My view on Bush Bashers and my thoughts on their bashes.

Reply #1 December 4, 2004 1:33 PM from PolMach Forums Top

well, you know what, I could do the samee thing with Kerry and have just as good excuses as you had.
He lied about his Vietnam Service: no he didnt.
he's a flip flopper: how could you say such a thing?
he wants to raise taxes: so?
that's basically what your saying to defend Bush.

Reply #2 December 4, 2004 2:45 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #1 By: huncle sam - 12/4/2004 1:33:53 PM well, you know what, I could do the samee thing with Kerry and have just as good excuses as you had. He lied about his Vietnam Service: no he didnt. he's a flip flopper: how could you say such a thing? he wants to raise taxes: so? that's basically what your saying to defend Bush.

No he didn't lie. But how do you explain how out of his own mouth admitting to it, that he commited treason?

Reply #3 December 4, 2004 3:17 PM from PolMach Forums Top

No he didn't lie. But how do you explain how out of his own mouth admitting to it, that he commited treason?

We need to get you a better dictionary. He did not commit treason either.

Reply #4 December 4, 2004 3:25 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #3 By: whoman69 - 12/4/2004 3:17:56 PM No he didn't lie. But how do you explain how out of his own mouth admitting to it, that he commited treason? We need to get you a better dictionary. He did not commit treason either.

You need to do some more reading. Here:

Never Apologize, Never Explain From the November 1 / November 8, 2004 issue: John Kerry's real record as an antiwar activist. by Joshua Muravchik 11/01/2004, Volume 010, Issue 08 KERRY SAYS HE IS "PROUD" of his activities in opposition to the Vietnam War. Why, then, have he and his spokesmen consistently misrepresented them? Indeed the Kerry camp has been so effective in obscuring this history that both the New York Times and the Washington Post were forced to run corrections on the subject recently because their reporters relied on misinformation that the Kerry camp had succeeded in putting into wide circulation. When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth unveiled the fourth in their series of television ads--this one accusing Kerry of having "secretly met with the enemy" in Paris--both papers went into full debunking mode. The Post ran 600 words under the headline: "Ad Says Kerry 'Secretly' Met With Enemy; But He Told Congress of It." The story explained that the Swifties were "referring to a meeting Kerry had in early 1971 with leaders of the communist delegation that was negotiating with U.S. representatives at the Paris peace talks. The meeting, however, was not a secret. Kerry . . . mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April of that year." The next morning the Post ran a correction. The previous day's story, it noted, "incorrectly said that John F. Kerry met with a Vietnamese communist delegation in Paris in 1971. The meeting was in 1970." The correction did not acknowledge, however, that this apparently minor error invalidated the entire point of the Post's impeachment of the Swifties' ad. Kerry's visit to Paris took place in or around May 1970, eleven months before his Foreign Relations Committee testimony. In other words, his meeting with the Communists (while he was still a reserve officer in the U.S. Navy) appears to have been kept secret for nearly a year.

Or this?

John Kerry and the VVAW: Hanoi's American Puppets? Newly discovered documents link Vietnam Veterans Against the War to Vietnamese communists Two recently discovered documents captured from the Vietnamese communists during the Vietnam War strongly support the contention that a close link existed between the Hanoi regime and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) while John Kerry served as the group's leading national spokesman. The Circular: International Coordination of Antiwar Propaganda The first document is a 1971 "Circular" distributed by the Vietnamese communists within Vietnam. It discusses strategies to coordinate their national propaganda effort with their orchestration of the activities of sympathetic counterparts in the American anti-war movement. Specifically, the document notes that the Vietcong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris Peace talks were being used as the communications link to direct the activities of anti-war activists meeting with them in Paris. To quote from the document: The spontaneous antiwar movements in the US have received assistance and guidance from the friendly ((VC/NVN)) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks. -- Circular on Antiwar Movements in the US. The reference to "VC" indicates the Vietcong; "NVN" is the North Vietnamese government. This sentence is particularly important in light of John Kerry's admission that he met with leaders of both communist delegations to the Paris Peace Talks in June 1970, including Madame Binh, foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) of South Vietnam, also known as the Vietcong. FBI files record that Kerry returned to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese delegation in August of 1971, and planned a third trip in November.

