Posted on 09/01/2004 10:23:47 PM PDT by Timeout
Months ago, I was chatting with a Republican who is very, very knowledgeable about Kerry and I mentioned Kerry's 1971 travels to Paris, and meetings with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh. Binh had been a member of the Central Committee for the National Front for the Liberation of the South, and was now Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) of South Vietnam. The military arm of the PRG was widely known as the Viet Cong, just as Madame Binh was widely recognized as the Viet Cong delegate to the conference.
"Yeah, I've heard about that," the Republican said. "I've heard a lot of interesting things about that, but I don't think I want to talk about that just yet."
My eyebrows were raised, but he wouldn't say more.
Well, apparently Newt Gingrich just said to Sean Hannity, very slowly, very carefully, that John Kerry traveled to Paris three times to meet with the Communist leadership in secret.
I think we now know what that Republican didn't yet want to talk about.
That is their life.
I don't see the Bush people doing this unless Kerry tries some sort of last-minute smear himself.
Watch that Barnes guy.
The Kerry killer is photographic evidence of this. This is what the latest buzz is all about. Or film footage. Ideal for a new swift Vets advertisement.
Can we say TREASON??????
Hmmm. Turns out Hillary is not registered as a presidential candidate according to the FEC ... but Al Gore is.
(By A.M. Rosenthal)
In the winter of 1973, the Nixon-Kissinger team and its most passionate American enemies were in agreement on one overriding judgment: The war in Vietnam was lost and had to be ended.
About 17 years earlier, President Eisenhower had begun sending military advisers and intelligence operators into Vietnam --the first American involvement. Then Presidents Kennedy and Johnson each chose to deepen a war that tore apart American society long before it was over.
Richard Nixon became the only President to try, almost desperately, to end the war through negotiation. Without Henry Kissinger those negotiations would not have started, or ended in a peace agreement.
Two decades later Americans still want and deserve a full accounting of any U.S. prisoners of war not freed, and what was done about them, or left undone.
But the value of the Senate hearings on P.O.W.'s will be ruined if they become just one more arena for politicians, academics and journalists who cherish their vendetta against Mr. Kissinger, one more chance to treat a man without whom the peace agreement would have been impossible as some unindicted conspirator.
The very fact that he dares defend himself--with a kind of professional, respectful contempt--enrages them even more.
To select Mr. Kissinger as the target is unfair historically. And it lessens the chances of two central realities being made clear. One is that the villain was Hanoi, now cuddly Hanoi. Only the Communists could have kept any Americans hostage.
The other is that through callousness or sloth, every Administration during and since the war failed to clarify the P.O.W. story--else we would not still be asking questions.
As a condition of peace, Mr. Kissinger insisted on a Communist commitment to release all prisoners. Maybe tougher safeguards could have been written into the agreement. Would Congress and the peace activists have accepted the continuation of the war that might have meant?
Hardly likely. In 1971, two years before any peace agreement, John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran who became a peace activist, said that ``points'' presented by Hanoi-Vietcong delegations in Paris, and their conversations with him and other Americans, showed prisoners would be returned. So, he said, the U.S. should not ``stall'' any longer.
Mr. Kerry is now a talented Senator from Massachusetts. And now he is conducting a P.O.W. inquiry because so many Americans believe exactly what he thought could not happen--that the Communists kept some prisoners.
Not long after the peace agreement was signed, Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Nixon warned that some prisoners might still be held. Did the peace movement or Congress demand reprisal pressures against Hanoi?
Mr. Kissinger's essential role in ending the war does not wipe out the Senate's duty to investigate the fate of all P.O.W.'s, but it distorts reality to forget what happened in 1973.
Walter Isaacson, in his much-discussed biography ``Kissinger,'' is often sharply critical of his subject. But he puts criticism of the peace negotiations in this perspective:
``By the beginning of 1973, Kissinger and Nixon had brought the nation's military misadventure in Vietnam to an end. Instead of slinking away as the Vietnamese factions continued the war, Kissinger had secured a cease-fire that, at least for the moment, curtailed the killing. In addition, America's ally had been given a decent chance to survive.
