Skip to comments.Why Lie About This, Senator? (Rush on Kerry's Kansas City VVAW lies)
Posted on 03/23/2004 11:46:28 PM PST by Sabertooth
RUSH: I need to ask you a question. Why lie about this? This is a story by John Kerry and where he was in 1971. Says he wasn't someplace, turns out he was. Why lie when there were witnesses? Why lie about it when people can say he's lying, he was there. You may have heard about this story. This was posted last Saturday in the Kansas City Star. Headline: Kerry Hedges on '71 Kansas City Meeting.
[Reading from KC Star] Confronted with 32-year-old FBI records, Sen. John Kerry's campaign all but conceded he did attend a 1971 Kansas City meeting where a fellow anti-war veteran called for the assassinations of U.S. Senators. Those active in Vietnam Veterans Against the War at the time stress that the suggestion for such a violent approach was angrily rejected. They say their memories do not include Kerry taking part in the radical discussion. A statement Thursday by Kerry's camp said that Kerry didn't recall the meeting, although FBI surveillance material and the group's archives clearly show that Kerry resigned from his national coordinator post at this very meeting. In interviews last week, the senator's campaign insisted that he clearly remembered bolting from the group months earlier." He couldn't have been in Kansas City, he couldn't have been at this meeting because he quit months earlier, wasn't even there.
"Responding to a request by The Kansas City Star that staffers question the candidate about the meeting, Kerry passed word March 12 that he never, ever attended a meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War after a heated and public argument with the group's executive secretary in St. Louis in June 1971." Now this was a November meeting in Kansas City and he was there.
In a prepared statement late Thursday night, however, campaign spokesman David Wade [who originally identified me and Sean Hannity as the lying crooks of the Republican attack machine] traveling with Kerry in Idaho, said: John Kerry had no personal recollection of this meeting 33 years ago. John Kerry does recall the disagreements with elements of VVAW leadership that led to his resignation. If there are valid FBI surveillance reports from credible sources that place some of those disagreements in Kansas City, we accept that historical footnote
What is this gibberish? So he said we weren't there, Kerry resigned in St. Louis earlier in the year, he wasn't there but if you've got FBI tapes to show he was there, okay, then we'll concede he was there. But he wasn't there. Now, if you've got these surveillance tapes, fine, then we'll concede that his memory is such that he was there, wasn't there, but he doesn't remember it, you have to go to surveillance tapes to prove it. If he doesn't think he was there, he wasn't there, and he does remember leaving, doesn't matter if he was there, because he left. And that's all that matters. John Kerry left Kansas City in November of 1971, and that's what everybody needs to focus on. He may have been there, that's true, but he left. He wasn't there after he was there. That's John Kerry's statement and he's sticking to it, he wasn't there after he was there, doesn't remember being there but if the FBI's got tapes, okay, proves he left.
Why lie about this? I'll tell you why lie about it, because this was a meeting at which -- and this little statement here makes it sound like the guy that suggested this was a lone wolf. It was not just one guy. And I wouldn't say there's a large consensus opinion, but this got some support at this meeting, there were seven U.S. senators, I don't remember the names, that the Vietnam Veterans Against the War wanted to assassinate, and Kerry, "I wasn't there," and they found he was there, so he had to backtrack.
So why the lie? Because Kerry himself did not call for the assassinations, right? He didn't call for the assassinations, and the group apparently didn't support it, I mean it was, you know, somebody suggested it but they didn't vote for it, Kerry didn't support so why lie about it? Folks, there's something not right about this. I'm not talking about the details in the story. Why lie about something that you know is going to be proved a lie?
I'll just tell you what I think based on, you know, I've had some introduction into psychobabble, and I think I understand how the psychobabblers look at this kind of stuff. And Kerry thinks that he's a big enough guy that if he says he wasn't there, that's it, and who are you to challenge my integrity? That's the only thing I can figure. There's got to be some sort of arrogance associated with this that makes you think that even if you are discovered to be a liar, that it isn't any big deal, it's none of your business anyway, I didn't do anything wrong, so I may as well not have been there in the first place.
Not that your cousin was in it or anything... =o)
When caught Rule #2: "get amnesia"
"So he said we weren't there, Kerry resigned in St. Louis earlier in the year, he wasn't there but if you've got FBI tapes to show he was there, okay, then we'll concede he was there. But he wasn't there. Now, if you've got these surveillance tapes, fine, then we'll concede that his memory is such that he was there, wasn't there, but he doesn't remember it, you have to go to surveillance tapes to prove it. If he doesn't think he was there, he wasn't there, and he does remember leaving, doesn't matter if he was there, because he left. And that's all that matters. "
Because: after thirty-something years of Golluming tirelessly on behalf of the most wild-eyed, extremist and anti-freedom liberal worldview conceivable since the long-ago days of guerrilla Che...
... let's face it: it's all he knows how to do at this point, man . :)
Was this the VVAW version of that SDS meeting?
Did Kerry have an obligation to tell the authorities that a faction of his group wanted to kill US Senators?
I'd say yes, certainly.
|Now then, when among trusting brothers who shared a life altering experience and for some it was a life defining experience -- you don't go pimping them out if one were to mention he thought it would be a good idea to waste a politician...
Statement Refuted: Tapes show you were there.
Revised Statement: I wasn't there after I was there.
--- What does that remind us of? ----Original Statement: I didn't vote against funding the troops in Iraq.
Statement Refuted: Records show you voted against the funding.
Revised Statement: I voted for the funding before I voted against it.
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.