SwiftVets.com

JROTC · Last edited by JROTC on Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

Saw this, but couldn't find other collaboration, ... yet

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/7/101350.shtml

JROTC · Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:17 pm Post subject:

Sure enough, it was in Neweek's Nov. 15th issue. It states that Brinkley "cautioned" ... I hadn't seen this yet, so sorry if it's been posted elsewhere.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6420967/site/newsweek/

Marquis · Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:49 pm Post subject:

PLEASE TELL ME WHY: 99 US Senators allow this POS to serve along side them and refuse to impeach this traitor!

works4me · Seaman Recruit Joined: 21 Aug 2004 Posts: 13

They are just like him they have no HONOR.
There are exceptions but how much did they do to help all of you in displaying his true record to the American people!
_________________
THe US military does not make enemies, we dispose of them!

RogerRabbit · Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:36 pm Post subject:

LewWaters · Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:13 pm Post subject:

I think the word "terrorist" used by Brinkley and Edwards might be a set-up. He met with "delegates" of the Communist forces in Vietnam.

If we start crying Kerry met with "terrorists" and they come back with they were legal "delegates," we are left standing with egg all over our faces.

The term terrorist wasn't in wide use back then, so be careful repeating it today.
_________________
Clark County Conservative

d19thdoc · Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:13 pm Post subject:

The use of the term "terrorists" in really peculiar.

There were no "terrorists" as we now understand the term in the Vietnam War. The South Vietnamese Communists forces, the Viet Cong, used what we would now call terrorist tactics for sure (actually, the very kind of atrocious behavior we were accused of by Kerry, which really rankles Vietnam Vets). But they were referred to as "guerrilla fighters" and other terms, but "terrorist” was not a standard term at that time.

The folks Kerry met with were official representatives of the North Vietnamese government, and of the semi-fictitious South Vietnamese Communist shadow government (the "PRG").

I am beginning to think this kind of "journalism" is the leading edge of the new propaganda line covering up for Kerry. Remember, the MSM is under threat here also, because they either were incapable of doing their job, or refused to do it for partisan political reasons.

A standard tactic is to establish a strawman, some element that is fictitious and can therefore be easily refuted, or some subsidiary and irrelevant line that can be easily discredited and thereby divert attention from the related substantive charge; and an element that is even worse than the truth, so that the real truth is made to appear diminished in comparison.

Example: their attack on the Swift Ad about the Paris meetings. The ad called the meetings "secret" so they attacked "secret", not the substance - the fact that he met with the enemy at all! Then the MSM was at pains to prove the meetings were no secret, and therefore the allegation was false!

This is what they do so well. And non-subtle minds are easily diverted, and given an attack response for their pub and water cooler discussions. So it grows and spreads.

They are masters at false generalization. Now it all will read:

"Kerry's enemies say he met with terrorists in Paris. That's a lie. He met with responsible government officials, seeking relief for our POWs."

So they can now admit to the meetings, characterize the meetings any way they want - since the substance of the meetings was really the secret part - and show the world that the meetings were much more benign than they really were. What they do is create spin-matter for their fellow propagandists to build on and repeat. It takes a sick mind to think this way, which I guess is why I can see through some of the darker crawlings of true propaganda.

Of course, the facts which would make this all transparently phony are the documents detailing the Communist Vietnamese direction of the anti-war people, and the less than honorable discharge the Navy judged appropriate for an officer who collaborated with the enemy in war time.
_________________
For The Honor of the Fifty-Eight Thousand.
"He Can Lose, But He Can Not Hide"

LewWaters · Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:14 pm Post subject:

19thDoc, I believe we just made the same point Wink

GMTA

_________________
Clark County Conservative

d19thdoc · Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:22 pm Post subject:

Lew:

While blinded in my "Post Reply" box for an hour, adding a couple hundred words of filler to your insight, I come out of my darkroom to find you had mastered the pointed sound bite.

In the competition for apprentice PR hottie job, I can hear The Donald now: "Doc . . .YOU'RE FIRED!"
_________________
For The Honor of the Fifty-Eight Thousand.
"He Can Lose, But He Can Not Hide"

GoophyDog · Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:41 pm Post subject:

It was Edwards that said the "terrorist" word, not Kerry.

Just a small but important point that reflects Mr. Edwards' solid grasp of the world and history.
_________________
Why ask? Because it needs asking.

BuffaloJack · Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:38 pm Post subject:

The term "terrorist" was just beginning to be used in the 60s. Prior to this, these people were referred to as "saboteurs". Additionally, I don't think the term terrorist had quite the same connotation as it has today.

I think that Kerry used the term, because he liked to be as dramatic as possible. It was in his character. It helped the exaggeration. It has more impact than "met with delegates".
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71)

Anker-Klanker · Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:36 am Post subject:

I'd give Edwards the benefit of the doubt, and assume he made his comment without too much thought. Today, "terrorists" are the "bad guys," and I'd guess that was the real context Edwards was using when he made the comment.

Kathy Kay · Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:06 am Post subject: