John Forbes Kerry – Domestic Terrorist

PipeLineNews.org ^ | March 19, 2004 | William A. Mayer

[johnqueuepublic]

John Forbes Kerry – Domestic Terrorist

March 19, 2004 - by William A. Mayer

We are not sure exactly what one has to do, in these days of moral ablation, to disqualify oneself from running for elective office.

The Clinton years notwithstanding, there have always been parameters within which national candidates must comport themselves - certain minimum standards that even prospective politicians might reasonably meet.

This year, however is very different.

It’s quite clear that the Democrat Party is busted - a sprung watch - beyond repair. The nominative process that we find ourselves within, clearly demonstrates this.

That a bizarre, snarling, hate filled candidate of the diminutive stature of Howard Dean was almost anointed - as if deemed by heavenly hosts perched upon excelsior clouds - is reason enough to be suspect of the health of the party.

Yet on Dean’s heels comes an even more troubling individual who surfaced in the carnage of the media’s frenzy to de-elect Howie.

That individual is of course, John Forbes Kerry.

John Forbes Kerry.

Roll those words around in your mouth and what do you get?

You get a craggy - almost gaunt looking, but virile - New Englander.

You get a Skull & Crossbones Yalie, a war hero and the most liberal member of the United States Senate.

You get a guy who says he can speak for the little guy, but whose personal fortune is about $750 million and whose cash-cow wifey’s company outsources 6 out of 7 of its jobs to Third World dung heaps.

One minor complication, however…John Forbes Kerry is a domestic terrorist.

That's not a typo.

John Forbes Kerry is a domestic terrorist.

In large part due to New York’s real newspaper of record - the Sun - and their award winning journalist - Thomas Lipscomb - the true story of Kerry’s membership in the radical revolutionary group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, has finally seen the light of day.

While Kerry was the national spokesman for VVAW [1970-1971] the group coldly discussed a plot to invade the capital building and then assassinate pro-war United States Senators. This was nothing less than a plan to violently overthrow the lawful government of the United States.

“My plan was that on the last day we would go into the [congressional] offices we would schedule the most hardcore hawks for last — and we would shoot them all...I was serious." Scott Camil, VVAW

From one of the New York Sun's series of articles:

“…Mr. Nicosia also read quotes from FBI surveillance documents he obtained under the Freedom of Information Act as he was preparing his 2001 book, “Home to War."

“My evidence is incontrovertible. He was there," Mr. Nicosia said in an interview yesterday. “There’s no way that five or six agents saw his ghost there," said the historian, who lives in Marin County, north of San Francisco.

Mr. Nicosia said that the records show Mr. Kerry resigned from the group on the third day of the meeting, following discussion of the assassination plan and an argument between Mr. Kerry and another VVAW national coordinator, Al Hubbard.

Reading from an FBI informant report, Mr. Nicosia said, “John Kerry at a national Vietnam Veterans Against the War meeting appeared and announced to those present that he resigned for personal reasons but said he would be able to speak for VVAW " at future events." – Josh Gerstein, New York Sun - March 19, 2004

Please note that even Kerry’s “resignation" from the group was a self-serving act of convenience not conscience, only driven by Kerry’s desire to run for political office.

It's beyond comprehension that after attending at least one meeting where an active and serious assassination plan was discussed, Kerry was still willing to be their spokesman - anything that would get him media face-time.

Kerry has lied about his VVAW experience and his “anti-war" activities for over 30 years. His campaign has only now come clean because the evidence arrayed against him includes at least 6 different eye-witnesses and the testimony of FBI undercover agents who were also at those meetings.

Set against the realities of the war on terror, if holding a leadership position in the VVAW and his participation in discussions about assassinating United States Senators is not grounds for barring John Forbes Kerry from ever seeking elective office, we can’t imagine what is.

Kerry has never publicly rejected the VVAW, he has never apologized for his role as the organization's official spokesman nor has he rejected its terrorist agenda.

John Forbes Kerry is so monstrously ego-driven, so reckless, so lacking in veracity, judgment and temperament, that his candidacy should be rejected outright. If it proceeds it will be the final nail in the coffin of the Democrat Party, a party that will be crushed at the polls on November 2.

© 2004 William A. Mayer, PipeLineNews.org, all rights reserved

[Michael.SF.]

Sometimes you just gotta call a spade a spade, man.

