Anti-Kerry Documentary

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:30 am

the case for rather knowingly using forged documents is the same as the president using forged intelligence. Circumstantional

Check "Outfoxed" out for some dirt on fox. Just as damaging to me as anything you've mentioned.

...that is, if you even need to. If you've watched fox news channel at all it's pretty blatantly pro republican. Let's not be silly here.

Ympakt · Post by **Ympakt** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:57 pm

IMHO, seeing as Sinclair has waited until now to throw this anti-Kerry TV show, why shouldn't F9/11 be allowed to air on TV? Someone earlier said something along the lines of "...the liberals already had Farenheit 9/11..." The point is that it was not aired on the TV. The GOP could have made 5 movie-theater films for every 1 the Dems had and suffered no consequences. Seeing as Sinclair whipped out this program so close to the election, the Dems may not have time to put together a similar anti-Bush program. Yes, yes, I know, the Dems could've made one first; but they didn't (ON TV). Another thing is that people had to drive to the movie theater and pay to see F9/11; so that kind of limited the audience to people with the means and the willingness to see the movie. TV has fewer barriers to it's audience and will have a bigger viewership of GOP's (unimportant, as their ploitical choice is clear) and possibly the undecided voter crowd, and the latter are what is important. Equal air time has to be allowed to both parties for politcally centered ads and programs during election times. IMHO, I think its below the belt to do this so close to the election, I'd think the same if the Dems did it. There are so many dirty tricks out there; from dropping voters from the rolls (some black Florida voters in 2000), misinformation, and out and out lies. A quick Google search for "(republican or democrat)dirty election tricks" will give you plenty of information.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:22 pm

Birdseye wrote:the case for rather knowingly using forged documents is the same as the president using forged intelligence. Circumstantional

Check "Outfoxed" out for some dirt on fox.

Circumstantial? The source of Rathers knowledge that the documents were not authentic prior to using them was the experts Rather et al hired to authenticate them!! He even did a Clintonian defense of saying 'It's not important that the documents are false, it's only important what they say'...heh circumstantial my left nut!

What is Outfoxed? Book, TV show, movie, what?
The only thing silly would be me believing it just because you say so.
Come on, I'm holding you to the same standard you held me to. Back it up or shut up.

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:28 pm

movie, will

actually, i'm pretty sure its an ACTUAL documentary. don't quote me on that, because i haven't seen it and don't really know anything about it... but i THINK its a documentary

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:33 am

The source of Rathers knowledge that the documents were not authentic prior to using them was the experts Rather et al hired to authenticate them!!

And Bush had experts telling him what he was doing was wrong, and the entire world couldn't find WMD--then there were none! The only thing we can prove is that they are both idiots with poor judgement. On hunch, I tend to believe both are liars.

Outfoxed is a documentary on Fox. You should see it.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:50 pm

I guess Sinclair has changed its mind (to an extent):

---------------------------
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Sinclair Broadcast Group has pulled back on its plans to air a program critical of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's anti-Vietnam war activities.

A young Kerry testifies before Congress in a scene from the movie. Facing a growing political firestorm , the Hunt Valley, Md.-based broadcaster said Tuesday that it would not air the documentary "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" in its entirety.

Sinclair said 40 of its 62 stations would air a one-hour program on Friday entitled "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media" that will still raise allegations about Kerry's anti-war activities in the early 1970s. It will also focus in part on the use of documentaries and the role of the media in swaying voters, the company said.
---------------------------

Looks like the money vote didn't dig the whole idea:

"The planned program also put pressure on Sinclair's stock, which has fallen from $7.50 on October 8 to $6.26 at Tuesday's close, a loss of nearly 17 percent."

Link

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:28 pm

For those who still want to see the movie, though, it's available for download here (12.3 meg wmv).

