The very right-wing Newsmax reports that John Kerry recently flipped off a fellow Vietnam veteran. Of course, you had to read three paragraphs in to find out that this veteran was Ted Sampley, a rather shameful man who publishes a bizarre hate site full of debunked half-truths about the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
Which leads to my disappointment with Kerry: why didn't he punch Sampley in the mouth and then kick him in the nuts?
Well, I suppose it's to his credit.
Ted Sampley's just an asshole. He's an unpatriotic asshole. You don't publish falsehoods about your fellow combat veterans, publish one-sided, lopsided accounts of their service, or treat them as traitors simply for having disagreed with you. Mind you, criticizing Kerry for being over-the-top in his criticisms of the war 30 years ago? Fair game. But calling a decorated combat veteran a traitor, and spreading documented lies about him?
John Kerry is the nominee of one of our two greatest and most venerable political institutions and a possible future President of the United States. He may well be the next man to lead us in a war we are in the middle of fighting, and all that being the case, no patriot should behave in that fashion toward him. If you can't prove--prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, in a way that would stand up in a court of law--that the man you're accusing of treason was really a traitor, then you shut up and you treat this man with with the respect he deserves.
If you're any kind of real patriot, I mean.
Aparently Sen. Kerry called Mr. Sampley a “felon”. Is he? I was a bit confused about the story myself. The story makes it sound like Kerry is the bad guy in this, but the actions of the men involved speak for themselves. Somehow the idea that Kerry would flip someone off makes me more willing to vote for him...
From what I've seen (without actually trying), Sampley is a misdemeanant, not a felon.
My information could be incomplete.
"Very right wing"
I dig your adjectives, Dean.
YOU ARE A WIMP! BUSH WILL WIN IN 04 AND KERRY WILL BE KICKING KENNEDY IN THE POUCH!
Kerry called Sampley a felon for apparently beating up one of John McCain's aids a long time ago.
Anyway, Sampley is an asshole, no doubt. But I'm still rather disappointed that Kerry would choose to flip this guy off. I guess I expect a little more self control from somebody who would be President.
Just ignore the guy, or move somewhere he isn't. Don't get into a shouting match with him. That's just childish.
I wouldn't ask for court of law type evidence. For one thing, it's hard to ever get anyone into a court of law without first having merely the expression of strong opinions, although you don't have to express your strong opinions to the whole world.
Here we have a man who curses out the Secret Service, pantomimes smoking a joint in public, jokes about the vice president being shot, jokes that Bush "lost his training wheels," calls an entire party "lying crooks" then denies it later, among many other instances of bad behavior and now we're supposed to buy that he didn't flip this guy off? The apparent nominee for president of the United States, ladies and gentlemen. And they tell us that Bush is "unqualified" for the office because he whispered the word "asshole" once. I don't care if the guy was telling Kerry he was sleeping with his mother, when you're running for president, you take the high road, period.
I thought the 'training wheels' bit was one of the few actually clever things Kerry's said off the cuff, with Bush talking about the Iraqis taking the training wheels off and whatnot.
That said, WHY DEAN, you partisan mudslinging SOB mf ARGH... Kudos really, for calling this nut out.
Sounds to me they are perfect for each other, both assholes.
Actually, Max, I agree with you. I liked the "training wheels" remark too. I consider that "above the belt" dissing. :)
Dean, I have a question: would you say the same thing if a combat vet with two (real) tours under his belt, but no "crazy man" website, had said those things to Kerry at the memorial? Hm?
I, personally, would have little respect for someone who would "punch Sampley in the mouth and then kick him in the nuts." First, it shows poor self-control. Second, it's the cowards way out. Kerry had Secret Service all around him; Sampley couldn't lay a finger on him.
HH wrote:
"And they tell us that Bush is "unqualified" for the office because he whispered the word "asshole" once."
