Skip to comments.John Kerry, Criminal
Posted on 09/18/2004 9:39:20 PM PDT by Time4Atlas2Shrug
For years it was said that Jane Fonda committed treason when she went to Vietnam in July 1972. In the late 1990s, with increasingly widespread use of the Internet, the charge became a staple of discussion by conservatives and veterans. However, their belief in Fonda's criminality was not substantiated. We undertook to do just that, and laid out the definitive case against her in our 2002 book, "Aid and Comfort": Jane Fonda In North Vietnam.
A current parallel has arisen in connection with the presidential candidacy of John Kerry. For the past several weeks, the Internet has been ablaze with charges - as yet unexplained, let alone legally substantiated - that by travelling to Paris for meetings with the North Vietnamese communists and their Viet Cong allies in 1970, Kerry violated American criminal statutes. Indeed, one well-intentioned group Patriot Petitions, has disseminated a petition to President of the Senate Richard Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Attorney General John Ashcroft, seeking Kerry's prosecution.
Just as Fonda's critics turned out to have been correct about their gut feelings regarding her treasonable actions in North Vietnam, so, too, Kerry's critics - who feel strongly that his trip violated the law, without quite knowing why - are correct.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Stuff like this is not helpful. Calling Kerry a criminal is so over the top that it risks backfiring.
There's no statute of limitations on Treason.
WTH are you talking about? He IS a criminal!!! He is a treasonous idiot who met with NV commies 3x in France WHILE there was a war going on. He taped messages directed at the imprisoned soldiers in the Hanoi Hilton. He coached so called 'Vietnam Vets' (who NEVER served) to testify to war crimes. He lied under oath in his testimony before Congress. In this testimony, he repeated KGB propaganda LINE FOR LINE.
We've got plenty to go after without having to resort to hyperbole.
Meanwhile, I'll fight Kerry on his flip-flops and lack of a core.
The truth about Kerry must be exposed. He was part of the effort that undermined the war, don't you get that? As a result of his actions, 2 million Cambodians died, not to mention the other obvious implications of a loss in Vietnam.
Then let the election go off, catalog this little fact away for a couple months, and then let hammer him. After all, then it can rise above politics, and be a matter of right and wrong.
IMHO sKerry IS in fact a criminal. His already documented actions after his 4 month "service" is already grounds for "Aid & Comfort" charges. If the Paris Talks charges pan out, he is in deep doodoo.
That Hanoi Jane is still aiding and comforting our enemies instead of being in a federal prison; and that John Effin sKerry is a US Senator instead of a federal prison, is a national disgrace that only continues to weaken us in the eyes of our enemies.
I say give 'em a fair trial and hang his worthless hide.
Knock yourself out with that stuff. Go ahead. I mean it.
"Knock yourself out with that stuff. Go ahead. I mean it."
Well, I WAS waiting frantically for your approval. Thanks!!
KERRY IS A CRIMINAL!
He can sue me if he wants.
I called Kerry nothing, yet, but I did post a column in which the author has researched the entire episode involving John Kerry's trip Paris to collaborate with representatives from the enemy camp during the Vietnam War. When my father and many others were busy getting fired on regularly by the enemy, the good senator was busy sucking up to the Viet Cong, undermining our government's bargaining power. What he admitted to is illegal. Period.
I was not trying to be helpful, just informative. So, yes, John Kerry is a criminal.
Not only is Mr. Kerry a criminal, he shouldn't even be a Senator.
United States Constitution
Amendment XIV3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Those who say (including me) that Kerry must be called to account for his crimes are morally right. But this is a politically untenable position during the election. We WOULD be marginalized as kooks by the MSM.
A non-election year like 2005 will be a great time to push for a legal reckoning for John Kerry.
Shhh! Don't say that, you might marginalize yourself!!! ;)
Kerry is a documented criminal. Kerry is known by FBI files to have been in the meeting in which the Vietnam Veterns Against the War plotted to kill national leaders. Kerry resigned immediately from the organization, but was an accomplish to the crime and had a duty to report this.
I give up. My only consolation is that Ed Gillespie and the RNC are not following you fools over the cliff.
Hyperbole? Did you bother to read the column?
Hold on a sec! Clinton (against the wishes of his own state department) allowed advanced rocket technology to be sold to the Chi-Comms. Now, instead of worrying about Chinese Nukes that can reach California and Alaska, we can worry about Chinese Nukes that can reach the entire continental US. If that wasn't an act of treason, then I don't know the meaning of the word. And what was the mainstream press covering at the time? Monicagate!