Or this:

Author: Kerry's Meeting With Communists Broke U.S. Law Marc Morano, CNSNews.com Thursday, May 20, 2004 The 1970 meeting that John Kerry conducted with North Vietnamese communists violated U.S. law, according to an author and researcher who has studied the issue. Kerry met with representatives from "both delegations" of the Vietnamese in Paris in 1970, according to Kerry's own testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. But Kerry's meetings with the Vietnamese delegations were in direct violation of laws forbidding private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers, according to researcher and author Jerry Corsi, who began studying the anti-war movement in the early 1970s. According to Corsi, Kerry violated U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953. "A U.S. citizen cannot go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power," Corsi told CNSNews.com. By Kerry's own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped. Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped "immediately and unilaterally." Then Kerry added: "I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government." However, both of the delegations to which Kerry referred were communist. Neither included the U.S. allied, South Vietnamese or any members of the U.S. delegation. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was the government of the North Vietnamese communists, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PVR) was an arm of the North Vietnamese government that included the Vietcong. Kerry did meet face-to-face with the PVR's negotiator Madam Nguyen Thi Binh, according to his presidential campaign spokesman Michael Meehan. Madam Binh's peace plan was being proposed by the North Vietnamese communists as a way to bring a quick end to the war. But Corsi alleged that Kerry's meeting with Madam Binh and the government of North Vietnam was a direct violation of U.S. law. "In [Kerry's] first meeting in 1970, meeting with Madam Binh, Kerry was still a naval reservist - not only a U.S. citizen, but a naval reservist - stepping outside the boundaries to meet with one of the principle figures of our enemy in Vietnam, Madam Binh, and the Viet Cong at the same time. [Former Nixon administration aide Henry] Kissinger was trying to negotiate with them formally," Corsi told CNSNews.com. Corsi's recent essay, titled "Kerry and the Paris Peace Talks," published on wintersoldier.com, details Kerry's meetings and the possible violations of U.S. law. Corsi also asserted that by 1971, Kerry might have violated another law by completely adopting the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communists. Definition of Treason "Article three: Section three [of the U.S. Constitution], which defines treason, says you cannot give support to the enemy in time of war, and here you have Kerry giving a press conference in Washington on July 22, 1971 (a year after his meeting with the communist delegations in Paris) advocating the North Vietnamese peace plan and saying that is what President Nixon ought to accept," Corsi explained. "If Madam Binh had been there herself at that press conference, she would have said exactly what Kerry said. The only difference is she would not have done it with a Boston accent," Corsi said. The 7 Point Plan created by the North Vietnamese communists was nothing more than a "surrender" for the U.S., according to Corsi. "You don't advocate that [7 point] plan unless you are on the communist side. It was seen as surrender. [The U.S.] would have had to pay reparations and agree that we essentially lost the war," Corsi said. Communist Shill "Kerry was openly advocating that the communist position was correct and that we were wrong. He had become a spokesman for the communist party," Corsi added. Kerry's presidential campaign did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment, but campaign spokesman Michael Meehan told the Boston Globe in March, "Kerry had no role whatsoever in the Paris peace talks or negotiations. "He did not engage in any negotiations and did not attend any session of the talks," Meehan added. 'From Their Point of View' Kerry "went to Paris on a private trip, where he had one brief meeting with Madam Binh and others. In an effort to find facts, he learned that status of the peace talks from their point of view and about any progress in resolving the conflict, particularly as it related to the fate of the POWs," Meehan added. Kerry was reportedly on his honeymoon with his first wife, Julia Thorne, when he met with the communist delegations. But Corsi does not accept the Kerry campaign's explanation. "Meehan made it sound like they were just there on a honeymoon and they got a meeting with Madam Bin, but not every American honeymooner got to meet with Madam Binh. Unless you had a political objective and they identified you as somebody as sympathetic, you were not going to get invited to a meeting with Madam Binh," Corsi said. "Kerry has skirted with the issue of violating these laws," Corsi added. Sen. Kerry's presidential campaign is "trying to fudge on the issue because they don't want to come clean on it entirely." Copyright CNSNews.com

Now try again.

