Kerry part of assassination meetings!

But at least two eyewitnesses now say he was present when the VVAW voted on whether to assassinate pro-war members of Congress � a proposal that led to Kerry's resignation.

"But according to the current head of Missouri Veterans for Kerry, Randy Barnes, Mr. Kerry, who was then 27, was at the meeting, voted against the plot, and then orally resigned from the organization."

www.newsmax.com...

Wow, i bet Kerry didn't think he would be running for government back then when he was in a group plotting to kill them!! This cannot be good for his campaign, although I am impressed with his anit-war efforts. .

[edit on 6/9/2004 by earthtone]

now if this is true fine but my question is why didnt this come up sooner?

i'm not saying that what ever happened is less true because its brought up now but is it because of genuine concern over him and what he might do/have done or is it being used to just smear him?

anti-war is one thing, asassination plots are another matter and if he was a part of it in anyway...well i'm not sure what to think of him other than "dirtbag". but this depends on whether this is true. things are rarely as they seem.

before i decide on this situation i'm going to wait and see what happens and see what else comes out and make a more informed decision later. we owe it to ourselves that much at least. we dont want to be rash and make a snap decision only to potentially have it come back to haunt us do we?

[edit on 9-6-2004 by ThePrankMonkey]

ThePrankMonkey

I bet you love this story, it makes your site of politics looks better.

But the truth, this is no more than propaganda, this administration is starting to get to desperate anything will help.

I give it a couple of days and is just going to die down as a lie.

Be patient ThePrankMonkey your moment of happiness will come to end.


Theprankmonkey, I am just pulling your strings, so be nice to me.

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
why didnt this come up sooner?


think of him other than "dirtbag".

It's actually an old discovery, March 12, 2004 the article that I linked is dated. To be fair prank, if he was there it seems that he voted against the idea and/or left when it came up. Still pretty damn scandalous though .

Quite a bit of stuff here :

justoneminute.typepad.com...

marg i am no nicer to you nor am i meaner to you than i am anyone else. however your confession of bating me will be noted and i'm suggesting you stop it.


but to address more than your bate...

no i dont love this story anymore than i love to see stories that make any politician look bad or good. its just a story, an article to read. it doesnt reenforce or invalidate any thoughts i may have of the guy. as i've stated before which you may or may not be aware of...there's good point to any person, kerry, bush, gore, cheney but sometimes they're just hard to see for all the negativity people love to focus on.

i've not really made my mind up about kerry either way but you seem to believe i have. its so nice to see you can read minds and you know what i think more than i do. in general, i think he's just a politician, he's self serving and changes his stance according to which way the wind blows, he's not any better or any worse than any other politician that has reached the heights similar to his own.

do you mean site or side? i dont have a side except my own. i dont care about political parties, i only care about the people. you see i have nothing to gain from any of this regardless who is in office but i know i have a lot to lose depending who is in office, political affiliation being of no concern to me. i'm not up for election so anything i say isnt done to garner your vote. you would do well to remember that when you listen to ANY candidate up for election or reelection.

as i said in the previous post, if this is true, then he's a dirtbag. i didnt just say he's a dirtbag, you should try to not use your selective reading glasses.

now to earthtone!

i was thinking that if he was there he probably had no active role or left upon the subject coming up was a possiblity and i still think its a possiblity. which is why i STILL reserve judgement on this situation. i dont like the fact he was cavorting with people who even entertained the idea of asassinating people (presuming this accusation is true at all) but can he really be held accountable for that? i say no although guilt by association seems to work in blaming bush so why not kerry? no i dont hold him guilty for it, only if he had a truly active role in this.

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
i say no although guilt by association seems to work in blaming bush so why not kerry? no i dont hold him guilty for it, only if he had a truly active role in this.

