Posted on 01/20/2004 2:03:55 PM PST by GulliverSwift
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:11:23 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The mistake was not giving the mission to G.Gordon Liddy.
Camelot was as phony as a three dollar bill. "The man from Hope" (with his handshake with JFK footage) was the myth used to sell a lying con man from Arkansas. The left is going with what they know.
Nothing. Not jack squat.
Except aiding the Democrat Party in its agenda of belittling traditional America and its families while using socialist redistribution schemes to buy political office. That's about the extent of Frenchie's resume, the scumbag, as far as I can tell.
He also claimed it was policy all the way up the chain and he wondered if race was a factor in what he claimed was true.
There were reasons for Americans (especially veterans) to oppose the war such as the "no win" civilian control more concerned about the Party's chances of winning the next election or of harming chances of getting the "Great Society" enacted.
A salute to Mr Kerry for his service but IMO he chose the wrong tact to oppose the war and enter politics. He called the U.S. forces war criminals and he branded them more dangerous than the "reds."
"He did a hell of a great job," Haldeman said.
"He was extremely effective," Nixon agreed.
Same is said of Clinton. It no one calls them on their lies, of course they are effective. They make it up.
Kerry had battled the Viet Cong, the Nixon White House, and the extremes of the antiwar movement. Now all he had to do was persuade mostly working-class voters north of Boston to vote for him.
Kerry battled the extremes of the antiwar movement?!! Imagine what they were like.
Kerry wasn't THAT principled a war protester. When it came time for him to throw his medals away in disgust, supposedly it was someone ELSE'S he pitched, not his own.
Kerry and his first wife divorced .. but I'm not sure what the reasons were
What I have noticed is that Kerry seems to be attracked to women with well known families with big money
What else would you call a man who protests the war by throwing BORROWED war medals on the WH lawn?
What else would you call a man who contradicts his own voting record when it seems politically opportune?
If it walks ike a duk, Quacks like a duck...
Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry
Kerry organized one of the most confrontational protests of the entire Vietnam War called Operation Dewey Canyon III. It began April 18, 1971, with nearly 1,000 Vietnam vets gathered on the Washington, D.C., Mall for what they called "a limited incursion into the country of Congress."
On April 23, 1971, Kerry led members of VVAW in a protest during which they threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol.
Much of Kerry's speech before Congress painted his fellow GIs as so brutal that, today, they could easily be mistaken for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen killers. He told Congress that U.S. soldiers had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
Kerry was a supporter of the "People's Peace Treaty," a supposed "people's" declaration to end the war, reportedly drawn up in communist East Germany. It included nine points, all of which were taken from Viet Cong peace proposals at the Paris peace talks as conditions for ending the war.
One of the provisions stated: "The Vietnamese pledge that as soon as the U.S. government publicly sets a date for total withdrawal [from Vietnam], they will enter discussion to secure the release of all American prisoners, including pilots captured while bombing North Vietnam."
In other words, Kerry and his VVAW advocated the communist line to withdraw all U.S. troops from Vietnam first and then negotiate with Hanoi over the release of prisoners. Had the nine points of the "People's Peace Treaty" favored by Kerry been accepted by American negotiators, the United States would have totally lost all leverage to get the communists to release any POWs captured during the war years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.