Reporter Tom Lipscomb Slated For Scarborough Country Tonight

Well I watched Kerrey drill Albright, and point out the emperor had no clothes. What Albright was saying, between the lines, is that the political climate at the time did not afford a hunting license to tell the Taliban that they had a choice between their own continued existence or that of Bin Laden. It was going to be one of the other, and sooner rather than later. Albright admitted Kerrey in hindsight was right in advocating declaring war, even while observing earlier that getting tough would have "aggravated" America's relationship with the Muslim world.

Why did the political climate not afford a hunting license? The fish rots from the top. Clinton did not exercise leadership to change the political climate. Clinton enjoyed too much the laissez les bon temps roulez regime. He had no appetite to be a war president. It simply was not within him. One can't be loved by everyone and a warrior at the same time. He wanted to do the minimum to get by, not what was required. Clinton disliked wallowing in unpleasantness. It was hard wiring with him. Maybe it was his dysfunctional family history, maybe it was something else. I don't know.

That is my sense of it, psychobabble though it may be.

And WHY does Kerry have the guy who planned the assassination of the Senators on his payroll??

I can only think of two possibilities and the first is a stretch. Could Kerry have guessed this story might surface and by putting Scott Camil on his team hope to create the impression he isn't worried about the story, knows it's false....IOW he hires the guy that could do him real damage as a reverse psychology.

Or else Kerry is an arrogant liberal damfool who doesn't think that there are many consequences to anything he does, which is entirely believable.

Hon, I don't know if you heard that John Gibson had Randy Barnes, the MO Kerry coordinator and ex-VVAW member on yesterday too. Barnes basically used the talking points that Larry O. used....no truth to the story, only one guy came up with idea which was immediately hooted down etc.

A comment on this blog points out their lie though and I'll post it here:

John Gibson, interviewing a VVAW member who was at the 1971 KC meeting on Fox just moments ago, asked if Kerry was there. The gentleman said he did not remember Kerry being at the meeting at all.

But Gibson's redirect won the day. Gibson outlined the Phoenix Program (a military operation aimed at knocking off North Vietnamese leaders) and talked about Scott Camil's suggestion that VVAW pursue a domestic Phoenix operation to kill US Senators supporting the war. Gibson asked the vet (I didn't catch his name) how Kerry reacted to the plan. The vet said Kerry didn't like the plan and loudly argued against it. He thereby accidentally proved that Kerry was there at the meeting, and that he (the vet Gibson was interviewing) was not telling the truth when he said he did not recall Kerry being at the meeting at all. He did recall Kerry's presence enough to remember details about the argument, he just lied about it when asked directly earlier in the inverview.

Prairie

I think we can do both, i.e., make known Kerry's specific involvement with the assassination plot and expose the activities, statmeents, and membership of the VVAW. What I fear is that Kerry will try to focus on the validity of one specific charge concerning his involvement in a plot while the much larger issue of the VVAW is lost. Kerry doesn't want the media to scrutinize the VVAW, an organization Kerry played a major role in, because the public will learn how radical the VVAW really was and its links to other extremists.

Thanks for the links. I have been following all of the research work you have done unearthing Kerry's antiwar activities. Great job.

I guess nobody watches MSNBC.

I do (Joe Scarborough only) because it's at the same time as Greta. I can't stand Greta and all the trial crap.

Lots of good information last night. Laurence O'Donnell (the outspoken and token RAT) tried to shut down free speech by saying it was only one nut spouting a nutty opinion.

But Tom Lipscomb did a great job defending his story. So well in fact that Laurence called him some name (I missed exactly what) but Laurence got quite nasty at this point. Laurence looked like the idiot he is.

My question: Why does Joe have Laurence O'Donnell on regularly anyway, along with the nut Jewish guy who hates the Passion? Oh, I guess because they both look and sound so stupid when they talk. Good thinking there Joe!

"So well in fact that Laurence called him some name (I missed exactly what) but Laurence got quite nasty at this point."

He called Lipscomb a liar, which is pretty preposterous since Lipscomb was only reporting material that was in two books about the VVAW and what he has been told by witnessses at the KC meeting--not to mention the FBI files, which placed Kerry there.

"My question: Why does Joe have Laurence O'Donnell on regularly anyway, along with the nut Jewish guy who hates the Passion? Oh, I guess because they both look and sound so stupid when they talk."

Yeah, I suspect it is to give conservatives an easy target. O'Donnell is shallow and seemingly quite stupid. He's also clearly lazy. (He didn't bother to study up on this issue, for instance.)

These shows thrive on conflict and they have to find a liberal who is so full of himself he doesn't realize he is just there to be a punching bag.

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.