``Officials in the previous two Administrations, many of whom became preening doves as soon as their responsibility ended, had overseen a foolish deployment of close to 550,000 American troops over eight years. The Nixon Administration immediately reversed the process and began withdrawing *.*.*.
``The Paris agreement was the final element of a reshaped American foreign policy that--rather amazingly--provided the nation with the chance to play as influential a role in the world as it had before the paralyzing despair of its Vietnam involvement.''
Senator Kerry can serve America by a full and fair inquiry. That opportunity will be lost if the investigation is influenced by any vendetta against Mr. Kissinger. The country deserves better. So does Henry Kissinger.
http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_1992_09_30_Article.htm
Where'd ya find that? I just looked on the FEC site and she's only listed as running for Senate.
It would be effective. Ugly, but effective.
Oh good! I was worried we had already blown our wad, and we didn't have an October surprise! Looks like I was wrong.
I disagree. Drop this the friday before the election, and watch the Dem meltdown.
BUMP
"To myself, with frank admiration."
The FEC does note a "Hillary Rodham Clinton For President" group. They officially have no money and are a month past due for reporting money.
>>>a month past due for reporting money
What does that mean?
Simple. Liberal candidate, liberal state, liberal media. Do the math.
As long as he remained nothing more than 1/100th of the Senate, he was no threat to the country and could have easily stayed there for the rest of his life. Once he got the presidential nod, though, the whole situation changed significantly.
Hillary.org
Hillary Clinton Forum
Supporting Hillary Clinton For President Since 1995
Click Here to Enter the Forum
EDITORIALS | ARCHIVES | AWARDS
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton - Senate Arms Service Committee
bttt
Just confirmed: that website is from the "Hillary Rodham Clinton For President" group. The site's admin is the group's treasurer.
They are legally obligated to report their financial standing and all contributions. They're a month late. The FEC has sent them a "past due" letter (viewable at the FEC site).
I'm sorry. I'll restate my question.
Would that make her ineligable to make a bid to run for Presidency? Can she still file?
Thanks for verifying the website.
And yet another look being tested for this site:
http://www.hillary.org/options/
Hillary Clinton for President
PEACE - LOVE - PROSPERITY - SANITY
Add Your Message and a Donation : Hillary Rodham Clinton for President : Search
Viewing messages 1 to 15. Esme Taylor
Send Hillary and Bill Clinton back to the White House. Hillary and Bill have the established international alliances necessary to restore respect for America. Unlike other candidates, the more the Republicans bash the Clintons is the higher the go and more powerful they get! Come on Hillary. Don't be scared. I spent every day for nine long years supporting you for President for a very good reason. Your country needs you now more than ever. GO GIRL!!!
2004 - Sausalito, CA $150
I think the word "draft" in the title refers to "make her a candidate against her will", not "beta version of new campaign". The MO of the conspiracy has long been to "force" her to run.
If she's not registered - and apparently tomorrow is the deadline - she can't run on a normal ballot. The only option then is a write-in campaign, which would be useless.
I've inquired at hillary.org about this issue. We'll see how they react/respond.
"draft" in the title refers to "make her a candidate against her will"
That is another way to look at it. But the word DRAFT isn't on all of the site splashes I'm finding. It looks like the site is under construction for a few different looks.
You could be right, draft her to run, I still think it is DRAFT for design splash page.
Please keep us up to date. Thanks for the research.
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM ID: P00003392 CHALLENGEROffice Sought: President
State: Presidential Candidate
District: 03
Party: DEM (Democratic Party)
And there is action (though not much): The International Longshore and Warehouse Union PAF donated $1000 on 7/14/04.
Now if I could just figure out why she shows up on a search here but not here (but oddly Bill is listed in the latter), both do FEC candidate searches.
BTTT
NOW, look at who made the donation!
