[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

Ask and you shall receive from today's http://www.Newsmax.com & this week's Weekly Standard Magazine:



KERRY Covered up Second Meeting with Vietcong Negotiators

http://www.Newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/24/30416.shtml

.

[risk]

As usual, Ronnie, thank you MUCH for the ping!

"FBI files reveal that Kerry planned a third such trip together with [VVAW leader Al] Hubbard for November [1971]. But, as it turned out, Hubbard went without Kerry, perhaps because the two had by then fallen out over revelations that Hubbard's repeated claims to have been an officer and a Vietnam vet were fabricated." -- last paragraph of Carl Limbacher's article above.

[VOA]

here's a link to the source article at The Weekly Standard (as best I can tell):

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/824yefgv.asp

[Arizona Carolyn]

Ronnie -- you should make certain Joe Scarborough receives this with a note: Make Certain Lawrence O'Donnell see's it and that he owes the Swifties (in particular John O'Neil) an appology!

[dagnabbit]

Thanks - That's excellent stuff coming out now about Kerry lying about having made two trips, lying about a honeymoon reason for being in Paris, etc.

The clincher, however, and what would seal the deal for voters who can't quite see the treason in Kerry's Paris trips, however many he had, is the matter of what Kerry said in those meetings.

We know that blow-hard JK would never have just sat passively mute in those Paris hotel rooms, silently taking notes about the VC and the North's various demands. His ego would never have allowed it. No, John F. Kerry wasn't going to fly across the Atlantic, twice, just to be a mere note-taker. He undoubtedly told his communist hosts at some length, about all HE was doing to further their common cause, about how HE, JFK, was also thwarting US efforts on the battlefield and in the arena of public opinion. Perhaps to ingratiate himself with his hosts, he even provided some details of US military tactics or strategy.

Perhaps. There are likely only three parties that know for sure:

1. John Kerry
2. His Vietnamese communist hosts
3. The French Government

Parties one and two know because they were in the room(s). Party three knows because there is no way the French would have allowed the Vietnamese Communists, The South Vietnamese and the Americans to run around town deciding the fate of the former French Indochina without Paris knowing what was going on. No, the French would have made certain they were kept well abreast of thing. Which is to say, it's pretty safe to assume the Frogs, no strangers to clandestine monitoring, did their best to bug all those meetings and the parties' hotel rooms as well.

At this point, none of the three parties are going to say anything. JK, obviously, has no interest in making public the details of his wartime collaboration with the enemy. The French don't either. Why should they embarrass a presidential candidate, when they hold the goods that would let them OWN a sitting U.S. President? Ditto for the Vietnamese. US President who calls them daddy, or scandal-destroyed failed candidate? Easy choice for Hanoi.

But it's only that party, the Vietnamese communists, who appear to have written at length about their work and dealings in Paris. (Kerry and the French intelligence services certainly haven't). So it's in their writings, particularly in those of Madame Bihn, where one should look for any reference to what John Kerry (or a Kerry-like figure) said and did in those Paris hotel rooms.