I'll just say that I, for one, defended Bush at the time. That reporter was no doubt an asshole. Politics is not Sunday school. Harry Truman and Barry Goldwater were known to let fly when the occasion called for it. Of course, such behavior would be out of place at a State dinner, especially if royalty were present (HAIL TO THE QUEEN....!), but there's a time and a place for everything, as they say.
Dean said that he would be fair to Kerry if he were elected, and he's keeping his promise well _before_ the election. That's what I like about Dean, he's consistent and fair.
I have no use for Sampley, nor do I fault John Kerry for flipping him off, if indeed he did (and given that NewsMax is the source, that's a pretty big "if"). BUT. Your demand that no one call anyone a traitor in public unless he can produce proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is downright loony. Even criminal courts don't require that standard of proof to be met, unless the defendant happens to be O.J. Simpson, in which case no amount of evidence will suffice. Civil courts rule on proof by preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not), and even that standard could rarely be met in the aggregate if courts required each individual witness to meet it before being allowed to testify.
If anyone (not Sampley) has bona fide evidence that either of the top contenders for the White House ticket might have committed treason, I want to hear about it. If that candidate wants to come back and show that this evidence is not genuine, or that it has an innocent explanation, that's fine, let him do so. Then, and only then, will we the people be in a position to decide whether the allegation was good or not. In Dean's World, that would never happen since we'd never hear the evidence in question to begin with.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for imposing a criminal fine, throwing a defendant in prison, or worse. It's not good for anything else. The rationale behind that lopsided standard is that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted. Do you really want to see that reasoning applied to the Presidency?!
My thought on reading this is that many of the people who were deriding Kerry (deservedly, in my view--it's of a piece with his general "that SOB knocked me down/do you know who I am" immaturity) for his response to Sampley, would've stomped & cheered had Bush done the same to Michael Moore, for example. I'm voting for Bush in the fall, but that doesn't mean I'm in lock step with anyone.
Kerry didn’t call an entire party “lying crooks”. The fact that you believe that is proof that some crooks have been er, lying to you...
He called some GOP operatives lying crooks. This was fairly clear to me when I heard it at the time. I was shocked (though perhaps shouldn’t have been) when Sapphire said the statement applied to the entire party. I am horrified to see that HH believes anything he reads in the NY Times...
Well, the definition of treason legally is evolving as is any concept in law. The root of the common law understanding of treason is, not quite quote, an adherence to a foreign power during time of war, lending aid and comfort to the enemy. As some folks may not know, the testimony Kerry gave before the House was piped over PA speakers to American POWs to convince them that the country had disavowed their actions. Did Kerry know this? He does now. Any contrition? Hmmm, not that I know of. The more damning bit though is the fact, undisputed by Kerry, that he met privately with the Communist delegation to the Paris Peace Accords. What was said is a closely held secret but I think we can imagine it tracked with his public pronouncements on the war so unless Kerry or some other party wants to tell us, in some detail what was said, it is quite resonable to assume he was trying to help them conclude the war on more favorable terms than otherwise. No less an authority than General Vo Nguyen Giap... Eisenhower to Ho's Roosevelt, said recently and publicly that the war was not won on the battlefield but by the war protestors who undermined US resolve. Gee, Dean, I guess I can expect a kick in the nuts if we ever meet. Kerry is a traitor.
Well, the definition of treason legally is evolving as is any concept in law. The root of the common law understanding of treason is, not quite quote, an adherence to a foreign power during time of war, lending aid and comfort to the enemy. As some folks may not know, the testimony Kerry gave before the House was piped over PA speakers to American POWs to convince them that the country had disavowed their actions. Did Kerry know this? He does now. Any contrition? Hmmm, not that I know of. The more damning bit though is the fact, undisputed by Kerry, that he met privately with the Communist delegation to the Paris Peace Accords. What was said is a closely held secret but I think we can imagine it tracked with his public pronouncements on the war so unless Kerry or some other party wants to tell us, in some detail what was said, it is quite resonable to assume he was trying to help them conclude the war on more favorable terms than otherwise. No less an authority than General Vo Nguyen Giap... Eisenhower to Ho's Roosevelt, said recently and publicly that the war was not won on the battlefield but by the war protestors who undermined US resolve. Gee, Dean, I guess I can expect a kick in the nuts if we ever meet. Kerry is a traitor.
