I had a look at their site. There were lots of complaints against Democrats: Bill Clinton, Dick Gephardt, Sandy Berger, and others. No Republicans . . . none at all! Evidently, Republicans never do anything that causes concern to Judicial Watch.

These guys have a lot of nerve, calling themselves “nonpartisan.”

Posted by: Forrest at August 23, 2004 03:50 AM

Forrest : Agree with you 100%. If these guys are nonpartisan, so is MoveOn.org etc. That line does nothing for their credibility.

Posted by: aebrain at August 23, 2004 04:09 AM

There’s no better word for it: Fascism.

Posted by: Scott at August 23, 2004 04:40 AM

No, they are Conservative. Clinton gave birth to them.

However, when they sue Democrats, the Media call them “Conservative Group.

When they sue Dick Cheney http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4830129/
they are “non partisan” or “Gadfly group” in the Media.

Forrest, you may want to use Google.

Posted by: jones at August 23, 2004 07:24 AM

The important thing is that regardless of their affiliation, Lieutenant Kerry appears to me to be guilty as charged. This isn’t a matter of subjective opinion, it’s a matter of well-documented fact. He was still a Lieutenant in the USN when he engaged in advocacy for a foreign power which the US was at war with.

Whether the North Vietnamese “benefited directly from the obvious propaganda victory” is more subjective, and open to debate. All the evidence we have for that is the unsopported word of… POWs held in Hanoi at the time. Oops. Fairly conclusive I’d say.

The question is, will the JAG act? And will any claim that Kerry is (technically) guilty of treason be more damaging to Kerry or to Bush, regardless of its truth?

My immediate reaction to anybody saying “Kerry is a Traitor” is that they’re Loony. Even though it appears that, by the letter of the law, he is. By the spirit… that really depends on your attitude to the Vietnam War.

“If it prosper, it be not treason”.

Posted by: aebrain at August 23, 2004 08:40 AM

This is just lovely.

They are non-partisan: witness the suit against Cheney. (Run Forrest, Run!), but they do tend toward conservative and good-government type causes. They also do not appear to support or fund any sort of advocacy of or against candidates. (they’re a 501©(3) organization — MoveOn and the rest of the soft money organizations are organized under Section 527 — that’s a big difference).

I’m as sick of this walk down memory lane as anybody. There’s a war on and there are serious issues to be discussed. But, the only thing Kerry’s offered up as a qualification for office is his four months of officially recorded heroism, and that only invites an examination of his conduct at the time. He’s brought this on himself, and he can end it himself.

Posted by: TL at August 23, 2004 09:45 AM

“The question is, will the JAG act?”

If they haven’t thus far, I wouldn’t think that would act now on their own.

I personally think JWatch is not helping Bush in this. The liberals will just scream “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” [VRWC] and rally strength.

Posted by: Max Darkside at August 23, 2004 09:46 AM

…this is going to last for some time .((All)) 527`s,Journalist,editors,anyone in the public eye is going to be exposed..about time.. let the chips fall where they may…

Posted by: Rob_NC at August 23, 2004 10:07 AM

VRWC that’s the ticket. Lots of traction there.

Every place O’Neill shows up to debate he cuts the Kerry team a new one. He hit Stephanopolous 22Aug (Sunday). The Kerry team was limp. Stephie covered it in a way sure to hurt Kerry. (I smell a rat).

Judicial Watch is just another credible charge because Kerry is already bleeding. Had he knocked down the first charges (Christmas in Cambodia?) this would look crazy.

Except for the evidence.

—==—

What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Some evidence of something - Video link

Hello CQ

Posted by: M. Simon at August 23, 2004 10:08 AM

It sweems to me to be madness of Kerry’s part to bring up Vietnam, but he does it again and again and again.

He should have run on domestic issues and just said “yeah, me too” on the war on terror. Health care, stem cells, education, etc. — all issues that work for him. But he made the convention about the Swift boats!

This refighting of Vietnam is really not in his, or anyone else’s, best interest. Doesn’t he see that? Even if the Swifties were a Karl Rove invention, couldn’t he have predicted that his war record and subsequent anti-war agitation would become issues?

I am at a loss to explain Kerry’s motivations.

The Vietnam war is a no-win proposition for Kerry, yet he keeps hammering away on it. Why?

