in Canada prior to delcaring war or "9/11."

Arrogant american? Hmmm, I was wearing a t-shirt with an U.S. Flag on it.

Like the world didn't want to see the U.S. drop off the earth years ago.

  Tell me about how Kerry's plan to revive the economy is flawed, tell me how his CURRENT actions make him unfit for command,

Unfit? Indecision? I can't follow someone that cannot make up their own mind.

And his plan for the economy is what Pres. Clinton used.

Everyone blames Bush for the economy, HOWEVER, the economy started sagging in 2Q99 -- TWO YEARS before Bush took office. Hmmmmmm

So, my opinion is "been there, done that, don't want to go back."

tell me why his plans for international cooperation won't work. /QUOTE]

No country will buy in without getting something in return. Contracts, oil guarantees, etc. Kinda what started the whole falling out in the first place.

BTW, the U.S. and few allies have been fighting in Iraq for over 10 years. We never left. Air supression to prevent retalliation against segments of Iraq, has been in progress since the first war.

Maybe Bush's priority was to end the war.

Either way, we are finished there, so Kerry saying he will bring troops home is really moot. Either candidate will have majority of troops home by next spring.

I have yet to see two *valid* candidates in a presidential election (since 1976 - my first involvement). I'm actually wishing Ross Perot would run again!!

:lol:

Screwed by the system yet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says Kerry went to Paris to talk to people. Your link fails to say what.

Kind\a sad you regard a drug addicted, war loving, chimp as a better president. Kerry earned medals and spoke out against wars like Vietnam. He understands you don't let politicians micromanage war.

My vote is for the lesser of two evils: Kerry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is from Adam Yoshida's blog;

"A Death Blow to the Kerry Campaign

I think that many people who have seen the sixth ad being put out by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth will agree with me when say that the ad, entitled “Friends†had the potential to do as much damage to the Kerry campaign as the entire Rathergate/Danron fiasco. Don’t believe me? Watch the ad yourself. And, in case you can’t see it, here’s a transcript.

The beauty of this ad is that it is simple, verifiably true, and utterly devastating. We know that John Kerry met with the Vietnamese Communists because he admitted it to us. We know that, as American boys fought and died in the muck of Vietnam, John Kerry sat with their perfumed diplomats in Europe and conspired to hand victory in the war to the Communists. We know this to be true. We know it because John Kerry told it to us.

Let me quote him exactly, because it’s important to get this right. Kerry said, “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.†His words, ladies and gentlemen. While the United States was at war, John Kerry went to Paris and spoke with the enemies of the Republic.

People say that what happened thirty-plus years ago doesn’t matter, shouldn’t matter in this campaign. Perhaps, in most cases, that should be true. But in this case it certainly does matter. Does any sane person really believe that whether or not George W. Bush showed up for a week’s worth of drills in Alabama thirty-three years ago is somehow more consequential than the admitted fact that Senator Kerry, as a nearly thirty year-old politician, travelled to a foreign nation to meet with the enemies of this country while the nation was at war and then returned in order to advocate that the United States accept peace on the terms of the communist Vietnamese (or, in other words, surrender)?

If this gets out (and since the Swift Vets are reportedly set to spend $2 million running this ad, it will) how does the Kerry campaign respond to it in a credible fashion? In essence, they’re left with a handful of options, all of them bad.

They can ignore the accusations altogether, but I don’t think they’ll try that one again, seeing as it worked so well with the first Swift Vet assault.

Attempting to deflect attention by attacking Bush on his National Guard service is out now since, thanks to CBS (and probably the DNC too), pretty much anything to do with Bush’s guard service is going to be radioactive for the rest of the campaign.

Perhaps they can trot Senator Kerry out to, in the mother of all flip-flops, apologize for some of his anti-war activism.

Alternately, they can act outraged that anyone would, “question Senator Kerry’s patriotism.†This, in all probability, is the course that they’ll take in the coming days.

And they’ll be right: it is an attack on Senator Kerry’s patriotism. But, much more importantly than that, it is an accurate attack on his patriotism. Worse still (for Kerry’s dwindling legions) is that it feeds into perceptions of how Senator Kerry would behave as President.