Oh, and while we are demonstrating outrage at political accusations, we might reserve a kick in the dick, or at least the crotch, for Teresa H-K who not long ago denounced the entire Bush-Cheney record as "a crime against all humankind." I mean, if betraying your country is bad, certainly betraying your species IS WORSE. And a specious accusation of such...
And Kerry has little room to gripe on this score since a staple of his stump speach has been, since the primaries started, "Benedict Arnold CEOs". So he is accusing, what, hundreds if not thousands of Americans of being traitors. For what? For participating in trade outside US borders. May we call John, "Benedict" and be secure from his wrath as well as yours? "Benedict Arnold Kerry"... has quite a ring to it.
Dean,
John Kerry's record in Viet Nam and his public conduct in connection with the war after he returned to the United States has been questioned by veterans other than Mr Sampley.
In any case, Sampley is being no more insistently impolite about Kerry and his record than John Boehner is about US congressman Jim McDermott (R-WA), who facilitated a secret and illegal taping of Boehner's telephone conversations with former US congressman and speaker of the house Newt Gingrich during the Clinton era. (If you disagree with any of this, it might behoove you to read the ads you run on your own web site.)
Kerry and McDermott both are public figures, and therefore in lesser position to threaten antagonists with laws dealing with libel and slander.
I happen to agree with Mr Boehner about McDermott, and I agree with Mr Sampley that Kerry sold out the uniform he wore as a naval officer by his despicable conduct -- both in and out of uniform -- after he returned to the United States from Viet Nam in the early 1970s.
Those who can't stand the heat ought to get the hell out of the kitchen, as president Harry S Truman would have reminded you.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Here's how it goes:
Bush is an asshole. Kerry is a war hero. Stampley is an asshole. Anyone who defends Stampley is an asshole.
Dean got one right. It was bound to happen one of these days. I'm just glad I actually lived long enough to see it.
And another thing: Megapotamus, why can't you spell the word "speech" correctly? You seem to think the word is "speach." Jesus Christ, I knew better than that when I was in the second grade.
I hope they got some footage of Kerry giving the finger to a veteran. Y'know, for commercials. The Republican Party should get a guy with a camera to follow Kerry so they can record stuff like that.
I hope they got some footage of Kerry giving the finger to a veteran. Y'know, for commercials. The Republican Party should get a guy with a camera to follow Kerry so they can record stuff like that.
WOuld I fel the same way if Sampleyl didn't run a web site full of proven lies? And didn't have a record of similar attacks on his fellow Vets? Probably not quite.
Nevertheless: You do not accuse someone of treason without being willing to hold up high standards of evidence.
If it's any consolation, I feel exactly the same way about the assholes who pushed the bogus "Bush AWOL" crap and who call him a "liar" on the WMD issue. They're no better. At all.
Why is anyone assuming that Newsmax's story is even truthful?
"I strongly caution reporters who may be contacted by or are interested in Mr. Ted Sampley and the various organizations he claims to represent, and his opinions on the subject of Senator Kerry, or any subject for that matter, to investigate thoroughly Mr. Sampley's background and history of spreading outrageous slander and other disreputable behavior before inadvertently lending him or his allegations any credibility."
"I am well familiar with Mr. Sampley, and I know him to be one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans. The many veterans I know would think it a disgrace to be considered a comrade or supporter of Ted Sampley."