Posted by: DWC at August 23, 2004 10:12 AM

O’Neill as a good lawyer already has the material released from the supporting vets. i.e. If Kerry’s boat and their boat was in on an action and the records exist all the way up the chain of command. I think they would be entitled to them.

He has let Kerry twist in the wind for weeks now. Thurlow’s initial reluctance to do the 180 was a smoke screen.

O’Neill has the records. Kerry has been making up stories. What comes next?

—==—

What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Hello CQ

Posted by: M. Simon at August 23, 2004 10:28 AM

aebrain -

“My immediate reaction to anybody saying “Kerry is a Traitor” is that they’re Loony. Even though it appears that, by the letter of the law, he is. By the spirit… that really depends on your attitude to the Vietnam War.”

I agree with you that the word “traitor” should be used with great caution, and that those who do not do so set themselves up to be criticised as extremist - if not “loony.”

What really protects Kerry here is your reference in the last sentence of the paragraph to the “attitude” in the U.S. about the War in Vietnam. There was such turmoil in those days and conflict about the war because it [the war] was never really fully explained to the American people either by Kennedy or Johnson, and because the media never fully reported what happened in the war (e.g., the U.S. victory after the Tet offensive that was portrayed as a defeat in the media) other than to give us those meaningless nightly body counts.

Added to this lack of or mis - information about the war, Kerry’s actions and testimony against the war - and the warriors - when he returned from Vietnam was like throwing gasoline on a bonfire. Here we had an active duty, decorated naval officer condemning every soldier and the entire command structure in Vietnam for the most heinous crimes. Did it have great weight? You bet it did. Was he ever challenged by the media - or even the Senate Committee? Not that I recall.

Kerry didn’t stop with his protests, testimony and tossing of medals/ribbons (or not). He went to Paris and had “discussions” with the enemy - during the War. Bear in mind that during this entire time, he was still in the Navy.

Did our prisoners of war and soldiers on the ground in Vietnam pay for his actions? I think that there is no question that they did. Did he help the North Vietnamese achieve their “victory?” Yes, I believe his actions contributed to that outcome.

What saved Kerry from ever being charged and prosecuted for his actions - while still on duty - was the controversy in the U.S. over the war - a controversy that he was complicit in fueling.

Were his actions “traitorous?” Well, if he is successful in his bid for election to the ultimate political office in the United States of America, I would say your last sentence will be applicable to Senator Kerry.

“If it prosper, it be not treason.”

Posted by: Jim at August 23, 2004 11:26 AM

It’s interesting to see what sort of effect this might have on Kerry’s poll percentages. I’m sure there are very few liberals that really care less if Kerry acted in a technically treasonous manner. The only uncertainty is the 5-10% of independent, undecided voters that view their vote as for the “lesser of two evils.”

My theory is that the view of Vietnam among the undecided as a righteous war against Soviet Aggression or a tragedy dealt upon poor Vietnamese villagers will be 50/50. Where does that leave the poll numbers? Exactly where we started.

I can only hope that the true thoughts of the independents out there finally clear up and that they realize Kerry is the epitome of a politician, and what can you despise more than a politician (besides a liberal)?

Posted by: jackhammer at August 23, 2004 11:28 AM

Sigh.

The Clueless continue to spout this nonsense that being in the inactive Naval Reserve is the same thing as being In The Navy.

It isn’t. Never was. Nor is it for any other inactive reserve in any other service.

It is Only when the USN calls you back to duty in either the regular Navy or to an Active Reserve unit that you might fall under their Command and Control procedures. Otherwise, you are precisely like each and every other US citizen — and you do Not fall under the UCMJ for your actions, nor are you subject to the USN regulations for your conduct.

This is a Made-Up charge entirely.

As to the substance of it, if Kerry met privately with the North, even as the US was officially meeting with them simultaneously that is not a violation of anything at all. Each and every other US citizen has precisely the same Right as well. No one loses that by virtue of being a member of an inactive reserve unit.

Had the USN called Kerry back to either active duty, or place him in an active reserve unit, then and Only then might there be a plausible reason to order him not to do what he did. But even then, in the case of an active reserve unit, it would be a Judgement Call at the time.

This “complaint” now thirty years later is what it is — yet another partisan attack based on Nothing.