The most obvious point that must be taken from his claims as to Vietnamese intentions at the time is that either Kerry is a liar or he is an extremely gullible man (or perhaps both). Also in his Senate testimony in 1971, John Kerry told the American people that, at the most, the lives of perhaps two thousand to three thousand South Vietnamese would be at risk if the United States withdrew from Vietnam. As we would later see, the numbers would be substantially higher.

This, of course, was not a surprise to anyone with a lick of common sense. He entire world had already seen the crimes of communism in Russia, in Eastern Europe, in China and, indeed, in North Vietnam. Only a very easily deceived person could have believed that the pattern would not repeat the moment the Vietnamese Communists gripped the South within their claws.

Even worse, this wasn’t the only time that Senator Kerry allowed himself to be deceived by foreign enemies of the United States, nor was it the only time that Kerry was used to deliver the demands of an enemy of the United States to the American government and people.

In 1985, the newly-elected Senator Kerry took a trip to Nicaragua, where he met with the communist dictator of that country. When he returned to the United States from that trip, the Senator had brought something with him: the Sandinistas’ offer for peace with the United States. Once more John Forbes Kerry voluntarily conveyed the demands of a hostile foreign power to his own government. Yet again John Kerry called upon the President of the United States to accept, in whole, the terms offered by an enemy of the Republic.

Once the American people know this history, once they’ve taken it all in, they’ll be left with the same frightful question that I’ve carried with me for nine months: what happens if the person receiving that offer is no longer Lieutenant Kerry or Senator Kerry, but President Kerry? What happens if there’s no one higher on up for Kerry to call upon to accept the enemy’s terms: what if Kerry himself is in a position to accept the enemy’s terms?

This is significant because the John Kerry of 2004 shows every sign of being every bit as gullible as the John Kerry of 1985 and the John Kerry of 1971. He’s claimed that foreign leaders are eager to see him become President. I’ll bet they are.

All of this takes on even greater importance since Kerry proposes to, as President, base his entire foreign policy upon seeking negotiated solutions to the world’s problems and since Senator Kerry apparently believes that “negotiating†means “accepting uncritically whatever those sophisticated foreigners tell me†this means that a President Kerry would almost certainly have a foreign policy revolving around the calculated sale of America’s national interest.

Kerry pretends to talk tough on North Korea, but then he says things like, “We must be prepared to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that addresses the full range of… North Korea's concerns about security and economic development.†It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what Senator Kerry really means. When he accuses the Bush Administration of “not paying enough attention†to North Korea he really means, “Being insufficiently slavish in appeasing Kim Jong Il.â€

The same is true on Iran. Senator Kerry talks about getting tough, and yet his core proposal for dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions involves giving nuclear fuel to the Ayatollahs. No, I didn’t make that up. Here’s Senator Kerry himself, “We should call their bluff, and organize a group of states that will offer the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they can’t divert it to build a weapon.†He’s so trusting (or stupid) that he’s almost cute.

But, in truth, there’s nothing cute about the fact that virtually every time that Senator Kerry has dealt with an enemy of the United States (or offered a proposal for dealing with an enemy) in the field of diplomacy, his response has been to become an advocate of proposals favourable to that enemy. In 1971, John Kerry wanted the US to unilaterally begin withdrawing from Vietnam and trust the North Vietnamese Communists to return US POW’s of their own volition. In 2004, John Kerry wants to give “nuclear fuel†to Iran and trust that they won’t do anything bad with it, won’t divert any portion of it, and will give it all back just as they’re supposed to.

John Kerry may trust the enemies of America but the American people just can’t trust John Kerry."

Source - http://www.adamyoshida.com/2004/09/death-b...y-campaign.html

I'd say that sums Mr. Kerry up rather nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a great op-ed on Kerry's betrayal of our men and women serving in Iraq;

Aiding the enemy, again

 

By Cal Thomas

Originally published September 22, 2004

ARLINGTON, Va. -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has achieved something that may be unique in the history of our country. He has managed to oppose two wars while they are being fought, undermine the objective of the nation and give aid and comfort to those who are killing American soldiers and kidnapping American civilians.

In a speech at New York University on Monday, Mr. Kerry questioned President Bush's judgment in ordering American troops to topple Saddam Hussein, saying the president had exchanged a brutal dictator for "chaos."

