| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BrianC
PO2
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 364
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:31 pm Post subject: FBI Files Show Kerry Met With Communists More Than Once |
 |
|
FBI Files Show Kerry Met With Communists More Than Once
Newly released FBI files reveal that presumed Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry attended a second meeting with North Vietnamese communists in Paris in the early 1970s. Kerry has previously admitted to meeting only once with the North Vietnamese delegations in 1970.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200406%5CSPE20040604a.html
........
Another DemocRAT presidential candidate, having trouble telling the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In one interview, Kerry did refer to his "visits," (plural) with the VC and their political arm - I assumed at the time that he was talking about visits during his trip to Paris in 1971 - so maybe it was a slip of the tongue?
Interesting article.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poirierwilliam
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 03 Jun 2004
Posts: 20
Location: ashland,kentucky
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:45 pm Post subject: Re: FBI Files Show Kerry Met With Communists More Than Once |
|
|
| BrianC wrote: | FBI Files Show Kerry Met With Communists More Than Once
Newly released FBI files reveal that presumed Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry attended a second meeting with North Vietnamese communists in Paris in the early 1970s. Kerry has previously admitted to meeting only once with the North Vietnamese delegations in 1970.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200406%5CSPE20040604a.html
and george bush believed CHALARI of WMD< who was working for the other evil empire IRAN
........
Another DemocRAT presidential candidate, having trouble telling the truth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrianC
PO2
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
and george bush believed CHALARI of WMD< who was working for the other evil empire IRAN
......
You're right - President Bush made a HUGE mistake in believing the Oval Office Occupant (1993-2001) from his 1995 screw ups. Big mistake for President Bush to believe anything that came from Camp clinton. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BrianC wrote: | | You're right - President Bush made a HUGE mistake in believing the Oval Office Occupant (1993-2001) from his 1995 screw ups. Big mistake for President Bush to believe anything that came from Camp clinton. |
That was a mistake, for sure.
Did you see the article posted the other day - the final report that the Clinton Admin handed over to their successors didn't say anything about Al Qaeda.
Yah, ol' Billy BJ was right on top of things.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 5:15 pm Post subject: Re: FBI Files Show Kerry Met With Communists More Than Once |
|
|
| BrianC wrote: | FBI Files Show Kerry Met With Communists More Than Once
Newly released FBI files reveal that presumed Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry attended a second meeting with North Vietnamese communists in Paris in the early 1970s. Kerry has previously admitted to meeting only once with the North Vietnamese delegations in 1970.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200406%5CSPE20040604a.html
........
Another DemocRAT presidential candidate, having trouble telling the truth. |
This is interesting:
===================
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/953.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > Sec. 953. Prev | Next
Sec. 953. - Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects
==================
It seems to me that this has been violated many times with no charges brought against anyone.
And then there is this:
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/coupreaganbush.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrianC
PO2
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now all you need is some proof that any of that occured.
"In his book, Mr. Sick explored the theory that the 1980 Reagan/Bush campaign negotiated with the Iranian government ..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BrianC wrote: | Now all you need is some proof that any of that occured.
"In his book, Mr. Sick explored the theory that the 1980 Reagan/Bush campaign negotiated with the Iranian government ..." |
Cool. What is the standard of proof when attacking Kerry?
Maybe Nancy was the real president operating the Ronny sock puppet.
Of course Reagan had no knowledge of what his underlings did. We can assume that he was insulated from all evil such that the only ones indicted was ones who took the fall for getting caught.
Maybe this forum should be renamed "Fishwives for Gossip." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrianC
PO2
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's amazing at what passes for debate with you Lefties.
Amazing.
I merely asked for some PROOF of you accusation - and added that even in the book it was considered a THEORY.
Your response is to smear the name of President Reagan, his wife, all in some twisted hope of proving some point that you've never been able to get across.
Kerry's foibles are his own - he has ADMITTED to meeting with the Communist government officials in 1970/1971 - and he wasn't elected to anything, had no authority, then LIED about how many times he'd met with them. That much is established, by Kerry's own admission coupled with the information from his FBI files.
That you want to ignore those facts speaks volumes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BrianC wrote: | It's amazing at what passes for debate with you Lefties.
Amazing.
I merely asked for some PROOF of you accusation - and added that even in the book it was considered a THEORY.
Your response is to smear the name of President Reagan, his wife, all in some twisted hope of proving some point that you've never been able to get across.
Kerry's foibles are his own - he has ADMITTED to meeting with the Communist government officials in 1970/1971 - and he wasn't elected to anything, had no authority, then LIED about how many times he'd met with them. That much is established, by Kerry's own admission coupled with the information from his FBI files.
That you want to ignore those facts speaks volumes. |
You say he lied. Other reports say that he did not lie.
Just watching the election it seemed obvious to me what went on. Later evidence it seemed even more corrupt than I'd thought. Iran Contra, drugs-money-guns, sacrificial lambs, .... GMAFB!
Much of that evidence is as much or more credible than some of the crap accused at Kerry. Some of the crap accused at kerry is likely more or less valid and more or less negative slant applied to it.
Some folks would prefer this place to only center on negative about Kerry - and I have seen very little concern with "Truth".
You might want to present some "for instance" of some Kerry indiscretion or impropriety and not allow that should be taken in context and relation to the general way of politics and politicians.
You do not even start out well with such as:
"It's amazing at what passes for debate with you Lefties."
I would suggest that you take exception to an individual rather than to address an individual as if the individual is a leftie and that all lefties are alike.
Did Kerry talk to some commies a long time ago? He said that he had and said it in the plural.
Did Reagan administration sabotage Carter efforts when Reagan was merely a competitor for the presidency? - There is certain enough evidence for a civil case and not unlikely to be enough for a criminal charge.
But folks seem to want to focus on some of Kerry's meeting but wish to disallow that it be considered in context of a lot of other meetings folks have had with other nations that would be in violation of a law.
Folks around here seem to consider it to be not be evidence against what side they favor while they would present as proof against the side they disfavor by using different standards for each.
Damn! Feeling really stupid at the moment that the name escapes me of the black preacher dude who got some hostages released a couple of time. - I don't even like the bugger, but that is a personal thing. His violations seem to have done good even if illegal. Maybe or maybe not that sort of meddling could do longer range harm than good. - Maybe a meddler could just end being added to the hostages and increased the problem.
Well, he did good - it worked out anyway. Does not mean that he should have not been brought up on charges as an example against less than really dedicated folks to participate in such meddling.
LOL - Well, I could carry on about some thing and my views of "Law" and "laws" and might need to establish what my definition of 'game' is.
Oh! And it really pissed me off when Clinton came up with that crap about "... depends what the definition of is is." He knew goddamned well what was the definition in context of the question. That lawyerspeak just reminds me of how to tell a dead snake in the road from a dead lawyer in the road.
Well, skidmarks - if you have not already heard it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BrianC wrote: | It's amazing at what passes for debate with you Lefties.
Amazing.
I merely asked for some PROOF of you accusation - and added that even in the book it was considered a THEORY.
Your response is to smear the name of President Reagan, his wife, all in some twisted hope of proving some point that you've never been able to get across.
Kerry's foibles are his own - he has ADMITTED to meeting with the Communist government officials in 1970/1971 - and he wasn't elected to anything, had no authority, then LIED about how many times he'd met with them. That much is established, by Kerry's own admission coupled with the information from his FBI files.
That you want to ignore those facts speaks volumes. |
Oh!! Something in relation to "PROOF".
Proof is a rare thing. In legal crap or philosophical crap - related things they are - there is evidence. The standard in a civil case is something like 51% - preponderance - while in criminal it is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The winner is said to have proved his case but that does not necessarily mean he was right. Just look at the number of death row and lifers who were "proved" guilty and then were actually *proved* that it could not have been them for sake of some DNA evidence.
Well, there was one DA who would not give it up and argued that someone else raped the woman and then this fellow cam in and murdered her.
