Criminal Kerry?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by AV8R, Mar 24, 2004.

Loading...
  1. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    WASN'T A CRIME COMMITTED HERE?

    And I'm talking about a crime committed by John Kerry. A serious crime.

    We haven't mentioned this before ... but there was a meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in in Kansas City in November of 1971. At that meeting there was a plan discussed to assassinate members of Congress. Now ... let's emphasize this point. These anti-war Vietnam veterans were sitting there and discussing murder .. they were discussing the idea of murdering certain members of the Congress of the United States who were in favor of the Vietnam war. Well ... the idea was discussed, and the idea was rejected.

    The reports of that Kansas City meeting are disturbing enough. It gets more disturbing when you consider the fact that our not-yet-crowned Democratic candidate for president was a member of that organization. Things get even more interesting when you learn that Kerry was present and a participant in that meeting. Yes ... John Kerry was there while his leftist anti-war colleagues were discussing murdering members of congress.

    Now when these reports first came out the sKerry campaign was quick to respond by saying that sKerry "never ever" attended that meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and that he had resigned the organization months earlier. Uh oh ... big oops. It seems that the FBI was interested in the activities of these veterans at that time, and they were being watched. More particularly, sKerry was being watched. The FBI records of that Kansas City meeting show that our presumptive Democratic nominee was at that meeting. No wiggle room ... he was there. Now it seems that the sKerry campaign lied when they said he wasn't.

    Time to backtrack. Since the FBI has surveillance records showing Kerry present at that meeting, the Kerry folks need to conjure up a new statement. So now his campaign is releasing a statement saying that sKerry " .. had no personal recollection of this meeting .... [but] if there are valid FBI surveillance reports .... we accept that historical footnote in the account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war."

    "Historical footnote?" The participation by a presidential candidate in a discussion about murdering U.S. Senators and Congressmen is a "historical footnote?" John Kerry's presence at and participation in this meeting is an "account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war?"

    We're supposed to be satisfied with the revelation that Kerry wasn't particularly fond of the assassination proposals, and that resigned from the Vietnam Veterans against the war soon after that meeting. That's it? He resigned? Well big whoop! You're sitting there at a meeting listening to your colleagues plan the murder of elected officials ... and you merely resign? Hey! How about going to the police? How about telling the FBI that you just heard some people discussing a plot to murder members of Congress? Isn't it a crime to become aware of such a discussion and fail to report it to authorities?

    I know ... we've been through this before ... but what if we were reading stories about a Republican presidential candidate who was present at a meeting where the murder of liberal Supreme Court Justices was discussed. Would we be satisfied to learn that the Republican candidate rejected the idea and then disassociated himself from the group having the discussion? Come on. We all know what would be happening now. The Democrats and their loyal media myrmidons would be howling in outrage. There would be demands for investigations ... criminal investigations ... and suggestions that the Republican candidate be charged with aiding and abetting an assassination plot. Believe me, it would be a major story.

    With Kerry and his anti-war pals ... no media outrage. No demands for investigations into that Kansas City meeting and any role that sKerry played. Nothing. You might hear about it on Fox News, and you might read about it in the Drudge Report --- but that's pretty much it.

    This story won't get any traction in the mainstream DC and New York press corps because it doesn't serve the personal aims of the people who would carry it to the forefront. Well over 90% of the people who are in a position to ask these questions about Kerry's involvement in that Kansas City meeting, and his actions (or lack thereof) afterwards, want Kerry to beat George Bush in November. If someone else pushes this story into the limelight, they'll groan a bit and give it a degree of due diligence. They're just as happy, though, to see it just go away.

    So here's what you have to ask yourself. Do you want a president who once overheard a discussion about assassinating members of Congress ... and then did nothing about it?

    Think about it. November is getting closer.
     
  2. yes.
     
  3. When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died

    was the quote on a bumper sticker I saw recently. The republicans are really trying to dig up some dirt and have to go back to 1971! What about our current president and his drug use, womanizing, etc.

    After more than 30 years, some recollections change. When the conservatives try to create a conversation from so long ago, it just shows how desperate they have become. John Kerry didn't sell out America, it all began with George I and his globalization scheme mimics slavery in the new world, except now the slaves live in Asia.

    Rather than attacking Kerry, why not try to encourage your side to keep jobs in America.
     
  4. Deb

    Deb New Member

    Crime

    Isn't be AWOL from the National Guard a crime?
     
  5. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Plotting murders is the bailiwick of Republican officials. Maybe that's why they're not turning this molehill into a mountain.
     
  6. David Boyd

    David Boyd New Member

    While I probably won't vote for Kerry, it won't be because of what he did or didn't do three decades ago.

    Let's look at what type of people the candidates are today.
     
  7. David Boyd

    David Boyd New Member

    Re: Crime

    Actually no - unless his superior officers said it was a crime. (And everyone agrees that no superior officer ever declared him to be AWOL –even if he was.)
     
