Skip to comments.Breaking: John Kerry Honored by Vietnamese Communists
Posted on 05/31/2004 3:50:49 PM PDT by Interesting Times
May 31, 2004 -- **BREAKING** Dr. Jerry Corsi and Jeff Epstein of Vietnam Vets for the Truth report that John Kerry's photograph is featured in the War Protestors Hall of the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City -- a clear indication of the value the Vietnamese communists place on Kerry's support of their efforts during the Vietnam War. The photograph was received in response to a general request last week for information documenting Kerry’s activities on behalf of the enemy (May 27 below). See Kerry Honored by Vietnamese Communists in Special Features for the complete story.
(Excerpt) Read more at ice.he.net ...
BIG Hanoi Kerry news for those who missed it PING
This story has yet to hit the TV and Cable Newrooms
John O'Neill was on Monday's Michael Savage (with guest host) show.
Dr. Jerry Corsi (FReeper jrlc) talked about this on the Linda Chavez radio today.
Thank God for talk radio and the internet!
Too many skulls of mush have lost their fear of communism. It is still a pernicious consumer of human ability. Many are wishing for a People's Republic of America and I think they are willing to accept the "killing off" to make it possible.
He inhaled alright.
The media thinks communism is an acceptable form of government. That ever these Red governments do within their territorial borders is OK with them. Otherwise, why would Dan Rather be allowed to down to Cuba and grab ass with F. Castro. When our P3 had the collision off China the media was dead quiet about it.
On one of the morning radio shows, they had on one of the members of "Vietnam Vets against" Kerry who talked to Kerry at the dedication, and when he explained who he was, J. "eff" Kerry lived up to his middle name by giving the man "the middle finger salute"
Several news talk shows on the radio that I e-mail covered it!
STILL no coverage on the TV and Cable newsrooms.
We would be lost without talk radio and the internet. The RATS would get away with everything unchallenged.
Hey, do you, or anyone else, know what happened to The "Vietnam Human Rights Act"? Did it ever pass in the Senate after the Republicans took over?
Why in the name of heaven, doesn't this get more publicity?!
This is big news about Kerry...
I can not believe that DRUDGE won't even post it! This is important news---the man could rule the free world and Drudge is talking about who is going to rule a tv company! Geez, who cares about viacom, anyway?!
Bump for a save.. .and share.
Nice work. That's what it takes...
Kerry Heckled at Memorial Day Event
Sen. John Kerry's record as an anti-war protester came back to haunt him on Memorial Day when he was confronted by a heckler as he tried to pay his respects to a soldier killed in the Vietnam War.
"How much money are you getting to betray our POWs?" an unidentified middle-aged woman shouted as Kerry visited the Vietnam Veterans memorial on the Washington Mall.
"Are you paying tribute to all the people you spat on, Senator Kerry?" she added.
The heckling episode served to underscore the resentment many veterans still feel towards Kerry from his days as a leader with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, when he teamed up with anti-American actress Jane Fonda.
OH THIS IS GOOOOOOOOD!
I am glad he was heckled. He should be heckled everywhere he goes. This news is disgraceful. A man running for President has been honored by commie rat bastards who killed millions of their own people. Wotta guy!
Amen to all that !
I'm glad he was heckled, too. Did we ever find out if that woman
was a Freeper ? If she's not, we need to recruit her! :^D
Oh heck no! Fox News sang Kerry's phrases all day. I wanted to BARF!
~ Le Viêt Nam, aujourd'hui. ~
The Vietnam news
Opening the Door
Hanoi takes major step towards a trade deal with U.S.
HANOI - Since it opened in 1995, the U.S. embassy in Vietnam has seemed like a forlorn outpost--a nondescript building stocked with hand-me-down furniture and equipment that rarely seemed to work--standing on the edge of a worn capital in a country on the fringe of diplomatic oblivion.
Policy, too, has seemed caught in a time warp: Washington has spent millions of dollars a year combing the countryside for dead and missing soldiers and beaming in anti-communist radio broadcasts. Sure, it has added a few thousand dollars here and there for humanitarian extras such as tuberculosis research and typhoon relief. But Washington lifted its trade embargo on Hanoi on February 4, 1994, and normal trade ties have yet to develop. The Americans may have lost the war, but they aren't going to open the door to their vast market unless the Vietnamese are willing to do the same for U.S. firms and goods.
On January 29, Hanoi finally indicated that it would at least consider Washington's steep demands and work with U.S. counterparts to develop an acceptable calendar for opening its market. Though just a first step on a long road, the move is a major breakthrough in trade talks that had gone nowhere since Washington presented a thick draft trade agreement to Hanoi in April 1997.
Moreover, it shows that Hanoi is starting to be more practical at a time when its Communist Party leaders are huddling to try to map out a future for themselves and the country. When a trade deal is struck, Vietnam will have easier access to the world's largest market--critical for a developing country whose exports declined last year. "There does seem to be movement and a change in philosophy," says an American diplomat in Hanoi.