Somebody here have the time to look up the specific requirements for a charge of Treason in the United States Code? I haven't got them here in front of me, but I recall that "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" is in there.
Kerry and Hanoi Jane are traitors under the letter of the law. Period. No question.
Clinton I consider a traitor- although I doubt it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
> Stuff like this is not helpful. Calling Kerry a
> criminal is so over the top that it risks backfiring.
Actually, it's very helpful, because it nails down some
of the uninformed speculation on this topic.
Will Kerry ever be charged? Probably not. Possibly
there's even a Carter pardon we don't know about.
But a jury is being seated and a verdict is expected
on 02 Nov 2004. They are allowed to take this into
consideration. Keep in mind that many voters are not
aware of Kerry's Tour of Duty on behalf of North Vietnam.
Finding out from this article is a decent start on
getting them educated.
I understand that position, but what the Swift Vets did was very courageous and they skipped conventional routes, because they were denied such routes by the MSM, and took matters into their own hands and now the president has the lead. No one was discussing the discrepencies in Kerry's "War Hero" status until they bought thier ads and wrote their book. The RNConvention was not the only reason for the president's surge.
If you are able to link to the article (this is my first post of an article so I don't know if I did it correctly) it has the relevant details of the Code in there as well as the Military Code.
John O'Neill joins the ranks of my all-time heroes, and you're certainly right in pointing out that people like him have accomplished daunting tasks with courage and creativity.
14 - "Not only is Mr. Kerry a criminal, he shouldn't even be a Senator."
Not only that - he violated the UCMJ, as he parleyed with the North Vietnamese while he was still a commissioned officer in the US Navy Reserve.
He should be in Levenworth.
"STOLEN HONOR: WOUNDS THAT NEVER HEAL" was produced by Carlton Sherwood, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and decorated Vietnam veteran. He reduced over 20 hours of vivid accounts of physical and psychological abuse suffered in North Vietnamese prison camps to a powerful indictment of the most prominent leader of the anti-war movement, John Kerry.
One by one, the men tell their horrific stories of torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese while Kerry and his cohorts paraded through the streets of Washington, DC carrying the flag of their captors. Several of their wives appear in the film to describe the impact of their husbands' prolonged absence and their reaction to the vilification of their imprisoned spouses.
The veterans in the film make the case that Kerry's public statements and antiwar activities along with Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden delayed the end of the war and postponed their release from the prison camps. While the North Vietnamese were losing the war in Southeast Asia, they say Kerry's words helped them "win the war in the streets of America."
For years it was said that Jane Fonda committed treason when she went to Vietnam in July 1972. In the late 1990s, with increasingly widespread use of the Internet, the charge became a staple of discussion by conservatives and veterans. However, their belief in Fonda?s criminality was not substantiated. We undertook to do just that, and laid out the definitive case against her in our 2002 book, ?Aid and Comfort?: Jane Fonda In North Vietnam.
A current parallel has arisen in connection with the presidential candidacy of John Kerry. For the past several weeks, the Internet has been ablaze with charges?as yet unexplained, let alone legally substantiated? that by traveling to Paris for meetings with the North Vietnamese communists and their Viet Cong allies in 1970, Kerry violated American criminal statutes. Indeed, one well-intentioned group, Patriot Petitions, has disseminated a petition to President of the Senate Richard Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Attorney General John Ashcroft, seeking Kerry?s prosecution.
Just as Fonda?s critics turned out to have been correct about their gut feelings regarding her treasonable actions in North Vietnam, so, too, Kerry?s critics?who feel strongly that his trip violated the law, without quite knowing why?are correct.
The explanation of Kerry?s criminal behavior in Paris is some thirty-four years overdue.
Our major premise?the legal one?is that one federal statute makes it a crime for American citizens to have ?intercourse? with the ?enemy,? while another federal statute similarly prohibits ?intercourse? with ?any foreign government.?
Our minor premise?the factual one?is that John Kerry confessed to engaging in exactly that proscribed conduct.
Therefore, John Kerry is a criminal.
Kerry?s criminality has deep historical roots. Americans acted similarly even before the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, Article 28 of the American Articles of War of 1775 provided: ?Whosoever belonging to the continental army, shall be convicted of holding correspondence with, or giving intelligence to, the enemy, shall suffer such punishment as by a general court-martial shall be ordered.? The essence of this non-intercourse colonial statute has appeared in each subsequent military code since 1775.