Having watched it, I agree it should be treated as election material (so it should be subject to whatever campaign-finance rules apply.) I can also see why Kerry supporters want so badly for it to not be aired.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:18 am

I also can see why Kerry supporters don't want it aired.

it's very partisian. the host is a big blubbering vagina. they kept going on and on about honor, dignity, and similar claptrap. Also the setup was lame. Showing the medals the few veterans won over and over again seems to me like they're trying to make you believe what they say is gospel truth. I also saw some subverseveness with a veteran wearing a rather large medal, and his wife with a shirt with the american flag on it. almost as if to say "we're patriotic. listen to us"

What really made me doubt this documentary is the way they portrayed Kerry as someone who was working for the enemy but no real evidence to back this up. you have to lose part of your brain function in order to actually believe this without questioning it.

This shouldn't be treated like election material at all. it's way too opinionated and left a bad taste in my mouth. I never did like the 'we are the innocent victims and they are the evil <insert side here>' type of documentary

While I was googling Carlton Sherwoood's name I found this: http://www.washingtondispatch.com/opini ... 0326.shtml

/me waits for the Moore and Kerry shots.

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:49 am

"The host is a big blubbering vagina"? There were subversive signals that viewers should trust the veterans' word as gospel truth? Ummm. Yeah. I didn't like the film much, but it wasn't -that- bad. It was emotional, yeah, and short on facts, but it wasn't exactly terrifyinglyeviltotalitariannuttyandfullofjjerks.

Definitely long on emotion and short on content, though. Lots of screen time given to how horrible it was to be a Vietnam POW. Not so much about what Kerry has to do with that. Lots of screen time about how terribly betrayed the vets feel by the whole anti-war movement. Not so much about how honorable Kerry's personal involvement with it was. And the whole "the anti-war people were right" half of the universe gets completely ignored.

None of the arguments in it were substantially new, just presented in very emotional ways. I don't know if I'd call it dishonest, but certainly dangerously one-sided.

They wanted to put that on the TV a week or so before the election, huh? I'm torn between "unconditional free speech, however crazy your ideas are" and "free speech only really flourishes when the moderators keep out the spam." Ugh. Definitely spam. Even if it should be legal to show that sort of thing freely (and I think that impulse of mine is the one I agree with), I sure wouldn't have much respect for anyone who actually does so. Yuck.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:53 am

From that article:

only two of the men stated that the words of John Kerry were mentioned during their time as prisoners of war.

heh. (Under less serious circumstances I might have given that an LOL.)

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:32 am

Ferno wrote:the host is a big blubbering vagina. they kept going on and on about honor, dignity, and similar claptrap.

Lol. I don't know what a "big blubbering vagina" looks like so I'll have to give you that point, however, honor and dignity are not claptrap and if you don't recognize the value of those qualities it's no wonder you wouldn't think Kerry is a bad choice for leadership.

The film is boring but not nearly as dishonest as the article you posted, for example Kerry and Fonda did work together, maybe they didn't have tea together but they both did their part in the same orginazation to stage false testimony before congress complete with imposters posing as veterans. They both aided the enemies cause by meeting with them to give them credibility. Kerry was an officer and duty bound to not do those things by the military code of justice...
But hey! What's a little law breaking when one is building his political career

So it's no wonder the film mentions honor and dignity when those qualities are so lacking in Kerry.

If Dan Rather is justified in his hit piece based on forged documents then surely these guys are justified in their story based on real time served as POW's and Kerry's undeniable paticipation in the Winter Soldier sham and breaking the rules/law in giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 9:43 am

Honor itself isn't claptrap. but going on and on about it, is.

I used 'big blubbering vagina' to say that he whines a lot.

Also, I made no claims about the honesty of the article I posted. it was just something I dug up about the host. take it as you see fit.

Nice statement Drakona. I agree with it.

I'm not sure you know this, but I am able to spot ploys a little better than most. I guess this is due to my experiences in life. I've seen some really underhanded stuff and I can tell who's doing it to which degree. It's kind of like when you know someone is being dishonest. their body language changes, abiet subtly. but the cues remain.

