Posted on 02/15/2004 12:27:27 AM PST by KQQL
As a 20-year-old photographer documenting the country's struggle over the Vietnam War, Ken Light snapped the picture of John Kerry at a peace rally in Mineola. It captured the future senator alone at a podium, squinting into the sun.
Light did not photograph Jane Fonda on that warm June Sunday in 1971. The actress, who is reviled by many Vietnam veterans for her vocal stance against the war, did not even attend.
But when opponents of the Democratic presidential hopeful began e-mailing Light's picture to one another four days ago, it depicted Fonda standing by Kerry's side. The photo had been doctored.
Dag Vega, a spokesman for Kerry's campaign, said, "The smear tactics have started already."
The Web site's creator, Ted Sampley, a Vietnam veteran from North Carolina, said he received the doctored photo by e-mail on Wednesday from a woman in Richmond, Va.
"Thought you might want to include this pic on your site," said the note from Loree Siemek, with an attachment called "HanoiJohn.jpg," a takeoff on "Hanoi Jane," the derisive nickname given to Fonda by her critics during the Vietnam era. It is made to look like a newspaper clipping, headlined "Fonda Speaks to Vietnam Veterans at Anti- War Rally," with an Associated Press photo credit. Sampley said he was immediately skeptical, and e-mailed it to some friends who concluded it was faked. He did not post it.
Siemek, 34, reached by phone, said she found the picture on a conservative Internet message board and had no idea it was phony.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Ahhh, yes...someone has an agenda, pathetic as it is. Cowards and frauds end up being losers. Everytime. Take it to the bank.
A horse walks into a bar.
Bartender: Why the long face?
No, I was gloating over the fact that we can have so many different kinds of threads about Kerry. He's a traitor! No, he's a philanderer! No, he's a made-up Nancy Boy who wears lipstick! No, it's that he's way to the left of Che Guevara! Wait, I thought it was about his influence-peddling!
Bwaaa ha ha!
I worry - if a report I saw on another thread that Time Magazine is going to expose Kerry's philandering in this weeks issue is true (which was conjectured to have led to Clark leaking it enough to get on Drudge so that it could be pre-blamed on that nasty VWRC), then someone (guess who) is trying to take Kerry down.
This suggests to me that Hitlary is moving in for the kill, now, not in 2008.
If we knew that were happening, would we be wasting our ammo on Kerry? I get real uneasy when I find Hitlary shooting at the same target I'm shooting at.
Which would make it more difficult for us to discredit Hitlary in the eyes of the "undecideds".
I though his wife was from PA !
Didn't she tell "Sleazeball" how to eat a Philly Sandwich?
She has to now. She only has a three-week window of opportunity.
Kerry has won all but two primaries so far. The Big States of New York, California, Florida, Texas, and his home-state of Massachusetts are coming up on March 2 and March 9. Kerry is expected to lock up the nomination by gaining more than half of the available delegates to the convention.
If the Clintons act now, they might be able to cast enough doubt on Kerry that the Big States split another way (Dean?, Edwards?), or forcing Kerry out, leaving nobody with a majority going into the convention. The delegates are committed to candidates, based on primary results, for the first round of voting only. After that, the delegates are freed from their commitments and can vote for anyone.
That is when Hillary! steps in to take the nomination without ever running the primary gauntlet.
-PJ
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.