Posted by: Don at August 23, 2004 12:45 PM

Perhaps in a backhanded way Mr Kerry is doing something very helpful.

Here’s the theory. the Vietnam war was a difficult period for America. there were plenty of hard feelings, plenty of emotional wounds that were salved by time but never entirely healed.

Now comes Kerry, raising these difficulties as a central theme in his presidential campaign.

now America has an opportunity to openly discuss this pain, to vent the pent up anger and bitterness that has been stored away lo these many years. The blinding light of hindsight has fallen on both sides of this disputes about the value of the war and this will enhance the debate’s content.

If Kerry had downplayed his war record this opportunity to confront this pain would not have occured, so this is a good thing.

Posted by: skip at August 23, 2004 01:10 PM

I don’t know if it’s treson or not or illegal or not, and I don’t really care. Even if it was legal and not technically treasonous, it shows a shocking lack of judgment and more than an extra helping of hubris on Kerry’s part. For him to not realize how his actions harmed his fellow soldiers and encouraged the North Viet Namese pretty much flushes his claims to a smarter foreign policy down the toilet.

Maybe Kerry will stop ducking the questions and relying on that spokesman (who looks like a possessed version of Mr. Rogers) and the likes of Don to make his case. Maybe he did something good in Paris. Not likely, but until the Silent Windsock starts answering questions, it don’t look good.

Posted by: TL at August 23, 2004 01:16 PM

I’m having trouble with a strikethrough going through the entire article after “UMCJ”…

Posted by: meep at August 23, 2004 01:29 PM

This is almost taken from the Democratic political playbook: “It is the mere fact that a complaint/legal challenge/law suit is processed that is important… not if the merits of the complaint itself are accurate.”

I am almost to the point to where I can tell how potentially damaging any action or post might be by monitoring the degree of response and agitated agnst it creates by the opposing side.

This whole Viet Nam service gig is taking on legs of its own and moving about in a direction about which the Kerry camp is really not happy. (U of Penn/Anneber surveys report that nearly 60% of voters have heard of the ad and 46% believe it true (47% do not believe it true)[http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04misc.htm]) in They are obviously spendning lost of capital and resources to defend, refute and mitigate this action by the Swiftees at a time originally planned for other goals and objectives. That in itself is not good nor does it reflect well on the DNC message managers’ ability to anticipate trouble, ID weak links and prepare for the RNC exploitation. They had to know about this group before now as I know the Swift Boat Vets against Kerry have been in the public forums for over a year now.

What is even more worrisome is that some of the Dems can not see what was so wrong about Kerry meeting with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong outside government channels. You gotta know, guys, that such stuff does not sit well with most of America and a majority of the Vets.

This not being in touch with Main Street is also exemplified by the recent debacle about troop strength reductions where the DNC and Kerry wasted no time at all criticizing the President without checking to see that just a mere two or so weeks earlier, it was the Democratic challenger who was first to propose this policy move (and which a recent Rasmussen poll shows 59% of Americans favor the President’s initiative.)

Posted by: steve at August 23, 2004 02:46 PM

There is more heading sown the pipeline for kerry. Of course, you won’t find this in Liberal media, but it will come to light sooner or later.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=14743

As the authors of Fake Warriors: Identifying, Exposing and Punishing Those Who Falsify Their Military Service, we receive scores of emails on our website either asking questions about the Fake Warrior phenomenon (which has reached epidemic proportions), or reporting sightings which sometimes lead to exposure and even fines or jail terms.

One Vietnam vet with nearly forty years of military service who retired as a major, spurred on by the revelations in our book, and, in his words. “having seen hundreds of DD 214s” (a veteran’s Record of Transfer or Separation), recently decided to take a close look at John Kerry’s DD 214, which is posted on his website. What the major called to our attention, which we have since verified, raises some extremely troubling questions about John Kerry’s Silver Star. Keep in mind that the Silver Star is the third-highest medal our Nation can bestow (after only the Medal of Honor and the three service “Crosses”).

Kerry’s DD 214 lists a Silver Star with a combat “V” (for valor). As the major correctly observes, the “V” is never awarded with the Silver Star. But the actual wording on Kerry’s DD 214 (see www.johnkerry.com) is: “SILVER STAR WITH COMBAT ‘V’.”

