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
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.