Sinclair to air anti-Kerry special

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


I have no problem with the Kerry's campaign being concerned, I was merely stating that they weren't likely to become the communist dictators certain members of this forum irrationally fear. Many, many people are concerned, including businessmen who are primary worried about their profit.

-Drachasor

Drach, this guy Kerry has been coddling communists for so long and so often and so predictably as to give one pause.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Drach, I would like you to refer to Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." There you will see quotes from the NV negotiators to the US that prove that Kerry and Jane Fonda provided them encouragement to continue on without an agreement

If this were true, why didn't the U.S. government prosecute them for conducting private diplomacy? If they clearly broke the law, as Kissinger said they did, then the Nixon WHite House, who saw them as a threat, surely would have tossed them in prison.

Anyway, since we were the ones who lied to our own people to get invovled in a war to prop up an illegitimate dictatorship that refused to allow its own people to vote on whether or not they wanted to reunify Vietnam, we were the ones in the wrong. Being able to protest your government when it is in the wrong is what America is all about. But you conservatives have never believed that. You think Freedom is so precious, it needs to be kept locked away.

We think freedom is meant to be used. When your government is wrong, you have to protest and try and stop it from doing wrong. If that means giving a moral boost to our "enemies," then so be it. Otherwise, there's no freedom whatsoever. The government will do what it pleases without worrying about whether or not it's in the wrong or whether the American people want it.

Why do you hate freedom and America?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If this were true, why didn't the U.S. government prosecute them for conducting private diplomacy? If they clearly broke the law, as Kissinger said they did, then the Nixon WHite House, who saw them as a threat, surely would have tossed them in prison.

Good point. If you were old enough, you would remember the numerous voices calling for just that. Why Nixon did nothing is a puzzle.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Why Nixon did nothing is a puzzle.

He did nothing because he could do nothing. They didn't do what you accuse them of.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


He did nothing because he could do nothing. They didn't do what you accuse them of.

I accuse them of calling for unilateral withdrawal. You deny that they did?

[chequita guevara]

That's not illegal. That's what free people do when their government is in the wrong.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's not illegal. That's what free people do when their government is in the wrong.

Che, I agree. What Kerry did was free speech even though it was a violation of the military code for a officer to advocate the victory of the enemy.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


He did nothing because he could do nothing. They didn't do what you accuse them of.

Funnny because according to the congressional record, Kerry himself implies that he did indeed negotiate.

The CHAIRMAN. The Congress cannot directly under our system negotiate a cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system we can advise the President. We have to persuade the President of the urgency of taking this action. Now we have certain ways in which to proceed. We can, of course, express ourselves in a resolution or we can pass an act which directly affects appropriations which is the most concrete positive way the Congress can express itself.

But Congress has no capacity under our system to go out and negotiate a cease-fire. We have to persuade the Executive to do this for the country.


EXTRAORDINARY RESPONSE DEMANDED BY EXTRAORDINARY QUESTION
Mr. KERRY. Mr. Chairman, I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera. I understand these things. But what I am saying is that I believe that there is a mood in this country which I know you are aware of and you have been one of the strongest critics of this war for the longest time. But I think if we can talk in this legislative body about filibustering for porkbarrel programs, then we should start now to talk about filibustering for the saving of lives and of our country.

A bunch of interesting tidbits and miscalculations I particularly find the inevtitable under representation which ultimately lead to the the great US betrayal.

Only off by 3 orders of magnitude. Whoopsie.

Senator AIKEN. I think your answer is ahead of my question. [Laughter.]


SAIGON GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE TOWARD COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL DATE
I was going to ask you next what the attitude of the Saigon government would be if we announced that we were going to withdraw our troops, say, by October lst, and be completely out of there -- air, sea, land -- leaving them on their own. What do you think would be the attitude of the Saigon government under those circumstances?

Mr. KERRY. Well, I think if we were to replace the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime and offer these men sanctuary somewhere, which I think this Government has an obligation to do since we created that government and supported it all along. I think there would not be any problems. The number two man at the Saigon talks to Ambassador Lam was asked by the Concerned Laymen, who visited with them in Paris last month, how long they felt they could survive if the United States would pull out and his answer was 1 week. So I think clearly we do have to face this question. But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country --


ATTITUDE OF SOUTH VIETNAMESE ARMY AND PEOPLE TOWARD WITHDRAWAL
Senator AIKEN. I think your 3,000 estimate might be a little low because we had to help 800,000 find sanctuary from North Vietnam aFter the French lost at Dienbienphu. But assuming that we resettle the members of the Saigon government, who would undoubtedly be in danger, in some other area, what do you think would be the attitude, of the large, well-armed South Vietnamese army and the South Vietnamese people? Would they be happy to have us withdraw or what?

Mr. KERRY. Well, Senator, this, obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal. We have to consider the happiness of the people as pertains to the life which they will be able to lead in the next few years.

If we don't withdraw, if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic bombing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.

The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America, and we can't go around -- President Kennedy said this, many times. He said that the United States simply can't right every wrong, that we can't solve the problems of the other 94 percent of mankind. We didn't go into East Pakistan; we didn't go into Czechoslovakia. Why then should we feel that we now have the power to solve the internal political struggles of this country?

We have to let them solve their problems while we solve ours and help other people in an altruistic fashion commensurate with our capability. But we have extended that capacity; we have exhausted that capacity, Senator. So I think the question is really moot.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ohhh by the by, has anyone posted on why Kerry received his honorable discharge in '78?

[GePap]

NO, cause no one cares or thinks is a worthwhile issue.

But being the chipmunk of innane news you are, go ahead.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Ohhh by the by, has anyone posted on why Kerry received his honorable discharge in '78?

Carter was president and into pardoning the draft dodgers and others guilty of crimes of "conscious" according to that puke.

[chequita guevara]

He was probably in the reserves.

Anyway, your quotes don't prove he broke the law. Meeting with the North Vietnamese is not the same thing as conducting private diplomacy.

Again, the proof is in the pudding. Had Kerry broken the law, the Nixon Administration, which was out to discredit and silence Kerry, would most definately have thrown him in prison. They had no problem doing it to other prominent antiwar leaders. Kerry would have been no different, had Kerry actually broken the law.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

If you insist. I'll keep it breif. Appeaser in chief rumored to have pulled strings so Kerry could run for politcal office.

[chequita guevara]

He first ran for political office before 1978, however.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He was probably in the reserves.

Anyway, your quotes don't prove he broke the law. Meeting with the North Vietnamese is not the same thing as conducting private diplomacy.

Again, the proof is in the pudding. Had Kerry broken the law, the Nixon Administration, which was out to discredit and silence Kerry, would most definately have thrown him in prison. They had no problem doing it to other prominent antiwar leaders. Kerry would have been no different, had Kerry actually broken the law.

An admission doesn't cut it?? (Yes, I recognize Kerry being the master of nuance wouldn't come right out and say it) But this is about as clear a statment as Kerry is prone to make.

He gives no defense other than to say it was justified. That smacks mightily of the old "I may have done it, but damnit, it needed to be done!"