Anyway - I misuse myself of demanding proof when all that a person could possibly find would be evidence. - What I say here is just something to consider and not admonishment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrianC
PO2
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, how off-topic.
So in all those words, what you're actually saying is that it's OK with you that Kerry met with the Communist leadership of North Viet Nam?
I couldn't care less about delving into your ideas and opinions of the meaning of the word "proof". (Why is it that liberals, when they have no answer to a direct accusation, resort to defining and re-defining words whose meanings are generally accepted? You know, like the meaning of "medals". No - wait - that's "ribbons". Or is it)?
The FACT of the matter is - now back to the topic at hand - is that Kerry met with the Communist leadership of N. Viet Nam. That is an undisputed fact. Then when someone inquired as to whether there were other meetings, he lied about it. THAT's the point. That matter is very bothersome to me, given that Kerry now wants to be president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bhist
Lieutenant
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 228
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BrianC wrote: | Wow, how off-topic.
So in all those words, what you're actually saying is that it's OK with you that Kerry met with the Communist leadership of North Viet Nam?
I couldn't care less about delving into your ideas and opinions of the meaning of the word "proof". (Why is it that liberals, when they have no answer to a direct accusation, resort to defining and re-defining words whose meanings are generally accepted? You know, like the meaning of "medals". No - wait - that's "ribbons". Or is it)?
The FACT of the matter is - now back to the topic at hand - is that Kerry met with the Communist leadership of N. Viet Nam. That is an undisputed fact. Then when someone inquired as to whether there were other meetings, he lied about it. THAT's the point. That matter is very bothersome to me, given that Kerry now wants to be president. |
I agree 110% with you, Brian.
_________________
Watch Kerry Implode Because Of Truth!!
Watch Rather Implode Because Of Lies!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BrianC wrote: | Wow, how off-topic.
So in all those words, what you're actually saying is that it's OK with you that Kerry met with the Communist leadership of North Viet Nam?
I couldn't care less about delving into your ideas and opinions of the meaning of the word "proof". (Why is it that liberals, when they have no answer to a direct accusation, resort to defining and re-defining words whose meanings are generally accepted? You know, like the meaning of "medals". No - wait - that's "ribbons". Or is it)?
The FACT of the matter is - now back to the topic at hand - is that Kerry met with the Communist leadership of N. Viet Nam. That is an undisputed fact. Then when someone inquired as to whether there were other meetings, he lied about it. THAT's the point. That matter is very bothersome to me, given that Kerry now wants to be president. |
Let me see ...
Kerry did what he did and admitted to it.
There is great evidence that Reagan administration did great treason but because of politics it was not pushed all that far.
Kerry was not indicted nor charged nor was Reagan.
The keepers and enforcers of the law did not seem to see fit to push a thing as a crime so you are just left with your opinion about a thing being a crime. But your standards of judgment are inconsistent.
I count this as ******* remark #2 since I said that I was willing to start over to try a go at reasonable exchange.
"Why is it that liberals ...." unless you can demonstrate to me that it was not directed to insult me by labeling me as something you obviously disdain as a group.
You crap at me about ribbons and medals though I have not much cared squat about ribbons and medals. I have read what folks have said one way and another and thought that some were just having stupid tantrums about anything they could find to ***** about.
Now maybe you did not read my post about willing to try to start over with some civil exchange. So I will make a note and only count this as a tentative #2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fortdixlover
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 1476
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BrianC wrote: |
I couldn't care less about delving into your ideas and opinions of the meaning of the word "proof". (Why is it that liberals, when they have no answer to a direct accusation, resort to defining and re-defining words whose meanings are generally accepted? You know, like the meaning of "medals". No - wait - that's "ribbons". Or is it)?
|
Because they like to do the following:
Argument by Bizarre Definition
Example: He's not a criminal. He just does things that are against the law.
Scott Adams' thought-disorder rules about irrational people explain much of what comes from the Left. See http://www.megat.co.uk/wrong/
FDL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