While acknowledging "there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq, [and] schools, shops and hospitals have been opened, [and] in parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails," Mr. Kerry claimed that "most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence ... instead of siding with us against the insurgents."

Mr. Kerry is an expert at fence-sitting, having sat on one most of his life. He has taken both sides in the war and tried even in this speech to distinguish between granting President Bush authority to wage war and reserving his right to micromanage the war Mr. Bush wages if it doesn't immediately produce victory.

It wasn't long after Mr. Kerry returned from Vietnam that he joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He slandered his fellow soldiers, calling them indiscriminate killers and comparing them to Genghis Khan.

Returning prisoners of war said their North Vietnamese captors played excerpts from Mr. Kerry's congressional testimony in an attempt to break their morale and convince the POWs that their country had abandoned them. Sound bites from Mr. Kerry's NYU speech could be played in certain mosques to convince the insurgents and other Muslim extremists that all they have to do is step up the killing between now and the U.S. election and victory for them is assured. They have seen America cut and run before. Mr. Kerry's address may again provide aid and comfort to America's latest enemy.

Mr. Kerry claimed President Bush has offered "23 different rationales for this war." Even if that were true, he is still far behind the number of flip-flops committed by Mr. Kerry on the war and a long list of other issues.

Mr. Kerry once again returned to his pledge to seek help in Iraq and against terrorism (as if the two can be separated) from America's "allies," despite statements from many European leaders indicating that they will not become involved in Iraq no matter who wins the November election.

Mr. Kerry criticized the president for "colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president." So is decisiveness, and Mr. Kerry fails on both counts. There is nothing in his Senate record, in his pronouncements during this campaign, or in much of his life story that gives voters confidence that this is a man with strong principles whose judgment and vision can be trusted.

Instead, Mr. Kerry's life has been one of self-promotion and self-indulgence. As with the Vietnam War, he doesn't talk about victory, or America's unique place in the world to which free people, and those yearning for freedom, can look.

Terrorism didn't begin on Sept. 11, 2001. It started earlier than the Beirut barracks attacks in 1983. It began in the hearts of evil men who preached about an angry god intent on wiping out his enemies through violent acts. That disease spread, and whether it found a host in Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, the virus exploded into a worldwide plague.

Mr. Kerry's remarks were not about finding a cure for the plague but about surrendering to it, or taking diplomatic placebos hoping the disease will go away.

It won't go away, even if America withdraws from Iraq tomorrow. Had we not gone there in the first place, terrorism would still be around.

The objective should be victory. It was a word absent from Mr. Kerry's speech, because it is a concept foreign to a man who has demonstrated his preference -- first with Vietnam and now with Iraq -- to help America's enemies in times of crisis far more than helping his own country.

Source - http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/o...-oped-headlines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The beauty of this ad is that it is simple, verifiably true, and utterly devastating.

All you have are biased and one sided sources Mufasa. Try harder next time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1307529,00.html

As you can see the chimp took America to war and got my friends killed. Kerry on the other hand:

...talked with both delegations at the peace talks...

From your souce. What's wrong with Kerry talking to the enemy at peace talks? If he's trying to bring peace then I'm all for it. Too bad the chimp can't do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The beauty of this ad is that it is simple, verifiably true, and utterly devastating.

All you have are biased and one sided sources Mufasa. Try harder next time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1307529,00.html

As you can see the chimp took America to war and got my friends killed. Kerry on the other hand:

...talked with both delegations at the peace talks...

From your souce. What's wrong with Kerry talking to the enemy at peace talks? If he's trying to bring peace then I'm all for it. Too bad the chimp can't do the same.

Why of course Rodney! Why didn't I think of that? It's all so simple isn't it? The answer is make love not war right? AKA - Can't we all just get along? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The beauty of this ad is that it is simple, verifiably true, and utterly devastating.

All you have are biased and one sided sources Mufasa. Try harder next time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1307529,00.html

As you can see the chimp took America to war and got my friends killed. Kerry on the other hand:

...talked with both delegations at the peace talks...

From your souce. What's wrong with Kerry talking to the enemy at peace talks? If he's trying to bring peace then I'm all for it. Too bad the chimp can't do the same.

Why of course Rodney! Why didn't I think of that? It's all so simple isn't it? The answer is make love not war right? AKA - Can't we all just get along? :rolleyes:

What's the matte? You hatred of Euros and Muslims getting to you?

