Kerry and Jane Fonda

[Boris]

I guess there is a photo being ciculated that shows Kerry and Hanoi Jane at an anti-war rally. The photos is a fake.

Here's a link for more detail

sfgate article (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/20/MNG4S54RGO1.DTL)

[adios]

I think it's crap too. I find it unfortunate that the Viet Nam war is being focused on. I thought Henninger had a great op ed piece in todays WSJ that alluded to the silliness of this kind of thing.

[adios]

IMO if the Democrats want to make what the candidates did 30 years ago or so an issue Kerry has to account for statements like these he made in an interview for the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper.

"I'm an internationalist," Kerry told The Harvard Crimson 10 months after returning home from Vietnam. "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

The Crimson said in a story today the decorated veteran "spoke in fierce terms during his daylong interview" Feb. 13, 1970, with the paper's Samuel Z. Goldhaber.

Kerry, who enjoys a commanding lead for the Democratic presidential nomination, told Goldhaber he wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity."

"The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care," Kerry said.

Apparently the Bush campaign stategy is to provide linkage to these statements made by Kerry long ago and his voting record in Congress. Kerry in his defense stated in another one of his possible flip-flops:


The Massachusetts senator's campaign did not comment on the remarks, the Crimson reported, but noted the candidate has said he supports the autonomy of the U.S. military and has not called for a scale-back of CIA operations.

Fair is fair if 30 years ago is relevant it's relevant for both candidates especially if the candidates public service shows that he still is pre-disposed to such viewpoints.

Kerry wanted U.N. to lead US troops (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37068)

ELECTION 2004
Kerry wanted U.N.
to lead U.S. troops
Harvard paper unearths old interview, candidate favored elimination of CIA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 11, 2004
12:20 p.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

The Harvard Crimson newspaper has unearthed a 1970 interview with John Kerry in which the then-congressional candidate said he favored eliminating the CIA and having the United States military deployed only by the authority of the United Nations.

"I'm an internationalist," Kerry told The Harvard Crimson 10 months after returning home from Vietnam. "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

The Crimson said in a story today the decorated veteran "spoke in fierce terms during his daylong interview" Feb. 13, 1970, with the paper's Samuel Z. Goldhaber.

Kerry, who enjoys a commanding lead for the Democratic presidential nomination, told Goldhaber he wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity."

"The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care," Kerry said.

The Massachusetts senator's campaign did not comment on the remarks, the Crimson reported, but noted the candidate has said he supports the autonomy of the U.S. military and has not called for a scale-back of CIA operations.

Kerry came across in the interview as "a fiery, novice politician inspired by his opposition to the Vietnam War," the campus paper said.

Goldhaber told the Crimson yesterday, "He struck me as very ambitious. He struck me as the sort of person – even back then, newly returned from Vietnam – who was thinking about running for president."

Former Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich told the Crimson he thought Kerry's 1970 remarks were appropriate and "completely understandable" in the context of the Vietnam War.

A spokesperson for President Bush's reelection campaign, however, said the statements showed Kerry's weakness on defense.

"President Bush will never cede the best interests of the national security of the American people to anybody but the president of the United States, along with the Congress," said the spokesperson, Kevin A. Madden.

Harvard grad Adam Clymer, political director of the National Annenberg Election Survey at the University of Pennsylvania, said he expects the comments to be useful to the Bush campaign.

"If I were them, I'd use this," said Clymer. "I'd use it in direct mail."

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair is fair if 30 years ago is relevant it's relevant for both candidates especially if the candidates public service shows that he still is pre-disposed to such viewpoints.


[/ QUOTE ]

"Such viewpoints" is vague. Your point is well taken but keep in mind that actions taken 30 years ago are different than thoughts expressed 30 years ago. You can change your mind but you can't change what you did (or didn't do).

[adios]

I meant the viewpoints he expressed in the interview at Harvard that I quoted. I haven't been able to get a copy of the interview. The viewpoints I referred to were:

"I'm an internationalist," Kerry told The Harvard Crimson 10 months after returning home from Vietnam. "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

and

Kerry, who enjoys a commanding lead for the Democratic presidential nomination, told Goldhaber he wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity."