Reply #5 December 4, 2004 4:07 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Why is it that repubs are still enamored with "trickle-down economics"? It didn't work for Ronnie, and it certainly will not work nowadays.

As a dem, i have to agree with you on bush being the next hitler. He's not that smart. He's not that evil either. As far as the 2000 Election goes, That nugget will be proven sometime long after he's out of office.
He did lie to the american public. If he's as smart as you claim he is, he should have seen the bad intel coming. Instead he chose to believe this "bad" intel and go ahead and invade. That just makes him an idiot...Sorry.
Especially when you consider that by the cease fire agreement terms, we could go in there for many reasons.

The current administration had made up their mind BEFORE 9/11 to go in there. I personally don't think it was for oil. I think he wanted to get even with Saddam for trying to whack his dad back in 1993. Also, where's this "recovery" you are talking about? The economy is nowhere near back to normal.

Reply #6 December 4, 2004 6:14 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #5 By: thatoneguyinslc - 12/4/2004 4:08:46 PM Why is it that repubs are still enamored with "trickle-down economics"? It didn't work for Ronnie, and it certainly will not work nowadays. As a dem, i have to agree with you on bush being the next hitler. He's not that smart. He's not that evil either. As far as the 2000 Election goes, That nugget will be proven sometime long after he's out of office. He did lie to the american public. If he's as smart as you claim he is, he should have seen the bad intel coming. Instead he chose to believe this "bad" intel and go ahead and invade. That just makes him an idiot...Sorry.

That makes him an idiot? How so? If you can't trust the people around you (intel weenies), just who are you supposed to trust?

Reply #7 December 4, 2004 6:18 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #5 By: thatoneguyinslc - 12/4/2004 4:08:46 PM The current administration had made up their mind BEFORE 9/11 to go in there. I personally don't think it was for oil. I think he wanted to get even with Saddam for trying to whack his dad back in 1993. Also, where's this "recovery" you are talking about? The economy is nowhere near back to normal.

Do you have any *proof* of this? I thought not.



As far as the economy being recovered.... you need to start looking at facts not fiction. All the experts are saying it has. Unemployment=all time low, Interest= all time low, home ownership=all time high and the stock market is up. What more do you want? Blood?

Reply #8 December 4, 2004 6:24 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Yes he did steal the 2000 election, it has been proven that some 1000 African Americans living in Orange County Florida were in various ways not allowed to vote, with strange links to the Bush team. Bush hasn't done anyhing in my opinion for the Middle Class, he's lost jobs, just about everything costs more, and to top it off all the little children(including myself) will be paying of his deficit. I don't think he went to Iraq for oil, Ithink he woke up one morning a few days after taking office and said to his cabinet, "Let's do something irrational over the next few years. Hey! let's all invade Iraq!" No he isn't quite as bad as Hitler but, still concentration camp and modern day Guantonimo can almost be synonyms. And also he did lie about Iraq, and in the event that someday far in the future we find out he didn't really lie. Than he's lied plenty more times too fill the gap.

Sincerely,
DNCdude

Reply #9 December 4, 2004 6:29 PM from PolMach Forums Top

As far as the economy being recovered.... you need to start looking at facts not fiction. All the experts are saying it has. Unemployment=all time low, Interest= all time low, home ownership=all time high and the stock market is up. What more do you want? Blood?

Average income level=all time low, U.S. dollar value=all time low, if only Clinton were here.

Sincerely,
DNCdude

Reply #10 December 4, 2004 7:05 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Thank you DNCdude. Dr forgets a little thing called REALITY once in a while and needs a good smack across the shins on occassion. He believes the lie that his party has perpetuated so well.

Reply #11 December 4, 2004 7:18 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Do you have any *proof* of this? I thought not.

