Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:55 am Post subject: Beldar: "New frontiers in shamelessness" |
 |
|
Beldar with a reminder His Fraudulency's own treasonous, post-Vietnam dalliance with an enemy of the United States that received scant consideration in 2004 despite the best efforts of SVPT...
| Quote: | New frontiers in shamelessnessWe Democrats should've been unapologetic last week defending Speaker Pelosi because the truth was on our side: She had a right to go. And she was right to go. The coordinated attack on her trip to Syria was as inappropriate as it was irresponsible. And when that happens to one of our leaders, we should all damn well stand up and be counted in our support, or else we hand partisan operatives on the other side a dangerous victory. So says Sen. John F. Kerry this week (emphasis mine).
By "partisan operatives on the other side," of course, Sen. Kerry means the Bush Administration and its supporters (if only on foreign policy matters; Joseph Lieberman would presumably be included). In Sen. Kerry's eyes, 'tis better to treat with, to fawn over, to snuggle up close and tight with the sworn enemies of the United States than to be seen as supporting the President of the United States (whoever, of whichever party, happens to hold that office at the time). Of course, "hand[ing] ... a dangerous victory" to the Ba'athist or Communist Parties is perfectly fine with the junior senator from Massachusetts.
And indeed, such comments are absolutely unsurprising from a man who, while capitalizing on his fame as a war hero, and while still storing in his closet the uniform of an officer of the United States Navy Reserve, went to Paris — at least once in 1970, and very possibly again in 1971 — to coordinate his antiwar efforts directly with the leaders of the Viet Cong.
He did so while knowing that several hundreds of Americans were being killed by those Viet Cong every month. (There were twice as many American deaths in Vietnam in 1970 alone as there have been in the entire Iraq War; in the two preceding years, there were over ten times as many.) He did so while dozens and dozens of Americans were still prisoners of war of the North Vietnamese, being subjected daily to psychological torture by their cruel captors who knew that evidence of betrayal from their home front would hurt them, scar them, more than broken bones or starvation or electric shocks or dislocated joints. He was so eager to meet with our enemies that he did so while on his honeymoon.
At least the first trip was admitted by Kerry in sworn testimony to the Senate, and it's been documented by such "SwiftBoating enthusiasts" as the NYT and the Boston Globe prior to the 2004 campaign. (During the campaign itself, the MSM conspicuously misreported the facts of the Paris trip(s). And Kerry's pet biographer, Douglas Brinkley, left it out of his book altogether even though he included vivid discussions of the rest of the honeymoon).
And yet I'll bet that if you asked a non-leading, non-multiple choice question, not one in twenty Democratic voters could provide you with a single detail of Kerry's bad faith in Paris. Among the (so far) 162 comments on the Huffpo blog entry on which Kerry made these remarks, the word "Paris" does not yet appear.
Whether the meeting(s) constituted outright treason, deliberate betrayal, or just grossly reckless and eager willingness to be made a Communist tool is still a matter of debate and opinion. Kerry has been largely effective in his three-decade stonewall of the details from which such fine judgments could be made with certainty.
I know John F. Kerry is just a political joke now. I try hard to ignore him; he doesn't deserve any serious attention anymore from anyone. But dammit, the man can still make me very, very angry. Even "Tail-Gunner" Joe McCarthy had a more highly developed sense of shame than John F. Kerry.
Beldar Blog |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
