I posted this in another thread, but felt it really merited its own. it's quite shocking, really, and i'm surprised few people have mentioned it before. perhaps it'll be part of W's October surprise? as this press release makes clear, "Kerry volunteered for the United States Navy after college and served from 1966 through 1970 rising to the rank of Lieutenant, Junior Grade. Afterwards, Kerry continued his military service in the United States Naval Reserves through 1978.". then, this, which the NYTimes wrote about, last april in a piece titled "Kerry's Antiwar Past Is a Delicate Issue in His Campaign": "Two weeks later, he married Julia Thorne, and on a trip to Europe with his new bride, Mr. Kerry, the 26-year-old ex-lieutenant took a taxicab from Paris to a suburban villa. The son of a diplomat, Mr. Kerry had managed to arrange a private meeting with North Vietnamese and Vietcong emissaries to the peace talks." so, while a lieutenant in the Naval Reserves, John Kerry conducted surreptitious talks w/ the North Vietnamese and Vietcong, with whom we were at war (the times article is incorrect about Kerry's status at the time). Seems like treason to me...
ahh basso's selective editing strikes again more about Kerry's Paris trip you selectively forgot to include: so Kerry is fighting to get POWs released and basso, the uniter, charges him with treason how....republican of you
Well, I am speechless since the details of his exploits in Vietnam is practically all Kerry ever talks about. So I am back on my heels and forced to respond to your TIT with this handy little TAT! politics rules!
If the Dems had folks like the Republicans, this would be my very poor audition for one of the Black Arts positions... notice how I take a simple thing and make it confusing while staying within the guise of "Rule of Law?" The goal here is not to silence cabinet members from supporting their President but to sow the idea that these people are somehow unworthy and un-American. it also helps if they have to spend a few days responding to this ridiculous charge... ____________ Tom Ridge said this: "But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror... " We have a law in this country called the Hatch Act which says Federal Employees cannot use official authority or influence to interfere with an election or engage in political activity while on duty or in a government office. I just simply want to know whether this administration has such disregard for the laws of this country that they would violate the Hatch Act. Now, I'm not criticizing Secretary Ridge... he's a fine person... I just think we need to have an investigation to clear up this matter and to really determine whether it is policy within the administration to violate long-standing laws that ensure the integrity of our government. The American people don't like this kind of below-the-radar manipulation by the elitists who hold cabinet positions while thinking they are above the law.
Just face it... Facts can hurt. Get the truth. He is a turncoat. Benedict Arnold is a "true patriot" in Kerry's book, too.
Apparently, you wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit you in the arse. Cute photochop by the way...
Given the obvious stonewalling over the questions of Hatch Act violations by this administration, I'm calling for Congressional hearings. If there is an explanation for this dastardly conduct, the American people deserve to hear it.
nice rim, sam, chump. the best any of you can say is, well, mccarthy may have stopped by too. well, unlike 1968, he's not running for president this year. Kerry is. i'd like an answer to the question, which really seems pretty simple, and is predicated not on drudge, not on swiftvets, not on o'reilly or hannity or anyone else in the vast right-wing diaspora, but rather on those good old liberal stand-byes, the nytimes and kerry's own press-releases. was he in the navy? check. did he meet in secret w/ the enemy? double check, mates.
one might ask why John Kerry felt like he had the power and the right to negotiate with the enemy. You didn't see any of our troops go an negotiate with Uday or Baghdad Bob did you?
There are many differences. There were far more POW's in Nam than in Iraq. We lost in Nam, and so any progress towards the release of those POW's had to come with negotiation. In Iraq we won, and didn't have to negotiate.
The most you can do is ignore the very real charges against Ridge. Is he a Federal employee? Check. Did he engage in political activity while on duty? Double check, mate. It's obvious the President should call for his resignation immediately.
Woohoo, another addition to the ignore list. IROCit, it was nice reading your idiotic postings. Buhbye.
another prime difference; in 1970, when kerry held his secret talks, it was the height of the war. peace w/ honor didn't arrive for nearly five more years...