Its been publically brought to light out that Bush was planning to invade Iraq even before the 9/11 attacks. After the attacks he assumed that it was Iraq responsible, and asked the intelligence community for proof of this.

Reply #12 December 4, 2004 7:29 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Actually, it was deputy SOD Paul Wolfowitz and SOD Donald Rumsfield along with William Buckley (of the Weekly Standard) and other neo-cons (of PNAC - project for a new american century) who lobbied Clinton to attack Iraq back in '98. They even sent him a letter on the subject. Clinton dismissed it, but a few years later..

Reply #13 December 4, 2004 7:45 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

The CIA is not an infallable organization. They have made some extremely bad calls in the past.

Iran 1950's & 1979
Cuba/Bay of Pigs
Drug dealing/financing covert wars in Laos/Cambodia/Thailand during the Vietnam war.
Somalia 1993
Etc.

It's not that they haven't been effective in the past. The folks in Langley are good at what they do. They have a lot on their plate, especially now. Reforms in the US intelligence community are needed to make sure they get it right when we go to war.

Sorry if this is off topic, but i think it's relevant.

Reply #14 December 4, 2004 7:55 PM from PolMach Forums Top

What type of reforms? I remember hearing that Patriot Act had ushered in new "reforms" already for the intelligence community. Unfortunately the authors managed to slice away at certain amendments and expand federal sneak and peak powers. I get wary when hearing of *reforms in the intelligence community".

Reply #15 December 4, 2004 8:02 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

i don't blame you. I'm no fan of the way they do things now. I was talking more along the lines of refining their foriegn operations, and no domestic ops at all.

Reply #16 December 4, 2004 8:31 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Since I doubt some are going to bother looking for the letter from PNAC to Pres. Clinton, I'm posting it. Cheney did not sign off on this letter because of his preference for a low profile, but many of the concepts PNAC adheres to grew out of writings and ideas Cheney trumpeted in the early 90's.

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Reply #17 December 4, 2004 9:00 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

def -

So?

I fail to see your point. This was not a "secret" letter. No one has said these individuals didn't hold these views before 9/11. I happen to believe their views were justified by the evidence available at the time.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #18 December 4, 2004 9:45 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Like the attacks aginst Kerry were any better? Ha, you've got to be kidding! At least Kerry supporters had reasons to support him other than "uh.... well Bush likes to kill terrorists, so that must mean Kerry doesn't" and religious reasons that have nothing to do with politics.
And by the way, advocating against a war definitely isn't treason. Kerry was in no way helping the other side. He was fighting against them! Here in America, we have a little something called freedom of speech that allows us to criticize the government and its policies, including the wars it's fighting. He may have net with them to discuss peace, but that isn't really negotiating with them. There's no way he ever could have written and passed a peace treaty for the US. He simply thought it was a good idea to discuss. He wasn't trying to help the enemy, his goal was to end the war to help the US and its soldiers. And if you want to talk about law breaking, try looking at Bush's driving record sometime, or remember that he was a coke addict.

Reply #19 December 4, 2004 10:10 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #18 By: ~Molly - 12/4/2004 9:51:20 PM Like the attacks aginst Kerry were any better? Ha, you've got to be kidding! At least Kerry supporters had reasons to support him other than "uh.... well Bush likes to kill terrorists, so that must mean Kerry doesn't" and religious reasons that have nothing to do with politics. And by the way, advocating against a war definitely isn't treason. Kerry was in no way helping the other side. He was fighting against them! Here in America, we have a little something called freedom of speech that allows us to criticize the government and its policies, including the wars it's fighting. He may have net with them to discuss peace, but that isn't really negotiating with them. There's no way he ever could have written and passed a peace treaty for the US. He simply thought it was a good idea to discuss. He wasn't trying to help the enemy, his goal was to end the war to help the US and its soldiers. And if you want to talk about law breaking, try looking at Bush's driving record sometime, or remember that he was a coke addict.

Before you go running off at the mouth go reread reply #4 first.

