John Forbes Kerry – Domestic Terrorist

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

[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?