As I understand the situation, Kerry was present at a meeting where the subject of using assassination was brought up. The plan was never implemented and Kerry left the organization a short time after that.

In what context was the plan brought up (i.e., one for serious discussion and consideration, or just a wild idea that was thrown out?). Did Kerry voice an opinion on the subject? Did others?

Just because Kerry was there when someone made the suggestion, does not make Kerry a terrorist.

[xm177e2]

In what context was the plan brought up (i.e., one for serious discussion and consideration, or just a wild idea that was thrown out?). Did Kerry voice an opinion on the subject? Did others?

It was a serious discussion of a serious idea. It appeared in the minutes under a cryptic name like "proposal for national action" or something like that. It was not just something some random person spat out, it was discussed as an official part of the meeting.

Just because Kerry was there when someone made the suggestion, does not make Kerry a terrorist.

I think his point is that Kerry didn't leave the organization after the organization seriously discussed such a plan. He "resigned," but only privately (to preserve his electability); he volunteered to keep speaking publicly for the group, so he could keep getting media attention. He should have broken completely with that group.

[Qwinn]

Since you yourself said you had gleaned from the evidence available that he "advocated domestic terrorism" (at least, you said you would not have objected had that been the title), I didn't think we needed to hash out that part of the question.

Are you saying that he isn't a terrorist unless the act was actually carried out? Dunno if I necessarily agree.

Even if he voted "no" on it, he didn't tell anyone in authority about the plan. That, to me, is treason and conspiracy. By not reporting a planned terrorist attack against U.S. Senators, that makes him a participant in a plan of terrorism.

But if you disagree that that goes as far as being a terrorist, fine. I can accept that not everyone would consider failing to report terrorism to make -him- a "terrorist". But I do believe that failing to report the plan would, without doubt, qualify in any dictionary in the world as "treason". Would you have felt better if the title of the article were "Kerry committed treason"? If you would've been okay with that, then fine, I can agree that that would've been a better title.

Qwinn

[Michael.SF.]

Since you yourself said you had gleaned from the evidence available that he "advocated domestic terrorism" (at least, you said you would not have objected had that been the title),

I never said that.

I did say, I would not have objected if the title read:

DID Kerry advocate domestic terrorism?

If it had been raised as a question, instead of a statement of fact, then a discussion, such as we are having, would be entirely appropriate.

Are you saying that he isn't a terrorist unless the act was actually carried out?

Without reviewing the actual transcripts and other evidence regarding the meeting, the details discussed and subsequent actions, I would say that calling him a terrorist is an exaggeration of the information currently available.

Do you not believe that if the FBI had sufficient evidence back then that they would not have filed charges?

Why is the information coming out today more valid then it was thirty some odd years ago?

By not reporting a planned terrorist attack against U.S. Senators, that makes him a participant in a plan of terrorism

I would say that it makes him a sympathizer, not a participant.

[johnqueuepublic]

I could not have said it with more succintness,if that is actually a word.

A typical DU charge or one by Terry McAuliffe for that matter is unsupportable on a factual basis.

It seems to me that the criticism here boils down to whether a party who was the NATIONAL SPOKESMAN for a domestic terrorist organization, who has never rejected them can rightly still be called a domestic terrorist.

That seems a like an overly fine distinction.

[johnqueuepublic]

Consipiracy to commit murder is a crime, even if it isnt carried out.

The FBI was tailing Kerry for years because he was considered a threat.

One thing about this bothers me and that is why are we in this hand wringing mode, "oh what will the nice people at DU think about us?"

Sometimes bad guys need to be kicked in the nuts, poked in the eye or have their dentition re-arranged.

If this isnt important enough then I guess we differ on the definition of what is important.

The LA Times thinks these charges are so serious that they have concocted a piece which totally whitewashes the affair, never mentioning the fact of the assassination plot, they interview Kerry giving him the soapbox to slag Nixon and the FBI while not mentioning WHY he [Kerry] was being surveiled.

When you are in a street fight, you either fight to win or get you butt stomped.

I am not advocating making things up, but if your opponent cocks a loaded gun and points it at their own head, my advice is to help them release the sear.

[Michael.SF.]

Here is how Neal Boortz handles the same issue. No name calling, no false statements. He raises the issue in a manner which is more rational, more credible and in a way that has a greater chance of success. It is well worth reading. There is also a thread going here in FR on this article.

Neal Boortz: Wasn't there a crime committed here?