Aid And Comfort To The Enemy?

[fintstone]

AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY?
Neal Boortz

We have to go back to the Vietnam for a bit here. We have to go back because it looks like John Kerry has been caught in yet another lie .. and this one may be quite serious.

Here's the story:

In 1970 John Kerry went to visit the communist delegation to the Vietnamese peace talks. Then he went to visit them again. The congress of the United States was not informed of these visits until almost a year later. By the way, Kerry was a Navy Reserve Officer at the time. Finally ... then the leftist media found out the truth about Kerry's trips, they failed to correct their own stories on the subject.

You've probably heard some of this before, but it was presented to you in such a way as to make Kerry's visit and the motivations behind the visit seem entirely benign.

The charges that Kerry traveled to Paris to commiserate with the Communists first surfaced in the Swift Boat Veteran's television ad campaign. The Swiftees said that Kerry traveled to Paris to "secretly" meet with the enemy. The New York Times and the Washington Post quickly jumped to Kerry's defense ... saying that he informed the congress immediately of his visit. Later these newspapers found out that Kerry's visit was in 1970, not '71, and that he didn't tell the congress until almost a year later. That makes the meeting a secret indeed.

The media also reported that Kerry was actually on his vacation in Paris at the time, so the trip was not made for the explicit purpose of meeting with the communists. That turns out to be false also. His honeymoon was in the Caribbean. It seems that he did, indeed, travel to Paris just to meet with communists ... to meet with the communists negotiating with the United States for a settlement to the Vietnam war.

Wait! There's more! There was another Kerry trip to meet with the communists, this one in 1971! And according to Joshua Muravchik in The Weekly Standard, a third trip was planned.

Perhaps you've heard somewhere along the way that when Kerry went to Parris he actually met with both sides, not just the communists. That would certainly put him in better light, wouldn't it? You probably got that from The New York Times.

The Times was quite upset that the Swiftees said that Kerry had gone to Paris to meet with the enemy. Not so, said the Times. Kerry actually testified that he met with "both sides." Well .. the Times then found out that by "both sides" Kerry meant that he had visited with both communist delegations to the peace talks. In fact, "both delegations" was the phrase Kerry used in describing his visit. The next week the Times ran a small correction saying that it had "misidentified" the parties Kerry went to visit.

America was at war. We were at war against the communist enemy in Vietnam. Tens of thousands of Americans soldiers were dying. John Kerry, while still a reserve officer in the U.S. Navy, makes several trips abroad to visit with the enemy. That's right, the enemy. He waits almost a year before he bothers to inform the congress of his visit. He then makes a second trip, and is planning a third that was cancelled. The media is giving him a pass. They're giving him a pass because they know that if Kerry's actions are highlighted for the voters it would cost him votes.

[fintstone]

Looks like the more we know about Kerry's actions in the '70's....the more he appears to be a traitor. I wonder why the press is so hot to cover for him?

[MFAFF]

Just a quick question on that...


Who else was in Paris meeting with the Communists at the time....Kissinger et al?

Are they doing so in 'secret?' or in public....Certainly from the way these talks took place the last thing the Administration wanted was for the extent, timing etc of these meetings to be made public.

Or the talks that took place between the American Ambassador to Poland and the North Vietamese intermediaries in 1967/68 as LBJ and McNamara tried to negociate their way out the conlfict?

How do you characterise these visits?
Are they materially different? Afterall the aim was to get the Americans out of 'Nam, get POWS back and troops home.

On the one hand the official talks, or shall we say administration talks are above board, which can bring about a genuine end to the conflict , but these unofficial talks, by a Reserve officer, who can offer nothing, are treason?

Somewhere along the line I think both sides need to look a little deeper into what they are trying to achieve by making these points...

[stomachmonkey]

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/coupreaganbush.htm

http://www127.pair.com/critical/myth-07.htm

Now that's what I consider treason.

Rationalize it all you want, you'll never convince me that Reagan and his buddies were not involved with the hostage crises.

And that Iran was so afraid of Reagan that they shat their pants when he was elected and released the hostages out of fear does not work for me. We all know and agree that they are martyrs and are not afraid to die much less blow themselves and everyone else up in the process.

Flame suit on.

[red ufo]

After reading all these posts. I'm starting to think somebody escaped Jones Town and didn't drink the koolaid, now drinks a different flavor.

[concentric]

Originally posted by MFAFF
Just a quick question on that...
[SNIP FOR BREVITY - ED]
Somewhere along the line I think both sides need to look a little deeper into what they are trying to achieve by making these points...

MFAFF...
I'm sorry, this was a rational post and didn't quote either a wacko spin-generating liberal or conservative website. We don't allow ration here. I've sent for our re-education experts, please don't be alarmed when they show up.

Have a nice day!

JCM

[Nice post]

[MFAFF]

AGHGHGHGHGHGHH


The men in white coats have arrived they're taking me awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy



Actually they have taken the 911 to be restored but I'm already suffering.


Have fun over the weekend....