There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that a combat “V” (called a “Combat Distinguishing Device”) is simply not awarded with a Silver Star. For example, a former Vietnam War POW told us that he has “three SSs, and there was no V for any of them.” Countless other Silver Star recipients all say the same thing. Why? Because, among other reasons, it would be redundant to award a Silver Star for “gallantry” (the statutory term) and then embellish it with a “V” for valor.

Most conclusive, however, is that the law is very clear about the award of Combat Distinguishing Devices. According to the Navy Awards Manual:

Bronze “V” (Combat Distinguishing Device).

Prior to . . . 1974, the “V” was authorized for wear on the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy Commendation Medal and Navy Achievement Medal. Between . . .1974 and . . . 1991, the “V” was authorized for wear on the Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal and Navy Commendation Medal. [In] . . . 1991, the “V” was authorized for wear on the Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. In all cases, the Combat Distinguishing Device may only be worn if specifically authorized in the citation. See also http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Valor_device.

Because the “V” is authorized for only the ten awards cited above, but not for the Silver Star, Kerry’s Silver Star citation (the “explanation” of why the award was made) does not even mention the “V” for valor (see www.johnkerry.com).

The presence of the combat “V” with Kerry’s Silver Star on his DD 214 raises two extremely disquieting questions. How did the unauthorized “V” get there, and why has Kerry allowed it to remain?

The first question should not be taken lightly because we are talking about possible federal crimes. We are talking about the possibility of a forged official document. We are talking, as well, about Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, which states: “[W]hoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States, knowingly and willfully . . . makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.”

Was the combat “V” added by a sloppy clerk or a yeoman’s typo thirty years ago? Was someone pressured or persuaded to add it? If Kerry had nothing to do with the gratuitously added combat “V,” why didn’t he have his DD 214 corrected when he was separated from the Navy?

Which gives rise to the second disturbing question: If Kerry was not a party to the unauthorized “V,” why, for all these years, has he allowed his DD 214 to remain uncorrected and to repose on his website?

In light of the recent Swift Boat revelations and the cloud they have cast over Kerry’s awards, one plausible answer is that this is yet another example of Kerry’s multiple, and increasingly transparent, lies about his alleged heroics in Vietnam.

Let’s hope it won’t take a controversial TV spot to spark a mainstream media investigation of how candidate Kerry received an unearned “V” for valor.

Henry Mark Holzer [www.henrymarkholzer.com; hank@henrymarkholzer.com], Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, specializes in federal appeals. Erika Holzer [www.erikaholzer.com] is a lawyer and novelist. They are co-authors of “Aid and Comfort”: Jane Fonda in North Vietnam.

John kerry’s lies are really going to bite him in the ass, and it will hurt alot more than flying bits of rice from his self inflicted purple heart wound.

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 23, 2004 03:21 PM

Don: “being in the inactive Naval Reserve is [not] the same thing as being In The Navy … you do Not fall under the UCMJ for your actions, nor are you subject to the USN regulations for your conduct”

100% correct, and it is a relatively simple thing to determine that the failure to do this basic research only serves to discredit those leveling the charges. However, I disagree that it was OK for him to meet North Vietnamese officials because the US was already meeting in an official capacity. If, today, Jesse Jackson went to Najaf and began having talks with Sadr would that be OK, since we are already, ostensibly, in negotiations? Contrary to your assertion, private US citizens are not free to enter into negotiations or discussions with foreign governments, especially not while the US is engaged in hostilities with them. He should have been beat about the head and shoulders about this years ago, but, as someone else pointed out, because Vietnam was an unpopular war and necause of his noteriety this prohibition was overlooked. That still doesn’t make it right or justified.

Posted by: submandave at August 23, 2004 03:22 PM

>>They are non-partisan: witness the suit against Cheney. (Run Forrest, Run!), but they do tend toward conservative and good-government type causes.

I feel no need to run. Judicial Watch is an openly conservative organization. They say so on their web site:

“Ronald Reagan is an icon for the conservative movement, and Judicial Watch would not exist if not for his leadership and dedication to the principles of conservatism. “

Look through the web site yourself and tell me how many Republicans you see accused of anything . . .

http://www.judicialwatch.org/3670.shtml

Posted by: Forrest at August 23, 2004 03:38 PM

Isn’t this F. Lee Levin’s group?