-Sen. John McCain
Certainly, I am chastened and corrected. Now, doppleganger, you have declared Bush an asshole. I declare Kerry a traitor. Difference is, I offer support. While I don't look forward to any long exegis on the anatomical reference, maybe you could explain why, given the public record, Kerry is no traitor? There is only one explaination that I can see, it is the same one given by the Rosenbergs and no doubt would have been by Alger Hiss if he had the balls to own up to what he had done. That is, an adherence to a Higher Loyalty. It's the same one the American revolutionaries used, to my mind quite validly. But the higher allegiance Kerry could claim can only be to the Communist cause. Is that as valid as the precepts in the Declaration? I look forward to a public debate on that topic, or rather a re-hash of the one from '72 wherein Ho Chi Mihn played the part of George Washington. I'm not sure what the Revolutionary era counterparts would be to the Boat People, the re-education camps and those executed summarily after the fall of Saigon. We do still agree that the antagonists in Viet Nam were Communists, right? Or has that gone down the memory hole now?
Um, no. Treason (scroll down to Art. 3, Sect. 3) is one of only three crimes (the other two being slavery and the illegal importation of alcohol into a dry state) which are specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution so that their definitions will not evolve. Treason consists only of "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Convictions can only be secured by an admission in open court, or by the sworn testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act. Thus, if we were to take the Esmay standard seriously, no one would ever be allowed to accuse anyone of treason, no matter how solid his evidence may be, unless there was another person watching.
Dean,
If someone were to sign himself as "Esmay Dean" and post on your website, what what you say and how long would you let him do that?
Obviously I am Arnold Harris and not the "Harris Arnold" who commented above. I don't fundamentally care what this person's opinions are. But I do not look kindly on him using my name to express them.
I trust you have some sort of policy on Dean's World for handling matters such as this.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Xrlq: If you are to take the Esmay standard seriously, you do not accuse the leader of the free world, or the potential leader of the free world, of committing treason unless you can match Constitutional standards for same. That is correct.
If you believe Kerry is guilty of treason, prove it. Otherwise, shut up and debate him on the issues, or on issues where you believe his character should be questioned.
Nothing requires you to live up to my standards of course. I just believe that this is how a patriot should behave in times of war.
And by the way, why do you suppose the founders set the bar for proving treason so high? Could it be because they viewed it as the most offensive of all possible crimes against the nation, and thus should only be levelled at someone if the highest possible standards of evidence were used?
Arnold: I can't decide if "Harris Arnold" is a jokester or for real. The name could be coincidental. He is not, so far anyway, behaving in what I'd call a trollish fashion, or mocking you in some way, is he?
This sort of thing will no doubt be sorted out when we go to comment registration, which should be soon. But in any case if Harris Arnold does something offensive we'll deal with it.
Xrlq; The Constitution doesn't evolve? I wish fervently that were so. My primer on this is The New Meaning of Treason, treating the cases of Lord Haw Haw, Tokyo Rose and such from WWII as well as the Rosenberg and Hiss cases. The evolution is a political one, the execution of Lord Haw Haw, though pretty obviously justified if you count broadcasting propaganda from nazi shores as "levying war" (I certainly do), caused a backlash against such, what? harsh? literal? appropriate punishment? was quite significant and made vigorous prosecution for treason almost unknown in England. The Philby cases are also addressed in the book.
Dean; Did Kerry's attempt to make his own foreign policy, in opposition to the one our Constitutional order provided us, not count as treason? I know your point; the charge is too inflammatory to be idly made. I don't make it idly and even on the circumstances I lay out above, wouldn't do it if George Bush were not perpetually vilified as a traitor to country, to decency and to humanity. Kerry made this bed like so many others. He has much to answer for and I think, electorally, he will.
No, Dean. "Harris Arnold" does not appear to be mocking me in any way.
But one of the few characteristics I share with many of the muslims I met in the middle east when I studied there 30 years ago is I too do not believe in the likelihood of coincidences of this type. In other words, most things that happen are stochastic rather than random.
Just remember, I have first dibs on my own true name. Even if I don't have it copyrighted. After all, "Arnold Harris" is not exactly as common as "Fred Smith" or "John Jones".
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I don't believe Kerry is guilty of treason. If I did, and I had credible information to back that view up, I'd post it. I sure as hell wouldn't keep it under wraps just because it may not be enough by itself to secure a criminal conviction. Weighing the sufficiency of the evidence - all of it taken together, not one witness's testimony in a vacuum - is the job of the jury. It's not up to the individual witnesses to do that, and any witness who does can be held in contempt.