IMO if we see Senator Kerry has a voting record in Congress consistent with these viewpoints he expressed in yesteryear, then we could properly surmise that he hasn't changed them over the past 30 or so years. To be fair Kerry voted to sanction the Iraqi intervention but has stated that only as a last possible resort. Does this mean that the US would have to have the approval of the UN to do so? Kerry voted against Desert Storm as well. Kerry has also made noises something like the "United States has to rejoin with the community of nations again" which to me implies that some sort of UN approval is required in order for the US to take military action. From my vantage point the US has never left the community of nations. Here's a quote from an op ed piece in the WSJ on Wednesday that I think somes it up well:

[ QUOTE ]
This position, as espoused by John Kerry among others, holds that the problem with the war in Iraq was not the objective of the war, or even the war itself, but the way the decision to go to war was reached. It was not made multilaterally; and therefore it was not a war that the U.S. should have been engaged in.

Let's trim off the rhetoric and see what the word "multilateral" really means. Certainly it cannot mean merely having allies, since the U.S. had allies in its invasion of Iraq -- and quite respectable ones, too, such as Britain and Spain. But if it means having enough allies to win the war, then clearly, since the Saddam regime is no more, it follows we had enough allies.

Multilateralism, as it is currently used by leading Democrats, means only one thing: action that is officially approved by the United Nations. But the moment this is grasped, the multilateral mirage vanishes. No Democratic candidate can tell the American people that he will only defend their national interests when the U.N. says it's okay for him to do it. That, like the pacifist option, is the path of political suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]

My interpretation is that messrs Kerry and Edwards mean that if France, Russia, and Germany are not along for the ride that the action taken is not multilateral. I think the nations that comprised the coalition for the Iraqi intervention are hardly insignificant.

[George Rice]

It's certainly fair to bring up what Kerry said 30 years ago, even if Bush hadn't been AWOL. And the voters can decide for themselves what weight they will put on such statements. But as another poster pointed out, what one did is more significant than what one said, in most instances.

But what really conserns me on this site is that some posters are having a hard time with logic--something you'd expect a poker player to have no problem with.

Here's an example:

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry in his defense stated in another one of his possible flip-flops:


[/ QUOTE ]

This sentence suggests that what follows will be something Kerry offers in his defense. But here is what followed:

[ QUOTE ]
The Massachusetts senator's campaign did not comment on the remarks, the Crimson reported, but noted the candidate has said he supports the autonomy of the U.S. military and has not called for a scale-back of CIA operations.


[/ QUOTE ]

Note that Kerry has not responeded. Nor has his campaign. The "Crimson" noted that the candidate has said that he supports . . . (empasis added)

Now Kerry may have have changed his position on this. We may conclude this by comparing his current position with what he said more than 30 years ago. And we may choose not to give him credit for the situation being different now, or for his opinions evolving with age. But we certainly can not say that the paragraph that followed adios' declaration contained anything Kerry said in his defense.

This is the problem I have with some of the posters on this forum. I feel that they purposely engage in misdirection, trying to make their point. Perhaps they just don't understand things and make these logical errors all the time. It would certainly explain some of the opinions I've seen posted here. But in this case, I'll give adios credit for just making a simple error. We all do that from time to time. Let's hope he's more careful next time.

[Cyrus]

We are gonna see a lot more of those willy nortons.

Wake Up CALL, for instance, has just posted a request for donating to a website of "Veterans Agains Kerry" that sports a caricature of John Kerry wearing a Vietkong hat and calls Kerry "Hanoi John".

Lest we forget, John Kerry served in the military, went to Vietnam, risked his life and was decorated for bravery.

[Taxman]

I can't believe the people that condemn Kerry for speaking out against the Vietnam war after coming home. He never said that he hoped all of the troops died there or something similar, he just thought the war was wrong as do many people in the US today. It's like the idiots who claim I don't support the troops because I don't like the war in Iraq. Of course I support the troops! I want them to live to come home and see their families. I want them to kick Saddam's ass as much as the next guy. What I didn't want was to see them there in the first place, risking their lives for no real reason that has yet been defined other than "to liberate the Iraqi people (who we previously placed under this foul dictator when we wanted him to invade Iran)." I support the troops as much as anyone. They have to follow oredrs no matter what they might be. What I don't support is the administration.