Didn’t they offer to defend the swifties if Kerry’s savage attorney’s attack?

Is there a problem with this group being “partisan’? If so what’s the problem?

Posted by: skip at August 23, 2004 04:03 PM

Conservative and partisan are not the same thing. Just like liberal and partisan are not the same thing.

But, if what they say is true, I agree with Skip — what does it matter?

If what you’re worried about is the messenger rather than the message, how could you possibly support a candidate who is mentored by Ted Kennedy and who is currently relying upon grease traps like Lanny Davis and Sidney Blumenthal to represent him publicly?

Posted by: TL at August 23, 2004 04:12 PM

because partisan groups are only allowed to prop up useless lying democrat leaders. Like the media.

Heaven forbid anyone who stands up for the Republicans, this is typical loony left thinking. It’s the same thing as ‘free speech as long as you agree with us”

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 23, 2004 04:12 PM

The ACLU doesn’t hold itself out as partisan, but I’ll bet that they’re aren’t too many card carrying ACLU‘ers who’ll vote Kerry come November.

Posted by: skip at August 23, 2004 04:15 PM

Amendment XIV, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Kerryu shouldn’t even be in senate, never mind running for President

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 23, 2004 05:20 PM

Excerpt: “Senator Kerry of Massachusetts yesterday retreated from his earlier steadfast denials that he attended a meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which a plan to assassinate U.S. Senators was debated.

The reversal came as new evidence, including reports from FBI informants, emerged that contradicted Mr. Kerry’s previous statements about the gathering, which was held in Kansas City, Mo. in November 1971.

Source:
Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Mar 19, 2004; Section:Front page; Page:1
KERRY RETREATS FROM HIS DENIAL ON VIETNAM MEET
Evidence Puts Him At Kansas Parley
By JOSH GERSTEIN Staff Reporter of the Sun

That makes the law posted above enforceable. On more than one charge.

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 23, 2004 05:25 PM

Go gettem GAN

Posted by: skip at August 23, 2004 05:28 PM

Don & submandave -
Thanks for the clarification re: Kerry’s official status.

Still, he represented himself as a decorated naval officer - however that was “qualified.” Freedom of speech can sometimes have a certain dissonance - as Kerry himself is now learning.

Posted by: Jim at August 23, 2004 06:12 PM

The tone of civility you have struck in discussing this explosive charge is refreshingly free of invective. I find you to be presenting differing views about the facts and interpretations in this in an informative manner that appeals to reason from mildly but not rabidly partisan positions.

I respectfully withdraw my earlier referring to this suit as evidence of fascism and apologize to those attendant here who might have taken offense at the implication.

Posted by: Scott at August 23, 2004 06:42 PM

Merely attending a meeting at which some crackpot idea is “debated,” is a far cry from having engaged in insurrection or rebellion or having given aid or comfort to the enemy.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 23, 2004 07:14 PM

In the sense of supporting one political party against all others, I would argue that Judicial Watch is not partisan. It truly seems they could care less about the Republican party.

However, in the dictionary sense of “A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea,” I’ll give it to them… they’re partisan.

Looking through their case load, their raison d’etre has been almost entirely a loathing of Bill Clinton as a person.

I, too, saw the case against Dick Cheney, and thought, “At least they can pretend to be nonpartisan, sometimes,”

But I also saw a case against the appointment of Elaine Chao… by GW Bush. I thought, “Wow, two cases where they can pretend to be nonpartisan,” but then I read the brief… and it turns out they’re still pursuing an Anti-Clinton vendetta, as Ms. Chao was apparentally involved in what they refer to as “Chinagate” under the Clinton term.

The thing that makes me only agree, oh, about 80-90% with Forrest’s assertion that they’re partisan is that they continue to file charges against entire branches of Bush’s gov’t. Being too lazy to actually research each case, I can’t tell if they’re now trying to fulfill their stated mandate after the Clinton train petered out, or if those cases also conceal some leftover Clinton vendetta, like the Elaine Chao case did.

So, politically biased Clinton haters, yes. Tools of the republican party, no, or at least only coincidentally.

Posted by: TBox at August 23, 2004 08:22 PM

Re: the UCMJ. If you read the Judicial Watch article, you’ll see that their argument is that Kerry should be stripped of his medals for providing ‘aid and comfort to the enemy’ while still in the USNR. That’s the bit of the UCMJ that applies, he should have been discharged from service in circumstances ‘other than honourable’.