That's why you don't like Kerry. You only want to see war not peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dedicate the following column by Ann Coulter to my friend qawazyasaloon;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan Rather: Fairly unbalanced

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: September 22, 2004

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

I believe we now have conclusive proof that:

(1) Dan Rather is not an honest newsman who was simply duped by extremely clever forgeries; and

(2) We could have won the Vietnam War.

A basic canon of journalism is not to place all your faith in a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago who hates the target of your story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years. And that's true even if you yourself are a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago (an on-air paddling from Bush 41) who hates the target of your own story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years, Dan.

CBS' sole source authenticating the forged National Guard documents is Bill Burkett, who's about as sane as Margot Kidder was when they dragged her filthy, toothless butt out of somebody's shrubs a few years back. Burkett has compared Bush to Hitler and Napoleon, and rambles on about Bush's "demonic personality shortcomings." (This would put Burkett on roughly the same page as Al Gore.)

According to USA Today, an interview with Burkett ended when he "suffered a violent seizure and collapsed in his chair" – an exit strategy Dan Rather has been eyeing hungrily all week, I'm sure. Burkett admits to having nervous breakdowns and having been hospitalized for depression.

At a minimum, the viewing public should have been informed that CBS' sole "unimpeachable" source of the forged anti-Bush records was textbook crank Bill Burkett in order to evaluate the information. ("Oh no, not that guy again!") The public would know to use the same skeptical eye it uses to watch the "CBS Evening News With Dan Rather" itself.

Whoever forged these documents should not only be criminally prosecuted, but should also have his driver's license taken away for the stupidity of using Microsoft Word to forge 1971 documents.

And yet this was the evidence CBS relied on to accuse a sitting president of a court martial-level offense 50 days before a presidential election.

As of Sept. 20, Dan Rather says he still believes the documents are genuine and says he wants to be the one to break the story if the documents are fake. (Dan might want to attend to that story after his exclusive report on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.) Rather is also eagerly awaiting some other documents Burkett says he has that prove Bush is a brainwashed North Korean spy.

By now, the only possibilities are: (1) Dan Rather knew he was foisting forgeries on the nation to try to change a presidential election or (2) "Kenneth" inflicted some real brain damage when he hit Rather in the head back in 1986.

Liberals keep telling us to "move on" from the CBS scandal – which means we're really onto something. They act surprised and insist this incident was a freak occurrence – an unfortunate mistake in the twilight of a great newsman's career.

To the contrary, such an outrageous fraud was inevitable given the mendacity and outright partisanship of the press.

Burkett didn't come to CBS; CBS found Burkett. Rather's producer, Mary Mapes, called Joe Lockhart at the Kerry campaign and told him he needed to talk to Burkett. Lockhart himself is the apotheosis of the media-DNC complex, moving in and out of Democratic campaigns and jobs with the mainstream media, including at ABC, NBC and CNN.

CBS was attempting to manipulate a presidential election in wartime. What if CBS had used better forgeries? What if – like Bush's 30-year-old DUI charge – the media had waited 72 hours before the election to air this character assassination?

There is one reason CBS couldn't wait until just before the election to put these forgeries on the air: It would be too late. Kerry was crashing and burning – because of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. (Funny that the Swift Boat veterans haven't been able to get on Kerry PR agency CBS News.)

Despite a total blackout on the Swift Boat Veterans in the mainstream media, the Swifties had driven Kerry's poll numbers into the dirt long before the Republican National Convention – proving once again that it's almost impossible for liberals to brainwash people who can read.

Even the New York Times had to stop ignoring the No. 1 book on its own best-seller list, "Unfit for Command," in order to run front-page articles attacking the Swift Boat Veterans.

The "Today" show has given Kitty Kelley a chair next to Katie Couric until Election Day. (It's now Day Seven of Kelley's refusal to produce records concerning charges that she is in the final stages of syphilitic dementia.) At least they're more likely to get the truth in Kitty Kelley's book than in Doug Brinkley's "Tour of Duty." But Katie hasn't had time to interview the Swift Boat veterans.