Well, there is no way to be sure, spokesmen for Kerry apparently said he had "No personal recolaection" of the events on that day. Yuo would have thought you would remember something like an plan for assassination. Whatever happened, this will not help Kerry and against the burning Bush.

oh no, even his "i dont recollect" comment wont do him any favors.

i agree, how can a person not remember anything as striking as this is beyond me. i think he's playing sumb and figuring if he claims he doesnt remember it will blow over. i think being upfront and honest if he really didnt have any active role in that would be the best policiy but so many politicians deny everything until you have all the evidence THEN they come out with it. its a typical response. not acceptable IMO but it is par for the course in politics.

but this is but a beginning of the smearing of the two candidates. next week will be bush's turn.

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
oh no, even his "i dont recollect" comment wont do him any favors.

i . i think being upfront and honest if he really didnt have any active role in that would be the best policiy

Indeed. If he protested against the idea, then left as it is claimed, then why would he have deny the whole event. That what politicians do, deny until they are caught out.

Originally posted by marg6043


I give it a couple of days

This hasn't really gone big has it? Has anything come from the documents that were released about Kerry regarding this?

Look, Newsmax is part of the right-wing smear machine. Anyone who takes Newsmax seriously as a source of news is blinded by right-wing ideology and propaganda.

Two weeks ago, Newsmax ran a story about Kerry flipping the bird to a Viet Nam veteran, Ted Sampley. As far as I know the only people who picked up this Newsmax story were Little Green Footballs, a right-wing blog, and The Washington Times, a right-wing newspaper. Even Matt Drudge, who is always eager to publicize negative information about John Kerry, wouldn't touch this story. If you investigate this guy Ted Sampley, you will find that he is also part of the right-wing smear machine, and was involved in smearing John McCain in 2000 in the South Carolina Republican Primary.

If the Bush supporters on this forum want to engage in honest debate, as opposed to right-wing smear tactics, I suggest you use a news source more reputable than Newsmax.

Originally posted by donguillermo
.

If the Bush supporters on this forum want to engage in honest debate, as opposed to right-wing smear tactics, I suggest you use a news source more reputable than Newsmax.

Hey hey, I don't in any way support Bush or any of of his actions, quite the contrary actually. I dislike Kerry too. I did not know what you have mentioned about the source I used.

Originally posted by earthtone

Hey hey, I don't in any way support Bush or any of of his actions, quite the contrary actually. I dislike Kerry too. I did not know what you have mentioned about the source I used.

I gathered from your other posts that you are not a Bush supporter. I was just making a point about the inappropriateness of using Newsmax as a source in a political discussion. It may even be the case that both the story you cited and the story I cited are true. I have no way of knowing. But if you peruse the Newsmax website, the right-wing bias is obvious. You won't see any stories unfavorable to Bush, and all stories are given a right-wing spin.

As far as Bush and Kerry are concerned, I am extremely anti-Bush. I am not really pro-Kerry, and I disagree with many of Kerry's positions, especially on free trade and gun control. Many of the criticisms of Kerry, such as his being an unprincipled weasel, are true.

But Bush and his policies have been a total disaster for this country, and Bush himself obviously does not have the intelligence, knowledge, judgement or experience to be President. Then of course we have the scandals -- Valerie Plame outing, Chalabi, prisoner abuse, torture memos, AWOL, etc.

Of course Republicans will reply that Clinton had many scandals. The big difference is that the Clinton scandals had nothing to do with official government business. Well, maybe some of them did. The right-wing smear machine threw so much mud at Clinton, I am sure some of it had to do with official government business. But just about every Clinton scandal turned out to have no factual basis. The only one that did, as far as I can remember, was that he lied under oath about having sex with Monica. By the way, anyone who doubts the existence of a right-wing smear machine, or a vast right-wing conspiracy to bring down Bill Clinton, should read "The Hunting of the President" by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons.

And it amazes me that whenever anyone criticizes Bush, the Republicans either blame it on Clinton, or say that Clinton did it too. News Flash -- Clinton is no longer President. An intellectually honest defense of Bush would deal with the facts and policies of the Bush Presidency, and not be continually changing the subject to Bill Clinton.

donguillermo, thanks for the heads up on that newsmax source. I agree with what you are saying about Bush + Kerry also about Clinton. The Republicans crucified him for stuff that happened in his personal life, this has little to do with his presidency. And now he is gone, you are right, there is no point talking about it. bush is the new problem and he is far far worse.