Brinkley Details Kerry's Meetings with 'Hanoi Jane' (Hanoi John and Jane are both liars!)

heh heh :o)

What it is going to take is for a group of non-political Vietnam vets to step forward and bring this to the attention of the people. I'm wondering where the American Legion and the VFW has been on this matter.

Thanks for the GREAT links.

That's what makes FR so wonderful -- all this knowledge at our fingertips.

Kerry was a phoney then, and he's a phoney now.

bump.

I thought democrat and liar meant the same thing!Democrats are just filthy trash.

Just for Kerry agrees with you that in every war, including IRAQ, his main goal is to give aid and support to the enemies of the USA:

Great work. If you have the forms, please file a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for John Kerry's FBI file -- the FBI covered the Vietnam Veterans Against the War extensively in 1971 when Kerry was telling his lies in the streets and to Congress. There also must be military intelligence files on Kerry and CIA files. Let's demand all intelligence and Department of Justice records. Should be some interesting material there. More Just For Kerry lies to expose. We should create a Kerry Truth Squad site to post findings. Kerry asks for "Bring It On." Let's bring it on, and let's make the truth the "it" that we bring on.

IT HAPPENED THIRTY F*CKING YEARS AGO! SO WHAT???

You, sir, are either a fool, a knave, or willfully ignorant of what is going on here - and let me tell you "why".

So, "IT HAPPENED THIRTY F*UCKING YEARS AGO! SO WHAT???

I understand why some desire to put it all behind and go forward. That is exactly how the Clintons and Democrats handle what should be closely examined!

In normal circumstances, we would all want to do that. However, Kerry and the Democrats have brought this all up again for their own political reasons.

It makes no sense to let them toot their own horns, shape the debate, and then let them shut down that very debate thereby closing down inspection of their sleazy actions.

Also, there have been deafening calls for the release of Bush's military records, which he has done. Now, it is only fitting for Kerry to release all his records, including the FBI ones which deal with his traitorous conduct with the anti-war movement (and if you don't think this conduct, and those with him, had nothing to do with losing this War, ask anybody who was there).

What Kerry did thirty years ago about a war long ago and far away may be boring to you and others of your generation, but it is not moot! It certainly is not moot to those of us who served there, many of whom lost our American friends who have been unceremoniously dead these many years who never had a chance to live their lives like the rest of us and also those who suffered permanent damage - only to be traitorously stabbed in the back by Kerry and his misnamed "Band of Brothers", who were the American Wing of the National Liberation Front (the NVA and Viet Cong).

The Media gave Clinton a pass in 1992 on his anti-war and pro-communist activites, and look what that got us!

No more free rides for anti-war, anti-American Leftists. And by the way, Kerry still is one. He's never changed. Let his record show it. He only wants the public to see the one side of it he reckons will help him in his political career.

Kerry's record has been consistent, as his military and police records, writings and testimonies, personal actions and voting records will show. He has always been a left-wing sychophant, supporting the enemies of America -except when he joined the Navy so he could bolster his credentials for a future office. He has always been a self-serving pr!ck. The complete record will show that, and not just the one he wants to show us. It will also show what we can expect from him should he ever (*shudder*) be elected President.

In a word, this is all revevant to the man he once was and still is - the genuine man he is busily trying to hide or deflect attention from. He is consistent in his calumny.

Only a small portion of veterans are coming out to support Kerry, but the liberal media make it that all the veterans them are trumping on each other to vote for him. I bet you that the vast majority of Veterans will vote for Bush in this election. Most Veterans regard Kerry as a traitor.

[Kerry] served as the VVAW's National Coordinator and [Fonda] held the title Honorary National Coordinator.

Cripes!! What more do you need to link those two traitors?!

Kerry continued to be pro-Vietnamese while in the Senate.

See this thread on Kerry's ordering that documents on the investigation into the POW's and MIA's in Vietnam, in 1991:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1077258/posts
(I've posted these links before, but evidently not everyone has seen them):

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/13/165004.shtml
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11940

From the last link:

"“Senator Kerry,” Nguyen continues, “was caught on camera making a promise to the North Vietnamese communists that he would ensure that they weren’t embarrassed by their concocted stories.”""

Hmmmm to titles of Grand Poopah and they didn't know each other?

Oh, PLEASE tell me somebody is going to answer Curtis, and correct this abominable puff letter for John "I committed war crimes" Kerry.

I have to go throw up.

You infer a great deal from my posts that wasn't there, Jack.

You really think the war ended because of the protests? That's laughable.

I gave no indication of when or whom I protested. But you chose to attack me anyway. Interesting.

You've got some beef with somebody else. However, I'd like an apology for your painting me with the same brush you're painting turn-coat Kerry.

You're either dishonest, or dyslexic.

