Murdering’ troops? What could Kerry have meant?

The Union Leader. ^ | March 28, 2004

[sopwith]

BACK IN 1971, John Kerry said that 200,000 Vietnamese a year were “murdered by the United States of America.” Now he says he didn’t mean “murdered” and wasn’t referring to U.S. soldiers. Well then, what in the world did he mean?

After accessing transcripts of testimony Kerry gave to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, The Boston Globe reported Kerry’s “murdered” comment last Thursday. The paper also reported that Kerry claimed to have flown to Paris and “talked with both delegations at the peace talks,” clearly giving the impression that he was in some way involved in the Paris peace negotiations.

Now Kerry says his Paris trip was a private affair with his wife, and he only met the Vietnamese for a few minutes. But back in 1971 he wanted people to think the trip was of some significance. The claim is reminiscent of Kerry’s more recent boasts that he has talked with world leaders who want Bush out of office and that he had a close friend in Massachusetts who heard on good authority that Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was kidnapped. Kerry has a habit of claiming that he is privy to inside information, then backing off when questioned about such boasts.

But back to his charge that the United States was murdering 200,000 Vietnamese a year. Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan told the Globe that Kerry “never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam.” If he wasn’t referring to the United States military, then who in the world could he have meant? The USO?

Either the 1971 John Kerry was lying, or the 2004 John Kerry is lying — or both. We think both.

[Elkiejg]

Kerry is sounding more and more like Gore -- telling tall tales every day.

[lainde]

He isn't even as adept as Gore! And that's a damning charge.

[Dallas59]

Somebody needs to bring this up with Kerry...in front of cameras....on National TV....He needs to be questioned on his other "comments" that he didn't mean.

[wingman1]

"The paper also reported that Kerry claimed to have flown to Paris and “talked with both delegations at the peace talks".

IIRC, the "both" delegations Kerry talked with in Paris were the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, not the government of South Vietnam.

[GailA]

More I vote for it, but then I voted against it. FLIP FLOP

[jamaksin]

And also needing to be asked: "Senator Kerry [D(im-0-crat) - Kennedy's Manse], when can we expect to see the release of the records of your full military service?"

This needs to be asked - and asked again - and asked again - ... , until the public sees them and understands how four months "in country" connect to his ribbons.

Does Ketchup-Kerry have something to hide perhaps?

Of course, his recent tax filings would be an interesting read too.

[jocon307]

"He isn't even as adept as Gore! And that's a damning charge."

Al Gore was a boastful fellow to be sure, but I don't remember him bearing a lot of false witness against his neighbors. Kerry has accused the US Military of war crimes, through his surrogates he's accused our president of being "awol" and of causing the recent terrorist attacks in Spain.

Kerry's lies go way beyond just self agrandizment, they show him as unfit even for the office he now holds, much less that of POTUS.

[The_Media_never_lie]

He isn't even as adept as Gore! And that's a damning charge.

You are right. The comparisons of Kerry with Gore are illuminating and uncannily accurate.

[Savage Beast]

Wasn't that book Love Story written about Kerry? Or was it Washington Square?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Valor can be defined as putting your blood where your mouth is. Even "putting your money where your mouth is" is not so clearly the antithesis of cheap talk as valor is.

Since journalism is the mass production of talk, journalism is naturally inclined toward cheap talk. Cheap talk - the advocacy of easy fixes at the expense of the intergenerational long run - defines liberalism in general and the anti-valor ("antiwar") movement in particular. That is why liberalism, and why the anti-valor project, emanates from journalism.

Apart from that understanding it is impossible for a conservative to understand how, after smearing the US troops in Vietnam, Senator Kerry has gotten as far as he has politically.

If journalism can install Kerry in the WH . . . perish the thought.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[Fiddlstix]

BACK IN 1971, John Kerry said that 200,000 Vietnamese a year were “murdered by the United States of America.” Now he says he didn’t mean “murdered” and wasn’t referring to U.S. soldiers. Well then, what in the world did he mean?

Be sure to tune in again next week. Different time. Different Channel. Different story!

[lepton]

bookmark bump

[lepton]

bookmark bump

[Piquaboy]

He does not know what he means, so I wish people would quit confusing him.

[expatpat]

You remember correctly. 'Both delegations' consisted of the North Vietnamese and the VC Provisional Government, basically.

[bushfamfan]

The media and Demonrats have been attempting to keep this part of Kerry secret, but it gets out there. There is no justification for his slander against US troops still fighting in Vietnam, his radical organization that he led, just his extremist points of view in regards to how America and our servicemen were the bad guys and committing the attrocities and now attempting to masquerade himself as some great 'war hero patriot'. There is NO WAY a Republican candidate would ever get away with the slander of US troops like that, attending meetings where his radical organization contemplated assassination of Senators.

[thoughtomator]

So did Kerry commit perjury in 1971, or is he lying now? (Or should that be "and/or"?)

[cubreporter]

Could a blue jean wardrobe change be far? Ha,ha,ha.

[marron]

"Valor can be defined as putting your blood where your mouth is. Even "putting your money where your mouth is" is not so clearly the antithesis of cheap talk as valor is. Since journalism is the mass production of talk, journalism is naturally inclined toward cheap talk. Cheap talk - the advocacy of easy fixes at the expense of the intergenerational long run - defines liberalism in general and the anti-valor ("antiwar") movement in particular. That is why liberalism, and why the anti-valor project, emanates from journalism."

Well stated.