As I've pointed out before, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a criminal standard. That's all it is; it's not good for anything else. For this jury, in the court of public opinion on the eve of a presidential election, reasonable, unrebutted suspicion is plenty serious to disqualify someone for office. Criminal justice errs on the side of acquitting those who might be innocent. Elections err on the side of not electing those who might be guilty.
Better for ten traitors to get elected than have one innocent candidate lose an election because he's mistakenly believed to be a traitor? I don't think so.
Evidence is evidence. Make it good evidence and it's worthy as an election issue.
The point is, it had better be good, because you're accusing someone of something worse than murder, frankly.
Fair enough.
if Kerry's self-admitted trip to Paris to advise the North Vietnamese negotiating delegation to the Paris peace talks doesn't qualify as "adhering to their enemies, (and) giving them aid and comfort," then what in god's name does qualify? just because you are personally uncomfortable with that reality doesn't mean that others are precluded from pointing it out. he advised the enemy during timeof war: ergo, he IS a traitor, whether the Feds see fit to bring him to justice or not. as such, i'll give him every bit the respect he deserves, i.e. none.
Booyah, Bob!
I'm having a hard time seeing meeting with North Vietnamese officials in France as treason. Unless he was giving them intel or something. Sorry.
>Unless he was giving them intel or something.
or giving them suggestions as to how to use the US news media to manipulate the talks?
You'll have to specify what exactly was said and what the aim was.
If he gave them information that helped kill more soldiers, that's pretty damning. But if all he's really guilty of is giving suggestions for negotiations--said negotiations being for the purpose of ending the war in the first place, remember--I can't call that treason.
The Rosenbergs were traitors. Hiss was a traitor. Benedict Arnold was a traitor. When you get something that rises to that level, call me.
Well Dean, if our working definition is "adhering to their enemies and giving them aid and comfort", any tactical, political advice would qualify. You don't see it? M'Kay! But the initial post was on how any suggestion that John Kerry engaged in traitorous acts is not just out of bounds but opens one up to physical assault! I know that bit is drollery (at least I hope so) but this is a fundamental question in politics; the terms of debate. To whom do we listen? What assertion brands one a "nut", just prima fascia?Obviously, you do not listen to anyone calling Kerry a traitor. I'm guessing you wouldn't listen to anyone calling Bush a traitor but that would mean tuning out Kennedy, Daschle, Pelosi, Kerry himself of course... who am I missing? Well, et al, let's say. But on the merits of the accusation, as Xrlq has said, it is a political indictment, not one from a Grand Jury (although it should have been 30 years ago) and on that measure, at the "aid and comfort" (a strategically gifted Snicker bar would suffice) man, it's a slam dunk! Kerry is a traitor.
Sorry, your post hit as I was composing, but a question, Dean, isn't it incumbent on Kerry then to give us a full accounting, under adversarial scrutiny preferably, of what WAS said? And what if the advice he gave was simply "You guys should hang in there."? Wouldn't that have resulted in the deaths of more sericemen? I'm not even going into the question of the aftermath of the war, which you surely must know was hellish for the South AND Cambodia. Is a Communist victory; political, military and economic, a trifle? Kerry, like many of his contemporaries, lent "aid and comfort" not just to America's enemies but the sincerest enemies of humanity ever to have uncoiled themselves from their lair. Geez. I am baffled by your mental block here.
You have got to be kinding me. You are actually defending Kerry because someone, anyone, said something to him he didn't like and Kerry's best response was to flip the guy off in front of a bunch of school children!! And you expect this man to lead the entire nation? What is he going to do when another leader with nukes pisses him off? Flip him off too? Do you think George Bush would have reacted this way? No, George Bush would have done the proper, presidential thing and ignored him. There is NO excuse for what Kerry did. It shows his complete ignorance and lack of decision skills. The Kerry has the mental equivalence of a school yard punk and he showed it again. But I don't care what he does, you liberals will defend anything. Let's have George Bush flip off a reporter next time they ask for an apology for Iraq and see if the media ignores that like they've ignored this.