Example: someone who's being overly nice. that person is usually hiding something and they figure by acting really nice they can cover up for it.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:51 am

That could have been done so much better. The movie didn't really bring up anything new. I know John Kerry protested the war, I know that in any war if you protest the enemy will use that as propaganda against POWs. The options are...

Don't protest, and let the U.S. fight unjust wars where people die.

Protest, and try to prevent the prolongation of an unjust war, where our POWs are tortured because of it.

I'm not trivializing this and saying it is an easy decision, just saying that there is nothing new about it. If you believe a war is unust, both protesting and not protesting have serious consequences attached to it.

The movie requires us, right or wrong, to rely 100% on the testimony of these ex-POWs. Do any of you doubt that people could go to Vietnam and find Vietnamese vets who would testify that American atrocities were being done? Vietnamese vets who would all gather around thanking Kerry for helping to end a seemingly unjust war? I canâ??t say for sure, but I bet you could.

I think the best point the movie made was Kerryâ??s role in opening this wound for political gain.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:34 pm

Gooberman wrote:The options are...

Don't protest, and let the U.S. fight unjust wars where people die.

Protest, and try to prevent the prolongation of an unjust war...

The problem is a reoccuring theme with Kerry. He didn't just protest the war. He lied and helped perpetrate a fraud to make his protest more effective! He figured his cause was just so he was above the law.

He exhibits the same attitude and tactics when addressing the voters by lying profusely about things he knows will incite the simple minded children and senior citizens to vote for him out of fear and then has the balls to claim 'Bush is running a campain of fear and his one based on hope'.
Heh!

They both use fear so you have to examine why and how to see if there is a difference:

Bush wants you to be afraid of a terrorist attack so you'll vote to keep him in office because he knows he's the one who will fight the terrorists aggressively.

Kerry wants you to be afraid of things that aren't really true just so he can be president, make nice with France, return to the pre-9/11 attitude, only strike our enemies "when an imminent threat is recognized", and only when we have a coalition larger than the one we have (translation: a coalition that includes bribe taking France)...

Although when we had *all* those criteria covered *and* the enemy had even invaded a neighboring country *and* France agreed he was one of only two senators who still voted no!!!

So excuse me if I doubt his sincerity.
Bush may be a borderline classic politician but Kerry gives politicians a bad name and is definitely and demonstrably weak on defense!

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:51 pm

"He lied and helped perpetrate a fraud to make his protest more effective"

Can you prove this without John Oneil?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:51 pm

Birdseye wrote:"He lied and helped perpetrate a fraud to make his protest more effective"

Can you prove this without John Oneil?

AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN J. PITKIN

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF PALM BEACH

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Steven J. Pitkin, known, to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to this instrument, who, after first being duly sworn by me, upon oath stated:

1. My name is Steven J. Pitkin. I am over the age of twenty-one years, and I am fully competent and able to make this affidavit. I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge.

2. I am a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, having served with the Ninth Division of the U.S. Army beginning 25 May 1969. A mortar explosion wounded me, my wounds gradually became infected, and I was treated in an Army hospital in Okinawa. I contracted hepatitis C from blood transfusions I received during that time. I left Vietnam on 28 August 1969 and was honorably discharged from the Army on 9 September 1970.

3. Medals received for my Army service include: Combat Infantry Badge, Army Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, RVN Cross of Gallantry, Air Medal, Purple Heart.

4. During my service in Vietnam, I neither witnessed nor participated in any American war crimes or atrocities against civilians, nor was I ever aware of any such actions. I did witness the results of Vietcong atrocities against Vietnamese civilians, including the murder of tribal leaders.

5. Upon my return to the United States I encountered anti-war protestors who, at various times, threw feces, spit, and screamed obscenities.

6. I joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), at Catonsville Community College in Baltimore in 1970.

7. In January of 1971, I rode in a van with John Kerry, a national leader of the VVAW, and others from Washington D.C. to Detroit to attend the Winter Soldier Investigation, a conference intended to publicize alleged American war crimes in Vietnam. Having no knowledge of such war crimes, I did not intend to speak at the event.