Its modern embodiment is Title 10, Section 904 of the United States Code [Uniform Code of Military Justice], which provides:
Any person who . . . without proper authority, knowingly . . . communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
The meaning of this section?apart from the definition of ?enemy,? which in the early 1970s certainly included the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese (see Title 18, United States Code, Section 11)?has been interpreted in four appellate cases.
Edward S. Dickenson was a turncoat American POW who collaborated with the Chinese Communists in a prison camp during the Korean War. Upon his repatriation he was charged with violating Section 904?s predecessor. The court?s most important ruling was that at the time Dickenson committed the acts charged, even though his enlistment had expired (due to incarceration in the POW camp), he remained subject to military jurisdiction. This ruling was reinforced when Dickenson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which noted that the defendant ?had neither been discharged . . . nor had his military status been severed . . . . He was a soldier, subject to the rules, discipline and jurisdiction of the Army and squarely within the provisions of Article 2 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice . . . which provides as subject: ?All persons belonging to a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their term of enlistment . . . .?? (Emphasis added).
Claude J. Batchelor (see Why Not Call It Treason?) was another Korean War collaborator. Upon his repatriation he, too, was charged with violating Section 904?s predecessor. One of Batchelor?s defenses was that he had no criminal intent. The United States Court of Military Appeals rejected that argument, holding that intent was not necessary for commission of the crime (unlike treason cases, where intent is an essential element).
A third Korean War collaborator was William H. Olson. In affirming his conviction, the Court of Military Appeals said this: ?[I]f the accused was the instrument used by the enemy to spread propaganda against his own country, and he did so voluntarily, he has thereby aided the enemy?s cause within the meaning of the statute.? (Emphasis added). The court then quoted the 1949 Manual for Courts-Martial for the proposition that ?non-intercourse? has been the consistent interpretation of Section 904 and its predecessors:
Correspondence does not necessarily import a mutual exchange of communication. The law requires absolute non-intercourse, and any unauthorized communication, no matter what may be its tenor or intent, is here denounced. The prohibition lies against any method of communication whatsoever, and the offense is complete the moment the communication issues from the accused, whether it reaches its destination or not.
As to whether the charges of collaboration leveled against Olson were within the statute?s proscription, the court noted that ?[I]t is certain that communications, collaboration, and intercourse with the enemy which results in a program of psychological warfare inimical to this country is within [the statute?s] fair meaning.?
The fourth case, United States v. Johnson, arose during the Vietnam War. According to the United States Court of Military Appeals:
While on duty with the Marine Corps in Vietnam, the accused proceeded to Bangkok, Thailand, on authorized rest and recreation leave. When he did not return at its expiration, he was listed as being absent without leave. He was apprehended [and] returned him to Saigon. * * * In his statement, the accused described in detail his whereabouts during his unauthorized absence and acknowledged that he intended to travel across Thailand and Laos and into Vietnam with the intent to contact the Viet Cong or North Vietnamese regulars and talk with them "of certain moral responsibilities: (1) Duties to God; (2) duties to fellow man. In other words, I feel that it is the responsibility of all men to go out and make peace regardless of what sacrifices they may have to make and it is for this reason that I decided to go out and attempt to meet with the enemy and teach him something of Christianity and of moral responsibilities. * * * [Later, Johnson expressed to a government agent] his desire once more to contact the North Vietnamese in his crusade for peace and morality among the enemy. He was apprehended before he could begin his mission.
Charged with several crimes, including an attempt to violate Section 904?remember, Johnson never even reached the Vietnamese communists?his conviction was reversed by the Court of Military Appeals strictly on Miranda-like ?failure to advise? grounds. The opinion, however, is clear that one can be charged with even an attempt to violate Section 904 without ever having consummated the crime.
The second federal statute for consideration is Title 18, United States Code, Section 953, known as the Logan Act:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Section 953 was at the core of Agee v. Muskie, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980.
Rogue CIA employee Philip Agee (represented by Melvin L. Wulf, late head of the ACLU) successfully challenged a State Department regulation allowing for revocation of an American citizen?s passport because he had not yet been charged with a crime. However, certain aspects of the Agee case speak loudly about John Kerry?s criminal behavior. Agee, at that time the most outspoken and vicious opponent of CIA clandestine activities, proposed to the Iranian militants that they offer a deal to our government: return of the embassy hostages in exchange for all CIA files on its Iran operations since 1950.
On that basis, the government prepared a draft indictment which appears as an appendix to the court?s opinion.
