Who the Hell Gives a Cheney About John Kerry in Vietnam: Unfit For Command, Part 5

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

BS. I know people who were personally targetted by the FBI's COINTELPRO. People were murdered, had their marriages and jobs ruined, were driven to suicide, railroaded. The antiwar movement was far from immune.

If Kerry had done something illegal, he'd have gone to prison, especially considering that Nixon was desperately trying to get something on Kerry.

Which goes to my previous point. He was more than willing to do something underhanded but not willing to put him up for martydom as would have been the case were he indicted for federal crimes.

[MrFun]

Has anyone ever heard of the saying, "a broken record?"

[Kuciwalker]

Why'd you resurrect it?

[MrFun]

I did??

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun
Has anyone ever heard of the saying, "a broken record?"

This from the person known for quoting his own posts.



Besides Kerry's record isn't so much "broken" as it is simply warped and full of lies and illegalities.

[Straybow]

MORE SOPHIE PICTURES!

She's much cuter than anybody else here or the candidates.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe




This from the person known for quoting his own posts.



Besides Kerry's record isn't so much "broken" as it is simply warped and full of lies and illegalities.

I can't remember the last time I quoted a post of my own, so . . . . .


nah, nah, nah.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Which goes to my previous point. He was more than willing to do something underhanded but not willing to put him up for martydom as would have been the case were he indicted for federal crimes.

Kerry was a nobody in 1972. And Nixon wasn't above martyring people: Geronimo Pratt, Angela Davis, Huey Newton, Abbie Hoffman, John Lennon . . . the list goes on. That doesn't even include people who were assassinated. Nixon was a thug. If he couldn't get something on someone, he'd have it invented. Kerry was squeaky clean. That's why Nixon couldn't touch him.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Not in an election year.

[chequita guevara]

Cuz, of course, the government never cracked down on people in an election year.

Kerry was a nobody in 1972 (a well-connected nobody, but still a nobody). The Kennedys might scream bloody murder, but do you not think Nixon wouldn't have loved to smear the anti-war movement , and McGovern's campaign by extension, with a criminal indictment.

The FBI didn't just spy on people. They arranged to have people killed. They sent false evidence to people's spouses to break up marriages. They visited people's bosses to have them fired. They sent false stories to the newspapers, one of which resulted in the suicide of an actress. They engineered false evidence to send activists to prison, some for decades. This occurred both in and out of election years.

If Kerry had borken the law, they'd have gone after him. If he hadn't been well-connected, they'd have invented something on him.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

So given your agreement that Nixon hated Kerry and wanted him silenced. Why didn't he have him killed if that was his pattern? Simple, he didn't want another martyr.

[chequita guevara]

See previous point as to why Kerry wasn't railroaded. Kerry wasn't important enough to piss off the country, so he was vulnerable to prosecution for a real crime. He was, however, connected to the Kennedy's, and other important Boston families, so he couldn't be dealt with by illegal means.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You make the arguement that he was protected by his notable connections yet not protected due to his anonymity and/or lack of standing.

Sorry, it gives the apperance of trying to have it both ways. The simpler explanation is mine. It would have been too costly in terms of political capital to publicly flog Kerry when he was better served by discrediting him through third parties ala O'neil and company.

[Sikander]

I keep hearing that Nixon had a major hard on for Kerry, but I've never seen any proof for it. Does anyone have any, and by that I don't mean someone recently saying so without any sort of proof themselves a la the NYT.

[Drake Tungsten]

OMG! Diane Sawyer pwns Kerry!

DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

DS: So it was not worth it.

JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.

DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?

JK: No.

DS: But right now it wasn’t [ … ? … ]–

JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.

DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .

JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008007.php