8. During the Winter Soldier Investigation, John Kerry and other leaders of that event pressured me to testify about American war crimes, despite my repeated statements that I could not honestly do so. One event leader strongly implied that I would not be provided transportation back to my home in Baltimore, Maryland, if I failed to comply. Kerry and other leaders of the event instructed me to publicly state that I had witnessed incidents of rape, brutality, atrocities and racism, knowing that such statements would necessarily be untrue.

9. In April 1971, I attended a VVAW protest in Washington D.C. known as â??Dewey Canyon III.â?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:09 pm

Gooberman wrote:I know John Kerry protested the war

... but what you seem to completely miss is that he LIED about the war in his testimony to Congress. If he simply protested nobody would care -- lots of people protested Vietnam. I wouldn't care if Kerry had simply been a war protestor.

If Kerry had told the truth, the VC would have had very little reason to use his words. If Kerry had half an ounce of sense, he would've known better than to listen to the lies told at the Winter Soldier "investigation". If Kerry wasn't so intent on using Vietnam for his own gain, he wouldn't have lied to congress about what he had witnessed.

The thing that bugs me the most is that Kerry has had 30+ years to apologize, to heal the wounds he opened, to tell people that the stuff he said to Congress wasn't true, etc. Had he done all of that stuff before, and then tried to play the war hero this campaign, it would be water under the bridge. But the fact is, he's never apologized, he's never owned up to the testimony he gave, he's never tried to restore those friendships... and now he wants to lead the country. HEH.

There's also the whole "met with VC leaders in Paris" can of worms, but I won't bother opening it -- if any of you actually cared to go beyond the surface, you wouldn't need me to tell you about it.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:18 pm

The thing that bugs me the most is that Kerry has had 30+ years to apologize, to heal the wounds he opened, to tell people that the stuff he said to Congress wasn't true, etc

Bush has had ample opportunity to apologize about there not being any WMD in Iraq. People's husbands, fathers, brothers, wives, mothers etc. have died in search for them, and Bush goes to conferences joking about their location....

Assuming Kerry did lie to congress, the reason he doesn't apologize is because apologies are political suicide over big issues. The reason Bush doesnâ??t apologize is the same reason Kerry wouldn't have apologized.

I know I know, there is absolutely no analogy here because bush didn't "lie" he was passing on "bad intelligence."

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:41 pm

I'll pretend your analogy holds water even though we both know it doesn't just so I can ask you this:

The press has hammered Bush on the WMD issue, the press hasn't hammered Kerry on his fraudulent testimony, presenting imposters as witnesses etc. or his breaking the military code by travelling to meet the enemy in Paris.

Why?

Suppose everything else was the same, *except* Bush was the one who went to vietnam for 4 months and then skated back to the states and did what Kerry did and Kerry was the one who stayed home in the Air National Guard.....do you think the press would be ignoring the blatent lies, false testimony, presenting imposters before congress and breaking military code by meeting with the enemy if it had been Bush who did that?!?
Seriously!?

A vote against Kerry isn't just a vote against Kerry, it's a vote against those scumbags Brokaw, Rather, Jennings et al!

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:43 pm

Gooberman wrote:Bush has had ample opportunity to apologize about there not being any WMD in Iraq.

You and Birdseye and many others have also had ample opportunity to apologize for consistantly misrepresenting the Bush justification for war. (See, I can play this game, too.

) Also for misunderstanding the fact that the burden of proof was on Saddam.

But anyway... there's a big difference between being convinced by faulty evidence that was never disputed until it became PC to do so, and passing evidence you WATCHED being manufactured.

Kerry was there at the Winter Soldier investigation, and according to Will's post, participated in pressuring people into manufacturing evidence. Kerry told lies about what he himself had done. Kerry met with enemy leaders during time of war, which he should've known better than to do. Kerry was clearly, undeniably in the wrong in his post-war activities.

apologies are political suicide over big issues.