I think their case is unimpeachable.

But Kerry was not on “Active Duty” when he did what he did. There’s already enough confusion and spin, no need to make basic errors of fact.

From what I’ve seen, amongst the charges against Kerry are some that can best be explained by the usual minor hiccups in any bureaucracy, (eg the ‘V’ on his Silver Star), minor lapses of memory, and even some telling of Tall Tales for political purposes, not exactly outright lies, more bending the truth so it’s contorted out of all recognition. Something politicians of all pursuasions have been known to do now and then.

But other charges have more grounds to them. It’s a matter of well-documented fact that:

Every person in Kerry’s chain-of-command had labelled him unfit to be CinC.

The Kerry Campaign has lied about his Vietnam service, repeatedly, even to the point of altering geography (the ‘watery borders’ between Cambodia and Vietnam indeed….) and giving a new-story-every-week.

I don’t think even Don would argue on those two. But I’ll let him speak for himself, I could be wrong.

Posted by: aebrain at August 23, 2004 09:33 PM

Alan,

After he answers you, send him over to answer me.

http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/014254.html

Posted by: jones at August 23, 2004 10:16 PM

The Ayatollah left some significant facts from his quotation on the Kansas City meeting:

Mr. Nicosia said that the records show Mr. Kerry resigned from the group on the third day of the meeting, following discussion of the assassination plan and an argument between Mr. Kerry and another VVAW national coordinator, Al Hubbard.

Reading from an FBI informant report, Mr. Nicosia said, “John Kerry at a national Vietnam Veterans Against the War meeting appeared and announced to those present that he resigned for personal reasons but said he would be able to speak for VVAW” at future events.Another document “describes a conversation actually a confrontation between John Kerry and Hubbard that was taking place on one of the days of that meeting,” Mr. Nicosia added.

Mr. Nicosia said it is clear that Mr. Kerry and the others resigned because of the extreme actions the group was considering.

“It’s kind of unmistakable to see a pattern. All four of them were out the door, bingo, the morning after” the socalled Phoenix plot was discussed, the author said.

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/03/19&ID=Ar00101

Posted by: Forrest at August 23, 2004 11:55 PM

That’s not quite true. The friction between Kerry and Al Hubbard had nothing to do with the assassination plot. Kerry found out that Hubbard wasn’t a veteran, and had tried to unseat him prior to this meeting. Hubbard however had alot of support with the VVAW executive.
There is also information that Hubbard (and Kerry) were making these anti war protest statements and passing them on to the North Vietnamese, in fact one of Hubbard’s trips to Hanoi was for the purpose of passing propaganda.
VVAW was also funded by the communists. Kerry had to have known this, which makes him party to this subversion. He was still on active duty during this time.
The law also states that it applies to any citizen of the United states, so whether kerry was on active duty or not during his covert meeting with the North Vietnamese is a moot point, however, he was still on active duty as far as we can tell.

Kerry’s lies and actions are unraveling quickly. The mainstream media can’t keep this quiet for long.

Now links of the DNC with 527’s is being exposed.
I’m lovin’ it, LoL! There is nothing better than watching the Democrats hang themselves. This is going to continue to be hammered apon for the rest of the election.
Kerry is finnished. Anyone would have to be insane to cast a vote for him. I don’t care how much anyone hates Bush, you’d have to hate America even more to vote for Kerry. Now we see Kerry would have voted for war with Iraq even if there were no WMD’S, so now the peaceniks have no reason to vote for kerry either.
Now we have this vote fraud comming to light, which is proving to be far more reaching than first thought. So we know that even with mass corruption on the Democrats part, they still couldn’t win the last election.
It shows how deep corruption runs in the Democrat party, it isn’t just John Kerry you are voting for, it’s all those corrupt bastards. I was reading just how corrupt many democrat senators are, many have criminal records for tax evasion, fraud etc.

disgusting.

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 24, 2004 09:09 AM

Even Lefty’s are asking questions, and no doubt we will see many Democrats begin to distance themselves from the Kerry camp to protect their own political futures.