Kerry makes me want to puke.
Megapotomus: They were there to negotiate peace. So no I don't consider it automatically treasonous. If you want to demand a full accounting, that's fine.
IHateLiberals: As I said, so far as I'm concerned he should have been meaner to the guy. For that matter, I didn't think any less of George Bush when he called that reporter from the New York Times an asshole. But you know, if flipping someone the bird is a disqualifier for you to elect someone President, then don't vote for him. It won't affect my vote one way or the other, except that I admire Kerry for standing up to the jerkwad.
"He betrayed this country" - Al Gore
THese comments are in reference to this statement you wrote
"If you can't prove--prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, in a way that would stand up in a court of law--that the man you're accusing of treason was really a traitor, then you shut up and you treat this man with with the respect he deserves"
Treason - Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason
"Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., clad in a bomber jacket, told a crowd of approximately 70 at the Veterans of Foreign War Post 3949 in Iowa City that President Bush has betrayed the nation's military and veterans"
http://www.dailyiowan.com/main.cfm?include=subApplication&subApplicationName=quickRegister&fuse=registrationOrLoginRequired&thereferer=http%3A//www.dailyiowan.com/news/2003/11/11/Metro/Kerry.Tells.Vets.Bush.Has.betrayed.Them-554266.shtml
" But calling a decorated combat veteran a traitor, and spreading documented lies about him?"
That's what Kerry did to his fellow Vietnem vets in his 1971 Congressional testimony, so I have a hard time having much sympathy when it happens to him.
Sampley should be pissed at his own party.
* GW Bush - dodged Vietnam by way of his father getting him into the Texas National Guard, still says that he's "been to war." Huh?
* VP Cheney - several deferments, the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service")
* Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - sought deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State
*Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.
* Majority Leader Dick Armey- avoided the draft, did not serve.
* Majority Whip Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve. "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself."
* Former Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve.
* Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve, too busy being a Republican.
* Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve
* Former President Ronald Reagan - served in a noncombat role. He later seems to have confused his role as an actor playing a tail gunner with the real thing.
* "B-1" Bob Dornan - avoided Korean War combat duty by enrolling in college acting classes (Orange County Register article)
* Phil Gramm - avoided the draft, did not serve, four (?) student deferments
* Don Nickles, Senate Minority Whip - Did not serve
* Senator Richard Shelby, did not serve
* JC Watts - did not serve
* Jack Kemp, did not serve
* Dan Quayle, avoided Vietnam service, got a slot in the journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard when the unit was at 150% capacity
* Eliot Abrams, did not serve
* Vin Weber, did not serve
* Richard Perle, did not serve (is the current bloodshed in the Middle East a direct result of his treasonous meddling in Clinton Administrstion foreign policy?)
* Rudy Giuliani, did not serve
* John Engler, did not serve
Puditocracy and Preacher-types (See also Media Whores Online)
* George Will, did not serve
* Sean Hannity, did not serve
* Chris Matthews, Mediawhore, did not serve.
* Bill O'Reilly, did not serve
* Paul Gigot, did not serve.
* Bill Bennett, Did not serve
* Pat Buchanan, did not serve
* Rush Limbaugh, did not serve
* Bill Kristol, did not serve
Dean: "I'm having a hard time seeing meeting with North Vietnamese officials in France as treason."
Let's do some substitution:
"I'm having a hard time seeing meeting with Imperial British officials ... as treason." (whoops, there goes Benedict now!)
"I'm having a hard time seeing meeting with Kaiser Wilhelm officials ... as treason."
"I'm having a hard time seeing meeting with Nazi officials ... as treason."
"I'm having a hard time seeing meeting with North Korean officials ... as treason."
Especially when you consider that the individual in question is an honorably discharged US veteran meeting with the enemy during wartime.