The acknowledgment is a dramatic turnaround from previous negotiating sessions that left the U.S. frustrated by Vietnamese intransigence on basic trade principles, despite the fact that Hanoi needs the agreement more than Washington. Negotiators at the Ministry of Trade initially said they would be able to comply with the sweeping requirements--but not until 2020, when Vietnam had developed its own industrial base. The early written responses ignored most proposals in the five-chapter draft document, which was sent back with black lines drawn through much of it. Now Hanoi is talking about an eight-year phase-in period.
Broad provisions in the draft covering general trade, tariffs, services, investment and intellectual-property rights would require Vietnam to virtually abandon its import-substitution policies and therefore threaten the dominance of state firms. There's the rub: "If the agreement improves trade, that's one thing," says a Vietnamese diplomat, "but it also pushes reform. That's what makes us hesitate. We must determine the steps of reform."
The U.S. wants Vietnam to open its service industries--especially insurance and banking--to foreign competition, treat foreign firms the same as domestic ones, and drop tariffs and quotas.
Vietnam is one of just five countries that don't enjoy normal trading status with the U.S.--the others are Cuba, Iraq, Libya and North Korea. Two-way trade between the U.S. and Vietnam amounts to less than $1 billion annually. Vietnam does manage to export a few items--including shoes--where tariffs under most-favoured-nation trading rules don't differ much from other tariffs.
The Vietnamese have complained that the Americans are demanding too much, too soon. The Vietnamese diplomat likened the U.S. to "a beautiful woman who is very hard to please." Another went further, saying that the tough draft "reinforces the Vietnamese perception that the U.S. is trying to destroy Vietnam." Washington counters by saying the high hurdles will be good for Vietnam since the country will have to meet similar requirements to join the World Trade Organization, to which Hanoi applied in 1995.
Hanoi has tried different tactics to win concessions from the Americans. A favourite has been to cite the refrain that Vietnam is a poor country, and therefore should receive more leeway. Then Hanoi decided to withdraw what it considers MFN status for countries with which it doesn't have a bilateral trade agreement. From January 1, the U.S., Japan, and others were subject to a 50% increase in tariffs.
U.S. officials objected, but to no avail so far. They warn that it's the wrong move when the two countries are in the middle of trade negotiations. "It looked as though Vietnam was trying to pressure the U.S. or somehow have an impact on negotiations and it wouldn't be considered very conducive to building the negotiations in a more positive way," says Dennis Harter, deputy chief of mission at the embassy in Hanoi.
Vietnamese trade officials declined to be interviewed for this article. But Nguyen Manh Hung, head of the Americas Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, says the new categories are "in conformity with international practice" and that Vietnam will perhaps "learn from the U.S. and try to have a waiver for some nations," as Washington does for China annually.
Hanoi can't really afford to make more enemies when its economy is stagnating and its major trading partners in Asia--who make up two-thirds of Vietnam's trade--have yet to recover from the recession. Yet the mixed message of boosting tariffs while showing some flexibility on trade negotiations reflects an ambiguity that runs through the country's leadership: They want to integrate with the world, but at no cost to their own state-dominated system or the Communist Party.
Such a tactic could backfire, giving Washington an excuse to say it tried everything it could to conclude a deal, including spending $1.25 million for a technical-assistance team.
But many Vietnamese, including top leaders, feel that the world--especially the U.S.--owes Vietnam. When U.S. Sen. John Kerry visited Hanoi in December, he met with former party chief Do Muoi, who remains a dominant, and conservative, force in decision-making. When Kerry asked why Vietnam appeared to be falling behind in reform while its neighbours were trying to move ahead, the party elder pointed the finger of blame at a century of colonial rule and war--including the conflict with the Americans.
Muoi's argument overlooks one point, however: No matter who caused the problems, it's going to be up to Vietnam to solve them.
Far Eastern Economical Review - February 11, 1999.
Another Kerry visit to Vietnam:
1992 Nov 17, Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Hank Brown of Colorado made an unprecedented tour of Vietnam's military headquarters but found nothing to substantiate reports of American prisoners sighted there after the Vietnam War.
Sean Hannity mentioned all the emails he's been getting about this photo but said he will not show it on his TV show until he get verification that it is authentic.
He sited the 'fake' Kerry/Fonda photo as why he has people researching this photo & story.
The Vietnam Vet who took the picture of the photo in the North Vietnamese Museum should contact Hannity; as well as the Veterans for the Truth & WinterSoldier.com.
See my post #324....Hannity did mention getting emails about this photo.
I've not seen the picture, but I can't imagine it would be that hard to verify, unless they've pulled it down already. I don't blame anyone for waiting for the confirmation though.
Picture is in post #6
Dr. Jerry Corsi (FReeper jrlc) talked about this on the Linda Chavez radio today.
He did? Did he show the picture? Did Combs question it? I wished I had caught that.