Sometimes they are. Sometimes they're politically beneficial. I don't think Kerry avoided apologizing because it'd be political suicide.

You're right, though, they've avoided apologizing for the same reason. You're just wrong about the reason: neither one of them thinks they did anything wrong. Whether or not they actually did... well, we've had plenty of threads to discuss Bush's case, and I think we've established we're at a standstill there. So, this thread is about Kerry's case. Did he do anything wrong?

I'm certain he did. His anti-war activities were way over the line. There simply isn't any excuse for what he did (though saying "maybe the guys at Winter Soldier lied to me, and if so, I'm sorry for passing on that information" would be a start.)

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:53 pm

There's always a few reasons. Some are bigger than others.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:56 pm

well, we've had plenty of threads to discuss Bush's case, and I think we've established we're at a standstill there. So, this thread is about Kerry's case. Did he do anything wrong?

I just don't know. I wasn't in Vietnam, I wasn't alive during Vietnam. I know facts about it, but I certaintly don't pretend to know just how the name of that place resonates through certain individuals.

Like I said in my post, It will be hard to truly know what went on if we keep excluding the Vietnamese Vets from the discussion. Were these things really being commited? Who would know better then they?

Have you ever broken up two kids during a fight? And asked one "what happened?" Well, the first kid you ask will tell you that:

1. The other kid started it
2. The other kid used cheap tactics.
3. The "over the top" actions he used were just in self-defence.

I know the anology is just mediocre, but the point is if you were to just walk away and never question the other kid, you would be pretty damn clueless about what actually happened, wouldn't you?

I wish that Kerry documentary had one soldier who was the enemy, to come on and say that "they knew none of this was really happening." Or at least that, "the only evidence he had was what Kerry had said."

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:11 pm

To respond to Will:

The Iraq war is affecting everyones lives to some degree. I know people over there that I grew up with, thankfully none have been harmed. I think about Iraq, it's commen discussion with my friends, and to spell it out: I worry about Iraq.

The news makes money by feeding me information about Iraq because they know it is something that I am interested in. If it seems like one of the reasons that we went is false, I consume that up. Not because I am anti-bush, not because I am anti-conservative, but because it is information about something that is allready on my mind.

The issue is being focused on because it is about Iraq, not just because it is anti-Bush.

Now, Vietnam. For me Vietnam has just a slightly more personal appeal then the Civil War. I certaintly don't think about it daily, I have some uncles who fought there, but they just don't talk about it. I bet less then 1% of America thinks about it daily, and I bet about 50%+ of America thinks about Iraq daily.

So in contrast this story would be focused on just because it is anti-Kerry, not because it is about Vietnam. I have heard about this story some, because it is "anti-Kerry." But not as much as the WMD's, because it is about Vietnam, not Iraq.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:06 pm

Gooberman, I totally understand how Iraq would resonate with you personally more than vietnam but a candidates qualifications and character and history should resonate with the press *equally* and yet for todays mainstream press it's painfully obvious it doesn't work that way.

I don't think they should go easy on Bush but they should go after Kerry with the same effort, the same zeal and with the same motive...to expose his character and history like they do with Bush. They aren't even pretending to anymore! This election will go down in history as the one where the press shed even the facade of impartiality.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 2:56 am

Gooberman wrote:I wish that Kerry documentary had one soldier who was the enemy, to come on and say that "they knew none of this was really happening." Or at least that, "the only evidence he had was what Kerry had said."

You wish the movie had at least one VietCong soldier? At least one pro-Kerry guy? At least one "Winter Soldier" leader? I'm not quite understanding what you're saying...

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 am

"Like I said in my post, It will be hard to truly know what went on if we keep excluding the Vietnamese Vets from the discussion. Were these things really being commited? Who would know better then they? " Goob.

Even if you included a Viet. Vet, how could you trust the veracity of what he said. Remember:

1) Kerry is a HERO of Vietnam

2) Vietnam is still a communist state and it's citizens know full well of the results of defaming a state HERO.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:49 am

You wish the movie had at least one VietCong soldier? [yes] At least one pro-Kerry guy? [no] At least one "Winter Soldier" leader? [no] I'm not quite understanding what you're saying...