Please note that we were at war with North Vietnam at the time, and Kerry was NOT an officially sanctioned emissary of the United States. Don't forget the "aid and comfort" clause. Kerry was kissing up to the men who were killing American soldiers and torturing POWs.
I'd have to say (first approximation) that's not treason, but it's skating close to the line, mainly because I'd be worried about precedents for supressing honest dissent. Kerry, Fonda, and others came as close to the line as you could without crossing it. More than a few men and women believe they crossed that line.
Note that I'm talking about the activists who actually met with North Vietnamese leaders and publicly supported our (then) enemy. This is much different from someone who went to peace marches, burned his draft card, or made speeches against the war.
I'm surprised at your comment that you would say the same about any veteran, "crazy website" or no. (BTW, I never got around to his actual site; it wasn't on the first three pages in the Google list)
Note that Sampley's encounter with Kerry at the memorial did NOT involve the words "traitor" or "treason." Sampley did say "betray," and that's a perfectly fair assessment of Kerry's early 70s behavior.
I repeat: Kerry accused his brothers in arms of war crimes. He said they were rapists and murderers. He did so while deliberately cashing in on his status as a "decorated veteran."
Okay Dean, you don't think his actions were treasonous, fine. Are you interested in all in other criminal acts? This from the USC;
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > Sec. 953. Prev | Next
Sec. 953. - Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects
And why would such a statute exist? Could it be because once a citizen is behind closed doors with an enemy government, we cannot really know what went on? I'm not sure of the statute of limitations on this but certainly, those who are claiming "treason" is an unreasonable charge can see that just the prima fascia facts here would support a conviction no matter what was said between the parties. John Kerry is a traitor and not just any such, a Communist traitor. Facts. Period.
Oh, and Jordi, since you hold service in such high regard, I'm sure you, like me, voted for Bob Dole over Bill Clinton. Right?
Since we are discussing people doing deferrments for the draft.
Clinton - dodged the draft.
Kerry - Deferment turned down. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$10LWNFXPWQ4DXQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2004/03/07/wkerr07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/07/ixnewstop.html)
Kerry on Vietnam -
http://qando.net/archives/002756.htm\
I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."
But two weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed -- and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous.
Bush using his father's influence to get into Natl guard MYTH
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/04/bush.02/
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/001394.html
However, the Dallas Morning News, which also looked into Bush's military record, reported that while Bush's unit in Texas had a waiting list for many spots, he was accepted because he was one of a handful of applicants willing and qualified to spend more than a year in active training flying F-102 jets.
Kerry certainly knows about war crimes after all he committed them.
"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others," said Kerry as an anti-war activist guest on NBC’s Meet the Press (quoted in Brinkley’s book, page 362) after he returned stateside, "in that I shot in free fire zones, fired .50-caliber machine [gun] bullets, used harass-and-interdiction fire, joined in search-and-destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts are contrary to the laws of the Geneva Convention, and all were ordered as written, established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals."
Iraq war opponents
http://washtimes.com/world/20040503-123158-1229r.htm
Iraq War Opponents Fill Oil-For-Food 'vouchers' List
Companies, politicians and pro-Saddam Hussein activists from countries that opposed the war in Iraq figure heavily in a list of about 270 recipients of suspected oil bribes from Iraq under the scandal-plagued UN oil-for-food program, investigators say. "This secured the cooperation and support of countries that included members of the Security Council of the United Nations."
and finally the Liberals Creed (dont have the source sorry)
A string of recent letters and articles from those of a more liberal persuasion suggest that they choose to ignore or simply do not believe information which is inconsistent with their basic tenets. Theirs is a policy of faith, and here is their creed.
We believe in the United Nations, and Kofi Annan, the maker of international legitimacy.
We believe that the UN inspections worked.
We believe that SCUD missiles fired at U.S. troops minutes after the war began don’t change anything;
We believe that 3 liters of sarin gas used against U.S. troops doesn’t change anything;
We believe that finding evidence of mustard gas doesn’t change anything.