Reply #20 December 4, 2004 10:14 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #8 By: DNCdude - 12/4/2004 6:24:30 PM Yes he did steal the 2000 election, it has been proven

No he didn't and it was never PROVEN! If it had been he would not be in office right now.

Just how many recounts did you want?

And yet again you guys seem to be missing the point. The "experts" are saying the economy has recovered. So now your telling us that you know better than they do? I highly doubt it.

Reply #21 December 4, 2004 10:44 PM from PolMach Forums Top

i personally think the democrats are gonna lose alot of popularity when bush leaves.... without a pres to hate uder one banner will be devestating.

Reply #22 December 4, 2004 10:44 PM from PolMach Forums Top

i personally think the democrats are gonna lose alot of popularity when bush leaves.... without a pres to hate under one banner the will be devestated.

Reply #23 December 4, 2004 10:53 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #19 By: drmiler - 12/4/2004 10:10:43 PM Reply #18 By: ~Molly - 12/4/2004 9:51:20 PM Like the attacks aginst Kerry were any better? Ha, you've got to be kidding! At least Kerry supporters had reasons to support him other than "uh.... well Bush likes to kill terrorists, so that must mean Kerry doesn't" and religious reasons that have nothing to do with politics. And by the way, advocating against a war definitely isn't treason. Kerry was in no way helping the other side. He was fighting against them! Here in America, we have a little something called freedom of speech that allows us to criticize the government and its policies, including the wars it's fighting. He may have net with them to discuss peace, but that isn't really negotiating with them. There's no way he ever could have written and passed a peace treaty for the US. He simply thought it was a good idea to discuss. He wasn't trying to help the enemy, his goal was to end the war to help the US and its soldiers. And if you want to talk about law breaking, try looking at Bush's driving record sometime, or remember that he was a coke addict. Before you go running off at the mouth go reread reply #4 first.

Thanks for the tip, but I read it the first time.

What I understand these areguments to say is that Kerry committed treason because
1. He advocated against the war, meaning he helped the other side, and
2. US citizens aren't allowed to negotiate with other nations.

If that isn't correct, I apologize, please explain. My argument is that
1. Advocating against a war doesn't mean he was helping the other side. Kerry fought against them in the war. The reason he wanted peace was for our sake, not for theirs. We have freedom of speech here, meaning that Kerry can say whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean he was acting on it. Even if he thought the war was wrong, or that the enemy was right, it doesn't mean he helped them.
2. Speaking with the other side isn't negotiating. There's a big difference between advocating peace and negotiating with another nation to form a peace treaty.

Reply #24 December 4, 2004 10:58 PM from PolMach Forums Top

The guy is a war criminal he said so himself. They have it on tape.

Reply #25 December 4, 2004 11:07 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #23 By: ~Molly - 12/4/2004 10:53:12 PM Reply #19 By: drmiler - 12/4/2004 10:10:43 PM Reply #18 By: ~Molly - 12/4/2004 9:51:20 PM Like the attacks aginst Kerry were any better? Ha, you've got to be kidding! At least Kerry supporters had reasons to support him other than "uh.... well Bush likes to kill terrorists, so that must mean Kerry doesn't" and religious reasons that have nothing to do with politics. And by the way, advocating against a war definitely isn't treason. Kerry was in no way helping the other side. He was fighting against them! Here in America, we have a little something called freedom of speech that allows us to criticize the government and its policies, including the wars it's fighting. He may have net with them to discuss peace, but that isn't really negotiating with them. There's no way he ever could have written and passed a peace treaty for the US. He simply thought it was a good idea to discuss. He wasn't trying to help the enemy, his goal was to end the war to help the US and its soldiers. And if you want to talk about law breaking, try looking at Bush's driving record sometime, or remember that he was a coke addict. Before you go running off at the mouth go reread reply #4 first. Thanks for the tip, but I read it the first time. What I understand these areguments to say is that Kerry committed treason because 1. He advocated against the war, meaning he helped the other side, and 2. US citizens aren't allowed to negotiate with other nations.

Molly you understanding is flawed. Here let me show you. Read the bold faced type.