Here’s an article of interest which proves my point:

Hentoff: Kerry in War Record Cover-up

Longtime civil libertarian and columnist for the left-wing Village Voice, Nat Hentoff charged Sunday that the Kerry campaign is engaged in a transparent cover-up of the Massachusetts Democrat’s war record and an attempt to muzzle freedom of speech.

In an interview with WABC Radio’s Steve Malzberg, Hentoff noted that the Pentagon has responded to a Washington Post Freedom of Information Act request for Kerry’s full military file by turning over just six pages of their 100-plus page Kerry dossier, with a spokesman explaining that Kerry himself wouldn’t authorized the release of the full file.

Kerry has also refused to turn over diaries that the candidate kept during his Vietnam service, with the campaign insisting that an exclusive agreement with Kerry biographer Douglas Brinkley for his 2003 book “Tour of Duty” prevents any further disclosure.
But Hentoff said he wasn’t buying that excuse, telling Malzberg, “I have done biographies of John Cardinal O’Connor and A.J. Muste and I’ve never heard of that kind of agreement.”

“The question is, what is Kerry trying to hide?” said the Village Voice writer. “He claims he’s interested in the truth. If he’s interested in the truth, then release the records.”

Hentoff said he’s astounded at the media’s response to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose eyewitness accounts have catapulted the issue of Kerry’s war record to the top of the campaign agenda.

“I can’t recall ever seeing such distortion of the motivations and the witnessing of these more than 200 Vietnam veterans,” he complained.

Of Kerry’s efforts to muzzle the Swiftvets by threatening lawsuits against TV stations who carry their ads, Hentoff said, “This tells you something about how a President Kerry is going to handle dissent.”

You know kerry is finnished when the left starts eating their own young.

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 24, 2004 09:37 AM

GAN,

Thanks for all of the great research you’ve done. Now we’ll see how far behind the mainstream media is. Let’s see, it took two weeks before they even acknowledged the SwiftVets… I’m guessing three weeks since this topic is far more volatile.

As far as trying to squash free speech with lawsuits, I think this episode drives home a point Wretchard was making over at the Belmont Club: The left can somehow rationalize to itself that it’s entitled to the freedoms protected by the Constitution while at the very same time, it is attempting to destroy the Constitution. This insanity is so representive of the manner in which the Dems and Kerry act/react, constantly trying to have it all, please everyone, and never put their ass on the line despite what others may think.

Posted by: jackhammer at August 24, 2004 04:09 PM

Additionally, as a commissioned officer of the Naval Reserve, Senator Kerry was subject to the UCMJ,…

Although it has been stated otherwise, and I am no expert, it appears from this that they are arguing that he was subject to the UCMJ because he was commissioned at the time and not whether he was active or inactive?

Anyway, I still wanna know how you get an MRI after a bike accident with shrapnel in your leg?

Khepri

Posted by: Khepri at August 25, 2004 02:44 AM

http://www.radiologyinfo.org/content/mr_of_the_body.htm

“Because the strong magnetic field used for MRI will pull on any ferromagnetic metal object implanted in the body, MRI staff will ask whether you have a prosthetic hip, heart pacemaker (or artificial heart valve), implanted port, infusion catheter (brand names Port-o-cath, Infusaport, Lifeport), intrauterine device (IUD), or any metal plates, pins, screws, or surgical staples in your body. In most cases, surgical staples, plates, pins and screws pose no risk during MRI if they have been in place for more than four to six weeks. Tattoos and permanent eyeliner may also create a problem. You will be asked if you have ever had a bullet or shrapnel in your body, or ever worked with metal. If there is any question of metal fragments, you may be asked to have an x-ray that will detect any such metal objects. Tooth fillings usually are not affected by the magnetic field, but they may distort images of the facial area or brain, so the radiologist should be aware of them. The same is true of braces, which may make it hard to “tune” the MRI unit to your body. You will be asked to remove anything that might degrade MRI images of the head, including hairpins, jewelry, eyeglasses, hearing aids, and any removable dental work.”

“In most cases the examination is safe for patients with metal implants, with the exception of a few types of implants, so patients should inform the technician of an implant prior to the test.”

Oddly, it says that an X-Ray is performed to determine if you have metal in your body, but doesn’t say what they do when metal is detected. If the line about fillings is to be believed… maybe it just makes the image fuzzier?

Excellent question, however.

Posted by: TBox at August 25, 2004 12:16 PM