Yup, basso, i've been stone silenced. Edited or not, you've shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Kerry committed the crime of treason, all the legal elements are there. POW MIA my ass, the only possible inference that we can draw is that Kerry was obviously giving information to Viet Cong about troop movements -- it practically spells it out in the Times article. Yup, if that's not treason, I don't know what is, so make the most of it.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1091072363174&apage=3 The Last Word: Choose your own past By BRET STEPHENS Advertisement In January 2001, Germany's Stern magazine published a series black-and-white photographs showing 25-year-old Joschka Fischer savagely beating a police officer in Bornheim in April 1973. The photos had been sold to Stern by the journalist Bettina Roehl, herself the daughter of Red Army Faction leader Ulrike Meinhof, who had also accused Fischer of having tossed a Molotov cocktail at a 1976 demonstration during which another policeman burned to death. Later in 2001, Fischer appeared as a witness at the trial of Hans-Joachim Klein, an old friend Fischer had housed for a while and who, with Carlos the Jackal, had participated in the 1975 hostage taking of OPEC ministers in Vienna. After his testimony, Fischer shook Klein's hand. (Klein was sentenced to nine years in prison, but was pardoned and released after serving three.) The revelations, and Fischer's behavior at the trial, caused a brief stir. There were demands that the foreign minister apologize, which he did. But while he regretted some of his past, he did not disown it. "Without my biography," he said in an interview, "I would be someone else today, and I would not like that." Fischer comes to mind as I watch the Democratic National Convention in Boston. This column will have gone to press by the time Senator John Kerry accepts the nomination Thursday night. But at least this much can be confidently predicted: Kerry will not remind voters of his participation in Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He will say nothing about his 1971 congressional testimony that US soldiers in Vietnam had committed atrocities "in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." He will not dwell on his years of service as Michael Dukakis's lieutenant governor in Massachusetts. He will elide any reference to his 1991 vote against the first Gulf War. He will not lay stress on his vote for the Patriot Act, nor on his vote for making war on Iraq, nor on the one against the $87 billion in reconstruction aid. What is almost certain is that Kerry will dwell – allusively, literally, and metaphorically – on his heroic service record in Vietnam. This is to emphasize that he's a fighter, a leader, a faithful comrade, a man who can sail the ship of state as well and as bravely as he navigated his swift boat in the Mekong river delta. And when he's done with the speech, it will be the "band of brothers," not Michael Moore, who will join him on stage. It would, of course, be churlish to fault Kerry for touting his war record. True, in February 1992, he gave an impassioned speech in the well of the Senate (apropos the controversy over then-candidate Bill Clinton's non-service in Vietnam) arguing that "we do not need to divide America over who served and how." But set that aside. Kerry, as his wife put it, "earned his medals the old-fashioned way," and he's entitled to put them to whichever use suits him best. The real question, however, is whether – and then to what extent – Kerry should be entitled to make selective use of his past. In George W. Bush's case, the past is not a problem: Aside from his tenures as governor and president, he has none to run on. But Kerry does have a past, rich in incident and ambiguous in meaning. He can honorably choose to distance himself from it; to ask voters to judge him entirely on his ideas for the future. That's what Clinton did in 1992. Or he can say, "this is where I'm from; this is all that I have done; this, then, is who I am." That's what Fischer did in 2001. Either strategy can be a winner, even if the ideas are not so great or the past is not so splendid. Kerry does something else. For him, the past is not a seamless, indivisible, single thing, but a menu of alternative identities from which he chooses one thing one day, another thing the next. These identities are available to him because he's been, or assumed, each of them before: the war hero, the anti-war hero. The moderate, the liberal. The foreign policy hawk, the foreign policy dove. The Catholic, the secularist – even, it turns out, the Jew. The point of all this is not actually to bamboozle the American voter into believing Kerry is something he's not. It's more subtle. Kerry is asking voters to join him in a very particular kind of lie. When he dons one identity – say, the politically moderate war hero – something in his expression seems to say to whichever constituency must presently be ignored: You know, this is not the real me. If I tack Leftward now, it's because these are the primaries; if I tack center-ward later, it's because this is the election. The effectiveness of the lie consists in its flattery: Everyone gets a special wink; everyone is in on the secret of who Kerry really is, even if that means different things to different people. Up to a point, you might say it's no big deal. Of course politicians need to be all things to all people. Of course politicians have to tack this way and that. Of course they emphasize the strong points in their resume, not the weak ones. Of course voters understand the games politicians play. To no small extent, the measure of political fitness has become the deftness with which a candidate can package and repackage himself to suit the occasion. In the 1992 New Hampshire primary, George Bush the elder famously read from a cue-card that said: "Message: I care." His inability to distinguish the message from The Message suggested his larger problem, namely, that he was inept. Which indeed he was. Up to a point, too, to pretend in politics to be something means actually being that thing. Hillary Clinton may or may not be a closet fire-breathing liberal, but she knows well enough that she was elected on a moderate platform and must cast her votes accordingly. Similarly, if Kerry now plays his war hero cards, it's because he understands that a war hero is the role the country is asking him to play. It may be a disguise, but it's one Kerry will have to wear long past the election, at least if he wins. Yet these conceits have their limit. As a matter of politics, voters want a sense of the actual man. In the 2000 election, Al Gore had everything going for him: peace, prosperity, a moderate voting record, command of the issues. But his eye-rolling and snorting in the first debate with Bush hinted at his condescension, and his attention to clothing hinted at his hollowness. By contrast, Bush was a picture of modesty and sincerity even in his fumbled replies. As a matter of policy-making, the proper role of an executive is not to weigh issues or package them, but to decide them. Politics may be the art of keeping alternatives open, but policy-making ultimately involves shutting alternatives down. We will do this, and therefore not that. And "this" will have consequences, as will "not that," and those consequences are irrevocable. The peril of candidates like Kerry lies in their deep reluctance, born of old habit, to postpone decisions, and therefore consequences, for as long as they can. But this has consequences of its own. It is a mark of maturity to understand that we are each a product of everything we have ever done. We can repudiate some of it, or all of it, and in that repudiation become something new. But that requires us to genuinely leave behind that which we've forsaken. Not long after Bettina Roehl's incriminating photos were published, Fischer gave an interview with German ARD television in which he said the following: "There was a time when we fought for freedom but also succumbed to the lure of totalitarianism. It was a time to which I have an ambiguous relationship from today's point of view.... We crossed a line, particularly in the clashes with the police, and that is the aspect where we have to admit guilt, or rather, where I have to admit guilt – I don't want to fall into the plural again. I don't want to get into a situation again where people say that Fischer is trying to justify himself. It can't be justified. I'm only trying to explain. Because I stand by my history, rather than being proud of [it]." I wonder if Kerry could ever bring himself to say something like this. If he could, I wager he'd win more votes than he'd lose.