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/com_detail/C00176214/
Make sure you clip or mark this article. The LIVE page, http://www.refuseandresist.org/mumia/2000/010700delegation.html HAS BEEN EDITED!
This article below is from the CACHE!
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:-68poMwKFuEJ:www.refuseandresist.org/mumia/2000/010700delegation.html+INTERNATIONAL+LONGSHORE+AND+WAREHOUSE+UNION+%2B+clinton&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
International Delegation to Deliver Message to Clinton: 'Stop the Execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal!'
SAN FRANCISCO, January 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Member of parliaments and legislative bodies from several countries, joined by union leaders and human rights activists, will assemble in Washington, D.C., on January 12 as part of an international delegation to ask President Clinton to stop the threatened execution of Mumia Abu- Jamal. Abu-Jamal is an African American radio journalist who has been on death row in a Pennsylvania prison for 18 years following his 1982 conviction for killing a police officer.
On hand from the United States will be Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Martin Luther King III, Rev. Walter Fauntroy, a representative from the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and others.
Describing the trial that led to Abu-Jamal's conviction as "one of the worst travesties and miscarriages of justice that has ever occurred in this country," Baldemar Velasquez, coordinator of the January 12 delegation, said the group had requested a meeting with President Clinton to ask him "to direct Attorney General Janet Reno to conduct an investigation of the Pennsylvania legal system to ascertain how this terrible situation came about." The delegation also hopes to meet with the Attorney General. Visits to the White House and Justice Department will be preceded by a news conference to be held in Washington, D.C., at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., N.W., East Room, at 9 a.m., also on Wednesday, January 12.
The delegation will take to Washington petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of people in support of an "Open Letter to Bill Clinton" urging the president to act in the Abu-Jamal case, which is currently before a federal district judge in Pennsylvania. The judge there is considering claims of 29 separate violations of Abu-Jamal's constitutional rights. "We know that President Clinton cannot order a new trial in this case, nor can he commute Abu-Jamal's sentence. But ordering an investigation by the Justice Department would go a long way in getting at the truth and would, we are confident, stop the execution," said Velasquez.
Velasquez, who is president of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, based in Toledo, Ohio, and a vice president of the Ohio AFL-CIO, said delegation members will be coming from Brazil, France, Germany, Great Britain, Martinique, South Africa, Spain and perhaps other countries. "For so many political leaders and other notables to come here -- in come cases traveling thousands of miles at great personal expense -- to make a statement in this case demonstrates how deeply the feeling is all over the world that a terrible injustice is being committed here and that people of conscience must speak out now to stop it," Velasquez declared.
Attached find the current listing of the January 12 delegation with additional names expected.
Jean-Pierre Aranega, France, union official, Postal Workers Union
Jose Arbex, Brazil, journalist, Herzog Award of Journalists
Robert Bareille, France, union official, National Energy Workers Union
Manuel Camara, Spain, member, Senate
John Conyers, U.S., member, U.S. House of Representatives
Jeremy Corbyn, Great Britain, member, Parliament
Ossie Davis, U.S., actor and political activist
Jean-Luc Ega, Martinique, deputy-mayor, Sainte-Anne
Walter Fauntroy, U.S., director, National Black Leadership Roundtable
Daniel Gluckstein, France, coordinator, International Liaison Committee
Dick Gregory, U.S., human rights activist
Georges Hage, France, vice president of Foreign Affairs Commission, National Assembly
Ronald E. Hampton, U.S., executive director, National Black Police Association
Carlsten Huebner, Germany, member, Parliament
Sam Jordan, U.S., director, Program to Abolish the Death Penalty, Amnesty International USA
Martin Luther King III, U.S., president, Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Joe Madison, U.S., radio journalist
Lindsay McLaughlin, U.S., legislative representative, International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Patrick Mkezi, South Africa, president, Azania's Workers Union
Martha Osamor, Great Britain, coordinator, People of Color Caucus, Trade Union Congress
Rev. Randall Osborne, U.S., executive vice president, Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Lothar Ott, Germany, union official, GEW (Teachers Union)
Edward Rosario, U.S., executive board and official representative, San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Jean-Claude Roujeau, France, professor of medicine
Eduardo Suplicy, Brazil, senator, State of Sao-Paulo
Baldemar Velasquez, U.S., president, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO
Alisa Wilkins, U.S., national vice president, Lawyers Guild
Steve Wiser, U.S., death row spiritual advisor, Bruderhof
All local supporters are encouraged to join us in welcoming the delegation. We will gather in front of the White House (Lafayette Square side) on the morning of January 12 between 10 and 10:30 a.m. Please encourage your friends and associates to come so that we can welcome them with as large a group as possible.