The Grand Jury charges:
From on or about the 4th day of November 1979 until on or about the 24th day of December, 1979, (an Iranian), and (an Iranian), and a large group of other Iranians whose names are to the Grand Jury unknown, hereinafter referred to as "Iranian Terrorists", constituted a "foreign government" as defined by 18 U.S.C. s 11, in that they were a faction and body of insurgents within Iran, a country recognized by the United States and with which country the United States was at peace; that during the aforesaid period Philip Agee, herein charged as the defendant, a citizen of the United States, then in the vicinity of Hamburg, Germany, did, without authority of the United States, directly and indirectly carry on correspondence and intercourse with the aforesaid body of insurgents constituting a foreign government and with officers and agents thereof, with intent to influence the measures and conduct of said foreign government and of the officers and agents thereof in relation to disputes and controversies between said foreign government and the United States, and to defeat the measures of the United States in such disputes and controversies, in that within a few weeks before the 23rd day of December 1979, the said Philip Agee did communicate, correspond, and have intercourse with the aforementioned Iranian Terrorists by counseling, and suggesting to them, in relation to their dispute and controversy with the United States that they could prevail in their unlawful demands on the United States by forcing the United States contrary to the authority thereof, by extortion, to deliver into the possession of the aforesaid Iranian Terrorists constituting said foreign government, certain United States property, to wit, all records of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States (CIA) on CIA intelligence operations in Iran for the past 30 years, in return for the release by said Iranian Terrorists of upwards of 50 citizens of the United States who were duly accredited to the official staff of the United States Embassy in Tehran, Iran, and who were then being threatened with execution and being unlawfully held and confined within the United States Embassy at Tehran, Iran by force by said foreign government as hostages in its dispute and controversy with the United States; all in violation of 18 U.S.C. ss 953.
Given Title 10, Section 904 and Title 18, Section 953, there is no doubt whatsoever that intercourse with the enemy and intercourse with a foreign government with intent to ?defeat the measures of? the United States constitute federal crimes.
There is also no doubt that under Dickenson, Batchelor, Olson and Johnson, respectively, reservists are subject to Section 904, criminal intent is not necessary for conviction, providing propaganda to the enemy can constitute commission of the crime, and even an unsuccessful attempt is punishable.
By logical extension, the same is true under Section 953 of the Logan Act, as the draft indictment of Philip Agee makes eminently clear.
Our major premise having been established, this leaves only our minor premise to be examined.
It has long been well known that in the early 1970s, the North Vietnamese and their southern Viet Cong allies maintained representatives in Paris, and that various American citizens?among them Jane Fonda?made pilgrimages to meet with them, absorb the current party line, and spread their communist propaganda.
In 1970, John Kerry was one of those pilgrims. When he went to Paris, he was a citizen of the United States. He was still a member of the United States Navy. And clearly he lacked any authority from the government to act on its behalf.
We do not have to speculate about Kerry?s activities in Paris because he openly admitted what he did there. During the question and answer period following his April 22, 1971 televised testimony before the Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate, 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 and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
Even today, knowing what we know about the Vietnamese communists and about John Kerry, it is difficult to grasp the enormity of what he was confessing to. As an American citizen and a member of the United States Navy?while his former comrades and countless others were fighting and dying in Vietnam at the hands of Viet Cong guerillas and North Vietnamese regulars?Kerry consorted with the Viet Cong representative and discussed (?talked with,? he euphemized) her ?plan.? That obscene plan included a trade: the return of our POWs for a withdrawal of American forces. As John O?Neill expressed in his important bestselling book Unfit For Command, ?. . . America could have its POWs back only if we agreed that we lost, then surrendered, and then set a date to leave.?
Kerry?s wartime trip to Paris was confirmed about six months ago by a campaign spokesman, who tossed it off as a mere ?fact-finding? excursion.
Yet Kerry was apparently so impressed with the ?facts? he found in company with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese that a few months after his return from Paris he had the effrontery to urge the President of the United States to accept his communist hosts? plan for ?peace? in Vietnam.
In sum, John Kerry?an American citizen and a naval officer, with no authority granted by his government?made arrangements while in the United States to meet with America?s enemies. He then traveled across the Atlantic, conferred with the communists in Paris, absorbed their terms for ?peace? in Vietnam, returned to the United States to publicly endorse monstrous plans that trafficked in the lives of our POWs, and by so doing ?defeat[ed] the measures of the United States.?
In this, John Kerry shares the unpatriotic company of Dickensen, Batchelor, Olson, Johnson, Agee and Hanoi Jane Fonda?all violators of federal ?intercourse with the enemy? laws.