  8. Howard

    Howard New Member

    Re: When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died


    This is choice --- I suppose Bush raised the question about his service in the National Guard...........
     
  9. Deb

    Deb New Member

    Re: Re: Crime

    It's only a crime if someone says it is? Is that like "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around...."
     
  10. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    This meeting lasted four days. Some people say Kerry was there when this was discussed, some say he was not. Some say the statement made at the meeting was a "wisecrack."

    In any case, in regards to Kerry, an FBI memo from May 1972 concludes: "A review of the subject's file reveals nothing whatsoever to link the subject with any violent type activity."

    The FBI had agents at this meeting. If this discussion actually took place and Kerry had been there, why would the FBI make the above statement?

    This is the most vile smear campaign I have seen since Howard Dean's unsubstantiated comments that Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11.
     
  11. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Forget about rumors.

    John Kerry testified, under oath to a Congressional panel, that he witnessed war crimes in Vietnam by members of the American Military. He mentioned ears being cut off and civilians shot, among other things.

    As a former military professional, I want those responsible for the acts that Senator Kerry witnessed to be brought to justice. There is no statuate of limitations on war crimes.

    Senator Kerry must name the people he saw committing war crimes, or at least their unit(s).

    I'm assuming, of course, that Senator Kerry told the truth when he described these war crimes.
     
  12. Kerry may not tell, but here is a recent article naming elements of the revered 101 airborne in similar acts, and the Pentagon's refusal to investigate after all these years....

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1019-09.htm

    Yes, yes I know - liberal propaganda. Of course, of course.

    The US didn't do ANYTHING wrong in VietNam. It was all good. Oh by the way, Mel Gibson's dad thinks the Holocaust didn't happen either... of course, of course....

    (reminds me of the theme song from Mr. Ed....)
     
  13. For those of you who REALLY like to read....

    http://mondediplo.com/2000/04/15vietnam

    By a newspaper of our esteemed allies, the French - which I suppose automatically makes this entire article highly suspect to the Bushies here.....

    of course, of course
     
  14. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    And I'm assuming, of course, that you know for a fact that Kerry did not report this identifying information to his commanding officer.
     
  15. Re: For those of you who REALLY like to read....

    Interesting how the article starts with "The Vietnam war lasted for 14 years from 1961 to 1975" - perhaps American involvement but French troops had a presence since 1847...and surrendered to the Japanese in 1940, resuming after WWII until 1954.

    Dien Bien Phu anyone?

    I guess France's involvement in Vietnam wasn't part of the official war...

    Cheers,
    Mark
     
  16. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    Handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500??

    War crimes are something the other guys do.
     
  17. David Boyd

    David Boyd New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Crime

    No, being “Absent without Official Leave” is simply a status. Someone can be classified as AWOL and no charges filed because of the circumstances that resulted in being absent. (They could have had an accident, been ill, missed a flight, or a thousand other reasons.)

    Only if a tribunal believes there are no significant mitigating circumstances would the absence be considered a crime.
     
  18. Re: Re: Re: Re: Crime

    "wink, wink, nod, nod"..... was the "status" given to the younger Bush by his military bosses as deference to the rich old man and the fine Republican family they are....

    Whereas that darned John Kerry. How DARE he tell the truth about our experiences in Vietnam? What a traitor!

    "wink, wink, nod, nod...."

    Of course, of course.....
     
  19. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    Kerry's photo op

    Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry made a stop at a Catholic church during his Idaho vacation Sunday to attend Mass, loudly arriving 11 minutes late and wearing a ski suit.

    According to a report in the American Spectator, a senior staff member in the Kerry Campaign said, "It was just a media-op. We set it up with some reporters that we knew were going to be there."

    The Democrat also received Holy Communion during Mass at Our Lady of the Snows Catholic Church, despite the fact he is not a Catholic in good standing, reported LifeSiteNews.com.

    Kerry has been roundly criticized for his support of legal abortion while promoting himself as a Catholic. The Massachusetts senator has been praised by the group NARAL Pro-Choice America as having a 100 percent pro-abortion voting record.

    Joseph M. Starrs, director of American Life League's Crusade for the Defense of Our Catholic Church, slammed Kerry for the Idaho appearance.

    "That Sen. John Kerry is willing to use the holy sacrifice of the Mass as a 'media op' shows his utter contempt for the faith he claims to embrace," Starrs said in a statement. "This is disgusting. The senator and his staff should publicly apologize to Our Lady of the Snows parish, its pastor and congregation, and to all faithful Catholics for this charade.

    "Christ said, 'Come to me, all you who are weary.' He didn't say, 'Come to me, all you who would use my church in a cheap attempt to shamelessly promote your ambitions. '"

    Kerry has been on an Idaho ski vacation since last week.
     
  20. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

Share This Page