Where is Dewey Canyon? Does Brinkley mention it? This photo was posted by Hon on another thread with the caveat that the captioning may or may not be accurate since Jane Fonda's face is obscured. It was allegedly taken at "Dewey Canyon":

Operation Dewey Canyon I took place during January and February 1969. During a five-day period in February, elements of the Third Marine Division invaded Laos. Operation Dewey Canyon II was the name given to the first seven days of the South Viet- namese invasion of Laos in February 1971. The name of the oper- ation was subsequently changed. Operation Dewey Canyon III took place in Washington, D.C, April 19 through April 23, 1971. It was called "a limited incursion into the country of Congress.

Hi, Destro,

After discussing this with you over the past few days it seems to me this is a key point at issue for you (snips from two of your posts):

> PS: I am also comming at this from someone who was born after the Vietnam war but thinks that fighting that war was wrong to begin with.
> Should we have helped any nation against the communists? Yes- I liked Ike's and JFK's approach of helping the South's armies with advisors and airforce. The same approach we used in Afghanistan which sadly is not the one we used in Iraq. Seeing how easily the Iraqi army gave up the ghost - that is even criminal we did not.

Two questions I'd pose for you:

1. What is your perspective on why we were in Vietnam and waged the war the way we did? Since I'm putting you on the spot by asking you the question, I'll put myself in the same spot by giving you my own answer first: From my perspective America's Vietnam involvement dates back to the Japanese invasion of SE Asia, which prompted a War Department study concluding that the Japanese war effort was economically dependent on SE Asian resources, and conversely, the Allied war effort could be crippled by the Axis cutting off the Singapore Straits and thus cutting off Allied supplies of SE Asian rubber, oil, etc. This perspective informed the Cold War approach to SE Asia, which is the background to the "domino theory". Also, the French were threatening to withdraw support from NATO if we didn't back them up in Vietnam--which they later did anyway in the 1960s after we were already in Vietnam (bastards), but I'm talking about way back at the end of WWII here. That's how it started, to my knowledge. At first we tried to restrict ourselves to supporting the French. Our concerns about Vietnam grew as the Korean War emerged and the Truman administration came to see Vietnam as another front in the Korean War, which is also how Eisenhower approached it. Eisenhower decided that in order to win both wars we would have to either escalate to full nuclear war with China (leaving Europe open to Russia) or settle for a draw which agreed on boundaries between N/S Korea and N/S Vietnam. Desiring to avoid nuclear war, he chose the latter option and negotiated truces in both Korea and Vietnam, to be backed up by the SEATO alliance and the threat of deterrence--in other words, SEATO would give the peace terms teeth to deter North Vietnam from taking advantage of the peace. The deterrent stratgy seemed to be working until about 1959 when the North Vietnamese shifted to a guerrilla warfare/terrorist strategy, prompting the US to develop a new counter-strategy. At the point JFK took over the Army was exploring counterinsurgency strategies rather than focused on ground war. As late as May 1965 the State Department was trying to persuade the South Vietnamese government to negotiate a cease-fire, but they would not accept this. At this point the LBJ administration faced the following dilemma: either escalate the war to 200,000+ ground troops (the Pentagon's initial request) to probably increase to 600,000 later (by LBJ's own estimate at that time), or withdraw and face the likelihood that the Russians and Chinese would interpret this as a sign of US weakness and an invitation to test the US elsewhere. Faced with this dilemma, LBJ asked Eisenhower for advice. In June-July 1965 Eisenhower advised him (to quote Stephen Ambrose's biography of Eisenhower), "we have now appealed to force in South Vietnam, and therefore we have got to win. For this purpose, simply holding on or sitting passively in static areas will not suffice. . .there is no use building bases if they are not put to full use. the only reason for creating them is to make it possible to take the offensive and clear the area. . .When you once appeal to force in an international situation involving military help for a nation, you have to go all out! This is war, and as long as the enemy are putting men down there, my advice is do what you have to do!" He advised Johnson to tell the Russians that if they did "not bring about some understanding we would have to go all out." LBJ asked if Eisenhower thought we could really win. Eisenhower answered that that would depend on how far the Chinese were willing to go. LBJ protested that if he escalated further, "we will lose the British and Canadians and be alone in the world." Eisenhower answered, "We would still have the Australians and the Koreans--and our own convictions." LBJ's own advisors likewise advised him to escalate. However as it turned out, LBJ escalated, but not to the decisive extent Eisenhower advised; Nixon came closer to following Eisenhower's advice. I believe--though cannot claim to know--that Nixon's strategy could have won the war or at least forced a truce that left South Vietnam intact if Watergate had not intervened. To compare that with Iraq, in Iraq Eisenhower's advice was followed and we did not engage in ground war until we had built up a force decisive enough to ensure victory (applying the Powell Doctrine). That's my perspective on it; what is yours?

2. My second question for you: In Iraq, how would you have applied the strategy you suggest of helping with advisors and airforce like in South Vietnam? I don't see how that would work, since in South Vietnam we had an ally on the ground, whereas in Iraq we didn't, due to Saddam's secret police being able to neutralize the political opposition.