We believe that the war in Iraq conducted by a Republican president was unjustified because it lacked UN approval;
We believe that the "military action" in Kosovo conducted by a Democratic president was justified without UN approval.
We believe that the Iraq war was unilateral.
We believe that the participation of Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine does not change the fact that the war was unilateral;
We believe that multilateralism can only be achieved with the participation of France and Germany;
We believe in multilateralism.
We believe that this war was motivated by greed and oil;
We believe that when France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war, they were motivated by principle, and not by sweetheart oil deals or Oil-For-Food kickbacks;
We believe that US oil prices are too high, and that the administration failed in its responsibility to do something about it.
We believe that the U.S. may only legitimately use force for humanitarian ends in one place if it does so in all places where aid might be needed;
We believe that the U.S. may not quell threats in places where the cost is relatively low unless it is willing to use force in places like North Korea, where the cost in lives would likely be very high;
We believe that a humanitarian action is only truly humanitarian if there are no strategic interests to muddle the altruism.
We believe that President Bush lied.
We believe that Prime Minister Blair lied.
We believe that when Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt voted for the war based on the same intelligence relied upon by Bush and Blair, they made reasonable decisions based on the intelligence available at the time.
We believe that the administration did not make the case for war;
We believe that the administration offered many different reasons but could not offer a coherent message explaining the need to go to war;
We believe that the administration made perfectly clear that the only reason we were going to war was because of the threat from WMDs
We believe that there were no WMDs.
We believe that finding sarin gas is 14th page news;
We believe that if the sarin gas is old, then it really isn’t a WMD we were looking for;
We believe that it wasn’t really sarin gas;
We believe that sarin gas isn’t necessarily a WMD.
We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq.
We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that Saddam’s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak—complete with a Boeing 707 plane used for hijacking drills—did not exist or posed no real threat;
We believe that it was merely a coincidence that the pharmaceutical factory bombed by President Clinton in Sudan was using al Qaeda funds and a uniquely Iraqi formula to produce VX gas;
We believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves
We believe that the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib is widespread and is probably the tip of the iceberg;
We believe that Abu Ghraib proves that the America’s occupation is no different than Saddam’s tyranny;
We believe that any attempt to suggest that there is a moral difference between a regime which systematically killed 300,000 people and tortured countless others and a regime which punished the acts of Abu Ghraib is illegitimate.
We believe that soldiers deliberately target women and children;
We believe that the soldiers abuse and kill Iraqis because they are racists;
We support our troops.
We believe that no one should question our statement that we "support our troops;"
We believe that the best thing that could happen for this country would be for Bush to lose in November;
We believe that the best way for Bush to lose in November is for the Iraq effort to go poorly, even if that means that more Iraqis and troops will die;
We believe that most of the troops are minorities and the poor;
We believe that when the word "heroes" is used to describe our troops, it should always be enclosed in scare quotes.
We believe in quagmire.
We believe that when fringe Iraqi groups attack hard targets and are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis;
We believe that Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam.
We believe that Vietnam is the lens through which all wars should be viewed.
We believe that soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers;
We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.
We believe that because John Kerry is a hero, he necessarily has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.
We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief.
We believe in the trinity: NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. We believe in Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and all the DNC, and we look for President Clinton yet to come. Amen
And oh by the way. The econmy is going terrible isn't it?
Guys, this story isn't even true. Don't you think the other news outlets would have picked up on it by now?
BTW, I emailed the author and his only source is Ted Sampley himself. That's how they came to "learn" of the confrontation.
You can email the NewsMax author, John LeBoutillier, yourself at JOHNLEBOUT@aol.com.
hey dean, kerry was still active in the naval reserve at the time he met with the vietnamese in paris. since the dems are so big on apologies why has kerry never apologized for his repulsive behavior.
I'm one of those men. If Kerry and Fonda didn't cross that line, then they skirted close enough to it to damn near rub it out.
And Dean's welcome to take a shot at kicking me in the nads for saying that if we should ever meet. It'd make for an interesting discussion. ;)