DescentBB

http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/headline.php?id=96

make of it what you will. I'm still reading it.

This is actually the only reason Kerry's name jumped out at me at the beginning of the primaries.

If he is, he's politically inept. In the Sandinista vs. Contra race, Kerry put his money on the Soviet-backed Marxist-Leninist horse. The upside is a political smackdown of a dead Republican former President. The downside is shining a light on his support of another enemy of America. Couple that with his Paris exploits with the NVA, and it's bad mojo.

You won't hear anything about this from him.

Kerry doesn't talk about this because to do so would be to taunt a fickle media, which is a pretty stupid thing to do at this point. Basically:

Press drops the ball on story the first time around. Press minimizes story the second time around when it shows they dropped the ball the first time around. Does Kerry dare go for a third time around with his presidential candidacy on the line?

I don't know if I agree with his keeping somewhat quiet about this, because I think every American should know about it, but he does have his motivations.

After reading that I get the feeling he didn't support that other enemy you speak about Pebkac

After reading that I get the feeling he didn't support that other enemy you speak about Pebkac.

What did you read? That article you posted from the leftist website? And which enemy did he not support? Here he is shaking hands (along with Harkin of Iowa) with Moscow's man in Nicaragua. Ortega = enemy of America at the time.



Just so you know, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union and all of its satellite groups were declared enemies of this nation. As for the other enemy, though he didn't come out and say "I support the North Vietnamese," his actions in 1971 helped the enemy soldiers and severely hurt the American soldiers.

He supported Soviet-backed communists in Nicaragua vocally through his repeated public condemnations of Reagan's support for the Contras, and he supported North Vietnam tacitly through his despicable actions after the war.

In the spirit of balance, I'll counter your left-wing article with a right-wing article on the subject.

It's interesting you accuse it of being a leftist site Pebkac. Have you read the story I posted?

I did read the story you posted. It was written by a very right-wing author, and all it did was attack kerry. I wasn't impressed.

In comparison between the two articles, the Bob Parry article describes the lines of attack used in the WND article, and I think, points out their flaws.

The WND article also goes on to describe how Kerry's Contra/Cocaine charges crumbled without saying a single word about the 1998 CIA reports that admitted that Kerry charges were factual.

Which article is misleading?

Ferno wrote:It's interesting you accuse it of being a leftist site Pebkac. Have you read the story I posted?

I did read the story you posted. It was written by a very right-wing author, and all it did was attack kerry. I wasn't impressed.

Ok, I take back leftist. How about biased? I read the other headlines on the GNN site, then I clicked the link in the byline which said it was from Salon (they're agenda is no secret), but the link took me to Consortium News (obvious bias). I considered the source(s), and chose to disregard the article because it had nothing to do with my point. You didn't take anything as fact in that WND article did you? Of course not, it's blatantly biased, just like your link.

Now then, I apologize for straying too far off my point, I shouldn't have posted that article. I don't know or care about whether or not the Contras sold crack to whoever. I'm speaking strictly in terms of the current Presidential election.

Kerry supported the Sandinistas, period. Perhaps he did so because the Contras were really shitty folks and sold drugs to kids in ghettos. The message from right-wing spindoctors, should this come up in MSM today, will be deviously simple:

"While Republicans supported democracy-loving freedom fighters, Kerry denounced them and supported their Soviet-backed Communist enemy. Now he's trying to make political hay out of it. First he betrayed his fellow veterans in the 1970s, then he supported a Communist dictatorship in Central America in the 1980s. He voted against <insert dozens of weapons appropriation bills here> and the Gulf War in the 1990s. Do YOU really want John Forbes Kerry to be your President in 2004? - I'm George Bush and I approved this message"

In a world where one of America's most respected journalists goes live on national TV and suggests that Karl Rove was involved in OBL's latest tape, nothing in the above quoted text is far fetched. The issue of the CIA and drugs will never reach the surface, it's old news and has no legs. Even if it did, it hurts the Reagan administration and GW's father (politically bad idea to go after two former Presidents who kept their mouths shut after leaving office), there's nothing to pin on W himself.

I'm sorry this went on so long.

The title question: Kerry questioning Contra incident?

My answer: If he is he's stupid. The potential upsides don't help him in any scenario, the potential downsides range from really bad to devastating.

So by your own admission you did not read it. and you posted something that had nothing to do with the story I linked to. Nice try in the attempt to turn this into another anti-kerry thread, but I see right through you.

Now answer me this: how can I even consider your opinion when you disregarded the story outright? That strikes me as judgemental and uninformed.

Why he doesn't mention it now...
Because his efforts ultimately ended in failure he has no reason to mention it.

I don't mean he was necessarily incorrect in his pursuit of the matter at the time but Iran/Contra is a 'closed case' that didn't result in a clear victory for his argument at the time in the eyes of the public so why bring it up in a campaign?

A best it would rally Reagan haters to his side but they are already with him so why bother stirring up the Reagan lovers?

So by your own admission you did not read it.

I skimmed the article, considered the source, then dismissed it because it was not relevant to my answer to the question you posed in the title of this thread.

Nice try in the attempt to turn this into another anti-kerry thread, but I see right through you.

Dayum I love the drama!! You see right through me? I don't think you can see past the nose on your face. My post is not anti-Kerry, my post was a comment on the American political climate of the present day and how this information, dredged back to the surface, would affect Bush's and Kerry's campaigns for President.

Now answer me this: how can I even consider your opinion when you disregarded the story outright? That strikes me as judgemental and uninformed.

I disregarded your article because it's irrelevant to my point and I don't trust the Guerilla News Network to tell me the honest truth. I also disregard articles from Free Republic, NewsMax, and Drudge. You can consider my opinion because I'm not posting on the subject of that article. I'm answering the question in your title in the context of today's electoral season. You can consider my opinion because I've been observing and participating in the process for almost 30 years, going back to Ford v. Carter.

The fact that you think I'm trying to be anti-Kerry shows you don't even understand what I'm trying to say. Try to understand this. Digging up 16-year-old dirt DOES NOT HELP and could POSSIBLY BADLY HURT Kerry's political aspirations TODAY. Now, you tell me how your biased article is relevant to this position. It doesn't matter if he was right and his investigation findings were accurate at the time. I'm talking about how it will be spun today when you realize that the story will be condensed by both sides down to 30-or-so second soundbites. The Kerry spin on it would hurt a former President and a dead President and not even put a dent in GW Bush. The Bush spin on it could quite possibly deal a monstrous hit to Kerry. If you truly had a clue as to what you were talking about, you'd realize that the truth of the situation would be an afterthought. In an election year, it's all about the spin.

I don't see any spin that Kerry's camp could put on it that would be very helpful to him, while the Bush camp spin could potentially be devastating.

I hear so much about how Americans have no clue about the people living beyond American borders, but no one ever mentions that those on the outside are equally clueless about America and its citizens. But hey, if I have to go through the rest of my life knowing some Canadian, viewing from the sidelines, thinks my opinion on American politics is uninformed and judgemental, I guess that will be my cross to bear.

forget it.

OK.