No, that is not what I am saying at all. Woodchip has a good point, perhaps he claified it for me.

To respond, I'm sure there exist some who have left Vietnam who could comment on the issue how they truthfully view it. Do they think Kerry's words kept American POWs from coming home? Do they think Kerry told the truth, do they have any first hand information about attrocities being commited? These anwsers from them would have made that movie alot more powerful.

However if you are right woodchip, doesn't that say at least something about the position of the other side. If Kerry is indeed a war-hero to the average citizen there, doesn't that make a statement to some degree that, if not warcrimes, at least the war directly is viewed as unjust? The other option, as you say, is that they hate Kerry, and the government is so oppressive that they would never say that in fear of their life. If that is the case, then its about time to offer some perm. VISAS.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:53 am

Found an interesting piece on Mr. Pitkin

I can't help but wonder if this Steve Pitkin, who has turned so viciously on Kerry and VVAW, really is the Steve Pitkin I knew. I have seen only written statements, no pictures, no television spots, even though one with him could be twisted into a powerful condemnation of Kerry since the only shots of Kerry in "Winter Soldier" show him with Steve.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary ... nders.html

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:21 pm

Ferno I seriously doubt the sincerity of that since Pitkin has been quite visable, both during the 70's and recently. Go here and scroll to the bottom and you can find links to video of the supposedly mysterious Steve Pitkin.

I think it's a lame attempt to cast doubt on a legitimate affidavit sworn by someone who was there...obviously Pitkins testimony on film is available to Saunders *if* she wanted to see it.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:45 pm

Interesting story. I guess this is a case of "will the real Mr Pitkin please stand up".

Your author trumpets a M.Moore line, "As Michael Moore stated at the Cannes Film Festival, immoral wars lead to immoral acts" as though only immoral wars lead to such act. Any war leads to immoral acts by the soldiers that fight them. These same wars also bring out great humanitarian efforts and self sacrificing. The only real acts of immorality I've seen are the likes of Jane Fonda, John Kerry, and M.Moore so willing to consort with enemy's of our country for the aggrandisement of self over country and a extra 30 pieces of gold.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:50 pm

and I seriously doubt that affidavit is true.

Veitnam vets against the war meeting with the Vietcong in secret. Why? what possible reason would the Vietcong have to meet with people they previously fought against?

Will, would you think different of that quote if it was: 'immoral wars lead to immoral acts - Anonymous'?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:20 pm

Ferno wrote:and I seriously doubt that affidavit is true.

Well sorry but I can't get god to come down here and verify it himself. Why do you doubt it?

Veitnam vets against the war meeting with the Vietcong in secret. Why? what possible reason would the Vietcong have to meet with people they previously fought against?

To get them to keep putting pressure on the administration to surrender south vietnam to them! Remember these meetings with Kerry and the NVA happened while we were still fighting. Kerry was only there for 4 months, he ran back home as soon as he could harvest some purple hearts and re-invented himself into the anti-war candidate.

Will, would you think different of that quote if it was: 'immoral wars lead to immoral acts - Anonymous'?

You must have meant to direct that to Woodchip. Any war is immoral to some degree.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:21 pm

Ferno, John Kerry met with the N.Viets in Paris prior to the ending of the war. Why did he meet? I suppose he wanted to hang his political star on the anti-war movement and maybe a chance to jump in the sack with Jane.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:00 pm

Why do i doubt the affidavit? Two reasons. I can't verify it's authenticity, and I also can't verify if it wasn't made under duress. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true.

"To get them to keep putting pressure on the administration to surrender south vietnam to them!"

If I understand this right, your'e saying the NVA wanted to use Kerry to sway the US to pull back?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:36 pm

If someone is anti-war, perhaps then they could be trying to settle the war with the pen rather than the sword?

I doubt he was plotting something evil. Give me a break.