Henry Mark Holzer, Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, specializes in federal appeals. Erika Holzer, a lawyer and novelist, is co-author, with Professor Holzer, of Fake Warriors: Identifying, Exposing and Punishing Those Who Falsify Their Military Service. A second edition is forthcoming with a new preface entitled ?John Kerry: The Ultimate Fake Warrior.?
No, he should have been executed decades ago.
Thanks. Did I do it incorrectly? Now, everyone who hasn't read it will be able to do so.
John Fing Kerry is a criminal, Communist, lying, disgusting, American-blood-on-his-hands-douchebag and I hope people shout it from the rooftops from here till sKerry morphs into JAC (Just Another Commie)...
Oh no. It's just that Frontpage Magazine doesn't mind it if we post their stories. Sevearl newspapers like the Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc. only allow excerpts to be posted.
Those who say (including me) that Kerry must be called to account for his crimes are morally right. But this is a politically untenable position during the election. We WOULD be marginalized as kooks by the MSM.
Nah, people are wising up when they see facts and this creep's reality (JFnK) needs all the sunlight we can shine...sinkspur probably would've called off the SwiftVets claims as well...(sigh)
Welcome to Free Republic!
It's not as if he were just running again in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.
It's play for keeps and you better be found carrying the truth...and if America wants a Communist, they have their man in John Fing Kerry.
Is there a site I can get a large quality copy of the cover photo of "The New Soldier" so I can mass-mail it to area registered voters?
Decorated veteran John Kerry, testifying before the House Foreign Relations Committee, questions the War in Vietnam, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1971.
Kerry: We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term "winter soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776, when he spoke of the "sunshine patriots," and "summertime soldiers" who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.
We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel, because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.
I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.
They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while, month after month, we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings" with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using, were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and, after losing one platoon, or two platoons, they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.
Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of "Vietnamizing" the Vietnamese.
Each day, to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam, someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war." LINK
My private thoughts are that the charges are correct.
My public position is that it won't fly, and would be counter productive to persue; and, if persued, would fizzle like the Clinton impeachment.
My inner dream is to see him sitting next to Milosivic at The Hague.
Truth, achievability, and fantasy; you are right, we have to keep them seperated.
I'll settle for ignominiously defeating him so bad that he also loses his senate seat; and hopefully loosens his bowels in his pants around 11PM EST, 11/2/04.
Are you fro, Ducks Unlimited?
Just being "neighborly"
Not that I know of.
Have you done a google image search?
I'd bet my bottom dollar that the Swift Vets are, in their classy way, going to tell the American public that Mr. Kerry is indeed guilty as charged.
Also, in Unfit for Command it is shown that Kerry did not quit VVAW immediately after the November 1971 meeting in Kansas City where a vote was taken to assinate U.S. Senators. He continued giving speeches for them until April 1972. Kerry says he quit, but (huge understatement coming next) you have to consider the source.
Besides, I do not think the Swift Vets will demand that Kerrry be charged, They just want the public to know the truth. Then Kerry can spend the rest of his days in the same existential torment as does Mr. O.J. Simpson.
Unfortunately, he will not be defeated if no one works to defeat him. He will not lose on "flip-flops" alone. John O'Neill and his fellow swift boat veterans set out to clobber him so he would not occupy the office which commands the soldiers he spit upon during the Vietnam era. I think exposing his criminal actions will not only fly, but will astound many potential voters due to the fact that the MSM refuses to challenge any of the senator's ficticious claims about his service.
While President Bush is entitled to take the "high road", I, personally, will do what I can to let the truth be heard. I will happily act as a surrogate to discuss the dirt that the candidate may not find to be politically secure territory. No offense, but I do not believe in gentille politics, except as an affront to what is actually being said (be polite; fight really hard).
Kerry is a criminal. He is running on his Vietnam War record and, therefore, his actions during that period are fair game. He calls the president a liar and compares his service to that of draft-dodgers and then ass-kisses and vote-mongers before the servicemen and women of the National Guard just the other day.
He admitted to committing war crimes and attempting to negotiate with the enemy during wartime. There is nothing politically dangerous about the facts unless they are not on your side!! We cannot wait for the senator's pathetic campaign to sink itself.
Courage (anchor voice)
Sinkpur- Not only is the man a criminal, you are for supporting the invasion of illegal aliens. You yourself should be deported because you don't deserve the benifits of our predicecor's sacrifices.
If this man did commit this crime which he freely admits, why should he be forgiven just because he's running for an office.
The truth will never backfire.
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.