Posted on 03/24/2004 1:36:04 PM PST by crushkerry
John Kerry's Vietnam-era agitation keeps emerging. Each new revelation should give more and more people pause when voting time comes.
The latest is just downright schocking!
John Kerry attended a radical anti-war meeting in 1971 where the murder of 6 or 7 US Senators was proposed, though shot down (Kerry voted 'NO').
In typical form, Kerry has already been caught lying about the affair. Contrary to his claims, the Kansas City Star can conclusively place him at the meeting.
Normally, this type of revelation would disqualify a man like Kerry from high public office. But the 'mainstream' press, as we all know, has an agenda to remove President Bush from office. So don't expect this story to get too much play out there.
Nevertheless, there is more to this story. We'll keep you posted. In the meantime, we hope these articles keep you informed:
There was no agreement to commit a crime. Further, there was no step taken after that agreement (which didn't happen) in furtherance of the plot, which is an essential and critical element of the crime of conspiracy.
Accordingly, Kerry did NOT witness a crime, so he's not guilty of failing to report a crime. So you can't find him guilty on 18 US Code violation, either.
What he IS guilty of is hanging out with a group that would even consider assassination as a valid means of accomplishing their political objectives. While not a crime, it speaks volumes about how radical this person is.
I'll leave that to the Almighty, but on an earthly plane I think there's no doubt he murdered Mary Jo. Had he reported the incident at once, as it was within his power to do, instead of spending eight hours masturbating and worrying about his political career, she might very well have been saved. The guy is one big dehydrated turd, and all the money and influence in the world won't alter that fact one bit.
Hey,cut Kerry some slack.
I am sure you wouldn't remember being at a meeting where you were discussing assassinating a group of US Senators. - tom
I wanted to commend you on breaking the story on John Kerry's participation in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War meeting which discussed the assassination of United States senators. I have become increasingly frustrated with much of the news industry this election season, as I believe that many newspapers have abandoned their responsibilities as news organizations and are actively campaigning. I am not from Kansas City, and do not know the editorial slant of your paper. I did want to commend you on reporting on what I believe is an important story. Thanks much. Your willingness to cover this story has restored some of my faith that there are news organizations who are more committed to truth than partisanship.I think it's important, during this campaign season, to commend the organizations that are willing to report on both candidates accurately. The truth is our friend.
As has been pointed out on this thread and elsewhere, one of the intended victims of the conspiracy, Senator Stennis, was in fact shot. By whom is not known, but it would militate against any claim by Kerry that he somehow succeeded in being that "moderating influence." Quite a coincidence, that Stennis got shot not too long after the KC meeting, wouldn't you say?Here's what we have:
-We know that the assasinations were discussed and even voted on at the meeting.
-We know Kerry was at the meeting and participated in the discussions.
-It is very probable that John Stennis, a Senator so pro-military that an aircraft carrier was named after him, was one of the senators they talked about shooting.
We know that about fourteen months later (a short enough period to be connected, but long enough that the original decision may have been formally reconsidered), John Stennis was shot and nearly killed. We don't know who did it, or why.
The questions are:
1) Was the shooting of Stennis connected to VVAW?
2) Had Kerry gone to the police, could this shooting have been prevented?
There's certainly not enough to charge him with a crime, but plenty of reason to be suspicious and consider him unsuitable for the Presidency.
-Eric
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.