Re: Hillary --
Well, I knew I read it on FR way back during the winter!
Whoever posted it then was correct, it seems.
Hillary's got her ducks in a row.
VERY interesting...excellent catch...
"Do you think this is the iceberg we've been waiting for?"
I wonder how much of this stuff Hillary knew in advance...
The same old question applies.
Hillary's October Surprise???
Can't be that. We would know by tomorrow if she was running, right?
I'm a little fuzzy about the rules of the game.
This FEC filing means she IS running for Pres? So at any point, Kerry could drop out or have an "unforeseen" incident and she would be the one running against Bush?
OR does something have to be done or etched in stone by tomorrow?
Besides, Pres Bush is an avid skillful poker player....as the song goes know when to hold'em...know when to fold'em. And we all know Pres Bush will NEVER fold'em!!! Looks like he's out of that holdin' pattern!!! He's holding 4 aces!!!
My take is, the deadline to file is now.
But we know she's already filed, some time ago.
So if this were to pass, Kerry could drop out at any time, the dems would have to run someone else.
And she or someone could step in to fill the spot.
As long as they had already filed, and who knows who else has done so.
The FEC ruling just means she's set up to go, not that she will, but that if anything unforeseen were to occur, then she could step in.
And in a way, I hope this does happen, because it would be better to have her run against the incumbent, rather than a new and unknown entity in 2008.
This would be a good chance to knock her out completely for the future.
Perhaps we'd be finished with the clinton curse forever.
>>>The FEC ruling just means she's set up to go, not that she will, but that if anything unforeseen were to occur, then she could step in.
So, you are right, this could be the 'October Surprise'.
She is collecting donations though. So she is more than set up to go.
TICK-TICK-TICK.........................
I think I'm gonna barf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>This would be a good chance to knock her out completely for the future.
That all depends how thoroughly the White House/Congress gets cleaned out before she makes her move.
You saw the articles I posted above. You didn't get the impression that Kerry has something on McCain?
Read this one again if you only skimmed:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1205397/posts?page=208#208
And did you get a chance to look at the Hillary site under construction?
http://www.hillary.org/pressroom.shtml
Who ever is working on it screwed up the tables. Scroll to the right and read this. It is about the propaganda for rerunning in 2006 for Senate. But the sentiment is the same for running this November for Presidency:
I will win re-election in 2006
BOSTON (AP) — New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton boasted Tuesday that she will win re-election to a second term in 2006 no matter how much money Republicans raise in an attempt to beat her.
"Maybe they'll think better of it because I'm going to win," she said in an interview with The Associated Press. "They should spend their money elsewhere."
(snip)
She has info on enough people where they won't dare oppose her.
Bush won't be able to play quiet chess against her like he is doing against Kerry. He does NEED to beat her to the bunch and take out the trash though.
I did lose my appetite too.
This poor guy should just pack up and move to North Korea.
Cal to read what you posted from the hilary site, is enough to scare a person to death.
Do you realize that those fools are the mothers of our
country's future?
Yes, I know of one woman who will vote for her, simply cause
she wants a woman in the White House.
Wasn't there a thread, months ago, on hilary being registered?
I know I read it here, but maybe not under her own seperate thread.
I think I do remember that as a thread.
A new one was just started here too.
Ping
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1205864/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