If this dirt was about President Bush, it would have been Breaking News this morning. But Fox News just sang FnKerry's phrases all day. I had to barf I was so disappointed.
'When Kerry asked why Vietnam appeared to be falling behind in reform while its neighbours were trying to move ahead, the party elder pointed the finger of blame'
We have finally learned where sKerry learned to point, AND WHY! It is the finger of blame.....
I didn't hear what Sean said, but based on your note there, I can't blame him, BUT ..... he really should shut up already about that Fonda/Kerry pic. It was intended as a humor pic and the media got suckered, but he should tone it down, imho. We're supposed to be on the SAME side, right? .....
I don't mean to step on toes here at all. I like Hannity. I wanna KEEP likin' him! LOL! :^D
Everybody e-mail Sean
I just did
Sorry, I tend to believe FReepers rather than the media
I've been doing multiple database searches to find more confirmation. I have very little doubt now that the photo is authentic, since Clinton was trying to normalize Vietnam relations in 1993. It's getting late where I'm at and will take up the search tommorow.
ReadersGuideAbs, SocialSciAbs, WorldAlmanac results for: kw: John w Kerry and yr: 1993-1995. Record 7 of 20.
Author(s): Greenhouse, Steven.
Title: Capitol Hill fight erupting over ending Vietnam curbs.
R. C. Smith's measure
Source: New York Times (Late New York Edition) (Jan. 26 1994) p. A9 Journal Code: N Y Times (Late N Y Ed) Additional Info: United States
Standard No: ISSN: 0362-4331
Abstract: (Jan. 25) As President Clinton moves toward lifting the trade embargo on Vietnam, a fight has broken out on Capitol Hill over the issue. Republican Sen. Robert C. Smith of New Hampshire says that he will likely introduce a measure intended to force Clinton to maintain the embargo by setting conditions on Vietnam that are stricter than those Clinton set forth in September. Seeking to defuse the measure, Sen. John Kerry declared that he favors lifting the embargo.
-end search snip-
Explains part of the reason Kerry sucked-up to the Commies in Vietnam.
Kerry is not a communist. He only protested against the war b/c it was going in the wrong direction and the communists would have won anyways b/c of the impossibility of winning in such a harsh environment against the Viet Cong. Even without the protests by those such as Kerry, the communists would have succeeded eventually and many more Americans would have died from it as troops would have remained longer.
Kerrys trips to Vietnam in the early 1990s were not a part of negotiations with the communists. Instead, he was there on a factfinding mission with McCain to see if POWs were still there. I dont think any such mission could be seen as "unpatriotic," as his goal was to free Americans from inprisonment.
The Vietnam War may have been winnable but only at a great cost in American and Vietnamese lives. These lives greatly outweigh what the fruits of victory would have been, as the Domino Theory proved wrong.
Attacking Kerry for being credited by the Vietnamese for helping them win the war is just like attacking George W. Bush for creating terrorism through his policies in the Middle East. While they certainly do not credit Bush personally, some credit his policies for causing angry young people to take arms up against America. Kerry is as much for communism as Bush is for terrorism. I am not saying that Kerry's anti-war demonstrations and Bush's anti-terror campaign are comparable overall, only the fact that they had possible unintended consequences, North Vietnam's faster sweep of South Vietnam and greater recruiting for terorist organizations respectively. Do not read the point of my argument as that we should blame Bush for terrorism, but take it as that Kerry can be blamed as much for North Vietnam's victory as the President could be held for increasing terrorist recruits.
Tonk,Here's a bump.
Hannity only mentioned it (as far as I know) on his radio show. He said he's going to verify the photo before showing it on TV.
Photo & story here:
Hannity mentioned the two pictures of Kerry/Fonda the authentic one of Kerry sitting behind Fonda and the 'created' one of them both on the same stage.
He said that he was concerned about promoting the photo and then later finding out it was a 'digital creation'.
He said he just wanted to be sure this photo of Kerry & the North Vietnamese was 'authentic' before showing it on his TV show.
Now that WND has picked up the story...I wish Hannity would invite the Veterans for the Truth about Kerry to come on his TV show and tell the whole story of the photo.
JUDAS KERRY for PRESIDENT - of Hanoi
Kerry's First Flip Flop = Vietnam
Why he and Jane Fonda didn't swing from the end of a rope, I'll never understand. Treasonous, traitorous trash. One law for the rich and influential...
That is precisely false.
The Domino Theory proved true when communists slaughtered some two million people in Cambodia and Laos. They also killed tens of thousands of South Vietnamese, at least one hundred thousand died trying to escape, 1-2 million fled the country, and millions more were imprisoned in "re-education" camps.
The greatest human cost by far came after America abandoned its South Vietnamese allies.
Thanks for the heads up. I've heard he "protested", aka lied about our troops, on moral grounds. Your explanation, that he's an opportunist, makes more sense. After all, if JFK thought America was going to lose, it makes sense to change sides. Doesn't it? Patriotism, Duty they only go so far, just ask General Arnold.