CBS showcased laughable forgeries obtained from a man literally foaming at the mouth in order to accuse the president of malfeasance. But CBS would never put a single one of the 264 Vietnam veterans on the air to say what they knew about Kerry.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth show the role of the individual in history. It wasn't Republican strategists who finished Kerry off two months before the election; it was the American people. The Swift Boat veterans came along and kicked Kerry in the shins and no matter how much heat they took, they were brave and wouldn't give up. The veterans who served with Kerry told the truth and the American people listened (as soon as they managed to locate a copy of "Unfit for Command" hidden on one of the back shelves at their local bookstores).

CBS was forced to run a fake story so early in the campaign that it was exposed as a fraud – only because of the Swift Boat vets. These brave men, many of them decorated war heroes, have now not only won the election for Bush, they have ended Dan Rather's career.

It's often said that we never lost a battle in Vietnam, but that the war was lost at home by a seditious media demoralizing the American people. Ironically, the leader of that effort was Rather's predecessor at CBS News, Walter Cronkite, president of the Ho Chi Minh Admiration Society.

It was Cronkite who went on air and lied about the Tet offensive, claiming it was a defeat for the Americans. He told the American people the war was over and we had lost. Ronald Reagan said CBS News officials should have been tried for treason for those broadcasts.

CBS has already lost one war for America. The Swift Boat Vets weren't going to let CBS lose another one.

Source - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=40581

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mustafa, when are you going to present a reasoned opinion of your own, rather than simply quoting someone else?

I can understand using someone else to BACK UP your position, but of your messages in this thread so far, by my word count, over 90% are quotes from someone else. Now, I wrote out a lengthy response to you, to which you had less than two paragraphs of your own words.

Dog Eared, while I disagree with him, at least presented reasoned out arguments against my points.

Why I bit at your bait, I don't know. I thought that somehow it would be possible to hold a reasoned debate. That appears not to be the case. You have done nothing but quote EXTREMELY biased sources, passing them off as stone cold fact. Yes, there are facts quoted by your sources, but they are not ALL the facts.

Yes, Kerry admitted that he spoke with delegates from the Communist side. Since he was at PEACE TALKS, it makes sense. How else do you negotiate a truce but by talking to both sides. We do not know the content of his talks. For all we know, he could have been a hardline jar-head, telling the Communists that they need to pull out, and that's it. Yeah, I doubt that was it, too. But merely participating in peace talks does not make on a traitor. Gen. MacArthur should then be considered a traitor for speaking with the Japanese at the end of World War II by your reasoning. (Well, by the reasoning of those you quote. I still haven't seen any meaningful opinions by *YOU* stating what *YOUR* beliefs on the matter are.)

DogEared: I apologize for my delay in responding to your arguments. I recently had a new baby, and am only checking messageboards once every few days. I'll finish reading your comment in a couple hours and reply to it then.

Mustafa, I will no longer respond to any posting by you that is less 50% your words, and does not contain any actual questions or commentary by you. Merely posting a link or quote, and positing "What do you think?" won't cut it. Because I tend to think "Your sources are right-wing nut jobs" as much as I think Randy Rhodes of Air America radio is a "left-wing psycho".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Kerry admitted that he spoke with delegates from the Communist side.  Since he was at PEACE TALKS, it makes sense.  How else do you negotiate a truce but by talking to both sides.  We do not know the content of his talks.  For all we know, he could have been a hardline jar-head, telling the Communists that they need to pull out, and that's it.  Yeah, I doubt that was it, too.  But merely participating in peace talks does not make on a traitor.  Gen. MacArthur should then be considered a traitor for speaking with the Japanese at the end of World War II by your reasoning. 

Oh really? Here's the problem with your statement above - Kerry's trip to Paris with the VVAW delegation in 1970 did not include any talks with the U.S. delegation at the Peace talks. He spoke only with the North Vietnamese and VC contingents. And as you have correctly pointed out - one cannot negotiate peace between via speaking with only one side of a given dispute. There then is your "proof" that he was not in Paris to further the cause of Peace.

So what was he doing there? He claims he was there to discuss the release of the POWs. History shows that he put into action what he learned in his talks with the North Vietnamese by carrying their water for them when he returned home. He put great energy into trying to get the families of the POWs here in the U.S. to speak out against the war. At this he failed and many of the families took great offense to his attempt to use them in this fashion. Then there is the matter of his testimony before Congress. He essentially advocated that we accept the North Vietnamese plan to end the war. Read his testimony some time - particularly that which was given behind closed doors - it's all readily available online.