Author: Kerry's Meeting With Communists Broke U.S. Law Marc Morano, CNSNews.com Thursday, May 20, 2004 The 1970 meeting that John Kerry conducted with North Vietnamese communists violated U.S. law, according to an author and researcher who has studied the issue. Kerry met with representatives from "both delegations" of the Vietnamese in Paris in 1970, according to Kerry's own testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. But Kerry's meetings with the Vietnamese delegations were in direct violation of laws forbidding private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers, according to researcher and author Jerry Corsi, who began studying the anti-war movement in the early 1970s. According to Corsi, Kerry violated U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953. "A U.S. citizen cannot go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power," Corsi told CNSNews.com. By Kerry's own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped. Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped "immediately and unilaterally." Then Kerry added: "I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government." However, both of the delegations to which Kerry referred were communist. Neither included the U.S. allied, South Vietnamese or any members of the U.S. delegation. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was the government of the North Vietnamese communists, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PVR) was an arm of the North Vietnamese government that included the Vietcong. Kerry did meet face-to-face with the PVR's negotiator Madam Nguyen Thi Binh, according to his presidential campaign spokesman Michael Meehan. Madam Binh's peace plan was being proposed by the North Vietnamese communists as a way to bring a quick end to the war. But Corsi alleged that Kerry's meeting with Madam Binh and the government of North Vietnam was a direct violation of U.S. law. "In [Kerry's] first meeting in 1970, meeting with Madam Binh, Kerry was still a naval reservist - not only a U.S. citizen, but a naval reservist - stepping outside the boundaries to meet with one of the principle figures of our enemy in Vietnam, Madam Binh, and the Viet Cong at the same time. [Former Nixon administration aide Henry] Kissinger was trying to negotiate with them formally," Corsi told CNSNews.com. Corsi's recent essay, titled "Kerry and the Paris Peace Talks," published on wintersoldier.com, details Kerry's meetings and the possible violations of U.S. law. Corsi also asserted that by 1971, Kerry might have violated another law by completely adopting the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communists. Definition of Treason "Article three: Section three [of the U.S. Constitution], which defines treason, says you cannot give support to the enemy in time of war, and here you have Kerry giving a press conference in Washington on July 22, 1971 (a year after his meeting with the communist delegations in Paris) advocating the North Vietnamese peace plan and saying that is what President Nixon ought to accept," Corsi explained. "If Madam Binh had been there herself at that press conference, she would have said exactly what Kerry said. The only difference is she would not have done it with a Boston accent," Corsi said. The 7 Point Plan created by the North Vietnamese communists was nothing more than a "surrender" for the U.S., according to Corsi. "You don't advocate that [7 point] plan unless you are on the communist side. It was seen as surrender. [The U.S.] would have had to pay reparations and agree that we essentially lost the war," Corsi said. Communist Shill "Kerry was openly advocating that the communist position was correct and that we were wrong. He had become a spokesman for the communist party," Corsi added. Kerry's presidential campaign did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment, but campaign spokesman Michael Meehan told the Boston Globe in March, "Kerry had no role whatsoever in the Paris peace talks or negotiations. "He did not engage in any negotiations and did not attend any session of the talks," Meehan added. 'From Their Point of View' Kerry "went to Paris on a private trip, where he had one brief meeting with Madam Binh and others. In an effort to find facts, he learned that status of the peace talks from their point of view and about any progress in resolving the conflict, particularly as it related to the fate of the POWs," Meehan added. Kerry was reportedly on his honeymoon with his first wife, Julia Thorne, when he met with the communist delegations. But Corsi does not accept the Kerry campaign's explanation. "Meehan made it sound like they were just there on a honeymoon and they got a meeting with Madam Bin, but not every American honeymooner got to meet with Madam Binh. Unless you had a political objective and they identified you as somebody as sympathetic, you were not going to get invited to a meeting with Madam Binh," Corsi said. "Kerry has skirted with the issue of violating these laws," Corsi added. Sen. Kerry's presidential campaign is "trying to fudge on the issue because they don't want to come clean on it entirely."