Private U.S. citizens are prohibited by federal law from negotiating with foreign powers - a fact which Kerry himself acknowledged in his congressional testimony. Kerry had no authority to negotiate on behalf of anyone when he went to Paris. This was hardly comparable to General MacArthur, who did have the necessary authority speaking with the Japanese in WWII.

I don't doubt that he meant well in much of what he did back then - even though his chief motivation seems to have been to advance his own career. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I have concluded that Kerry's actions back then may have very well constitute treason. They certainly gave aid and comfort to the enemy - they even won his photo a place of honor in the War Crimes museum in post war Vietnam.

As for your complaint regarding my sources - nice try but give it up. The source of the material presented is entirely irrelevant.

BTW - Your boy Kerry mentioned his Vietnam experience once again today in a speach relating it to the situation with Iraq. He certainly seems to think that what he did back then is relevant even if you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for a well written, well reasoned response. I had thought (apparently incorrectly) that Kerry spoke with both North and South Vietnamese representatives. Again, we don't REALLY know what he did or said in those conversations. But if it was only with representatives of the North, then yes, it does look less 'legitimate' than I had originally thought.

Do I think that those meetings make him a traitor? No. Do I think that his actions condemning soldiers when he came back was wrong? Yes. I never disputed that. I think he was a radical hippy when he got back from Vietnam. I also think that he has since changed his stance, seeing the error of his ways. (As many Republican politicians have done on many stances over the years, including Bush's renunciation of alcohol.)

And the source of material is *NOT* "totally irrelevant". If all of your sources are from one extreme of the political spectrum, including many that refuse to publish anything that could be taken to be a retraction or correction, then they are just muckraking and propagandist. (Please note that I'm not limiting this to just conservative sources.) I just greatly prefer actual discussions, as you have just written, as opposed to just quoting someone inherently biased.

And Kerry is not "my boy"... I am a Republican, and I can't stand Kerry. I just can't stand the so-called "Neo-conservatives" more, including George W. Bush. (I was a big fan of H.W.) If McCain was running again, I'd vote for him, if JEB Bush was running, I'd vote for him. But not W. The economy was going downhill when he came into office, but he only made it worse. He has ruined the U.S. international credibility with his actions, and has turned his back on the core Republican principles of having a sound economy by pushing these unnecessary tax cuts when increasing spending to record levels. (And I have benefited quite well from these tax cuts, don't get me wrong, I just think they are coming at the wrong time.)

I think the best chance for America to recover both our economy, and our international prestige, is to replace Bush. I'd rather have just about anyone other than Kerry. (Hell, I'd rather have Lieberman than Kerry, okay, Gore is worse,) but Bush has got to go. As for why our "international prestige" is important? If the rest of the world thinks reasonably highly of the U.S., they won't be as against us when we really need them, like in Iraq. If we do less to antagonize the MODERATE Islamists, we wouldn't turn them into EXTREMIST Islamists. (Who go on to support and/or join Al Qaeda and similar.) The leadership of Al Qaeda has said that the war in Iraq has been their best recruiting tool ever. (The original article by a truly independent source isn't online anymore, but I found it quoted in another forum, here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for a well written, well reasoned response.  I had thought (apparently incorrectly) that Kerry spoke with both North and South Vietnamese representatives.  Again, we don't REALLY know what he did or said in those conversations.  But if it was only with representatives of the North, then yes, it does look less 'legitimate' than I had originally thought.

It is a common misconception that Kerry met with "both sides" while Paris. It comes from a rather artful statement he made before the Senate in '71. Here is what he said;

I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam [Hanoi Communists, ed.] and the Provisional Revolutionary Government [Viet Cong, ed.] and of all eight of Madam Binh's points [Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Viet Cong Foreign Minister, ed.] it has been stated time and time again,... if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.

See what I mean? But don't feel bad - the New York Times made the same mistake just this morning in a story by Jodi Wilgoren;

Mr. Kerry's nemesis, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is spending $1.3 million in five swing states with a spot accusing him of meeting with the enemy in Paris - a reference to his trip to the Paris peace talks, where he met with both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now