“(a) The poll about the importance of winning in Iraq mentions nothing about traitors, this is your warped interpretation. 1+1=3 if you will.”

If half of the Democrats do not want America to win, then who do they want to win in Iraq? There is only one other choice for them: they must wish the enemy to win. Given the ACTIONS of the Democrats in Congress, it is obvious who they want to win. So, if you are rooting for your country’s enemies, what are you?

1+1=2.

I meant it when I said that I was giving most Democrats the benefit of the doubt and only labeling between 15% and 25% of them as traitors, when I could easily have defended the proposition that about HALF of the Democrats are. Further, their position on the subject is clear, given the party line votes that the party’s leaders (including all but a few their elected officials in Congress and the Senate) are acting as traitors as well by enabling Al Qaeda’s victory. Their behavior speaks for itself, just like they did in Vietnam.

“(b)If the FBI knew of this plot, why didn’t they prosecute?”

You should ask them. The facts, as I have stated them, are the facts. That reality does not agree with your perception is YOUR problem, not mine.

“Innocent till proven guilty still is a core of our constitution. Apparently the FBI didn’t feel there was enough evidence to prosecute.”

Nevertheless, what is, is.

“You must give a crap about what I think if you are staying up till 1:36 a.m”

Don’t flatter yourself.

Given your reaction to others on Hot Air on this and other topics, I have come to the conclusion that you are a liberal Democrat. Therefore, I decided to (1) place the facts about John Kerry on the record for others here to use in future discussions with you concerning facts about the Democratic Party’s 2004 candidate for President, and (2) to watch you try to dance, dance, dance in denial.

You haven’t disappointed me, BTW.

What does it say about Democrats in general when they nominate a man who (1) met with our enemy’s government in violation of the UCMJ during a time of war, (2) plotted with an anti-war organization — of which HE was a national director — to ASSASSINATE 6 US Senators, in violation of the US Code, and (3) lied under oath claiming that his “brothers in arms” were committing war crimes with the approval of the chain of command?

What does it say about the LOYALTY of the party membership as well as their leadership when they KNOWINGLY go to the primary polls to nominate a man whose entire career in public life was devoted to undermining the US military and intelligence services as a Senator, who openly supported the communist regime in Nicaragua, who openly supported the unilateral disarmament of the United States, and generally took the side of America’s enemies each and every time he was given the opportunity?

What does it say about the Democratic Party when they nominate a man whose photograph is on the wall of heroes of our former enemy’s war museum?

What it pointedly says about the Democrats is that they are NOT a patriotic party; that they are willing to elect a man who has already — OPENLY — violated his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against ALL ENEMIES. If the Democrats are willing to elect such a man to the post of Commander-in-Chief in their quest for political power, then one can hardly be blamed for believing that the Democrats are disloyal. That is what the evidence says.

You know, if your party WERE loyal Americans, they would have nominated a patriot like Joe Lieberman in 2004. But, instead, they nominated a liar and a traitor instead and in 2006, attempted to remove Lieberman from office.

Lieberman proves that it is possible to be a political liberal AND a patriot. But not as a Democrat.

Cased proven.

BTW, when I choose to post ought not to concern you. Be glad that I bothered to educate you, instead.

georgej on April 4, 2007 at 1:36 AM

(a) The poll about the importance of winning in Iraq mentions nothing about traitors, this is your warped interpretation. 1+1=3 if you will.
(b)If the FBI knew of this plot, why didn’t they prosecute? Innocent till proven guilty still is a core of our constitution. Apparently the FBI didn’t feel there was enough evidence to prosecute.
(c) You must give a crap about what I think if you are staying up till 1:36 a.m. to put your scree together and checking it the first thing when you wake up.
You seem to be in denial of more than I am.

Not only is John McCain doing poorly in fundraising and sagging in the polls, he’s having to fight constant charges of being a RINO (Republican in Name Only)…charges which, if you read virtually …

……

“(a) What empirical data do you have to define 25% of all Democrats as traitors?”

We had this discussion before, remember? I responded with my estimate that between 15% and 25% of rank and file Democrats are traitors. Why do I think this?

From: Investor’s Business Daily poll published 2/16/07:

Question: “How important is a US victory in Iraq.” 53% of Democrats answered “very important” or “somewhat important” in February, 2007.

100% – 53% = 47% of Democrats DO NOT THINK IT IMPORTANT THAT THE US WINS IN IRAQ.

Interestingly enough, in the IBD poll taken in December 2006, this percentage was 53% of Democrats DO NOT THINK IT IMPORTANT THAT THE US WINS IN IRAQ.

I was giving you Democrats the benefit of the doubt…..

“(b)What credible sources support your claims about Kerry?”

Are you a truther, too?

Kerry’s statements concerning claims of rampant US war crimes were made before the Fullbright committee while under oath, and are a matter record. Google it!

Concerning the other points I made…

From: The Boston Globe, “Kerry spoke of meeting negotiators on Vietnam,” by Michael Kranish and Patrick Healy, Globe Staff, March 25, 2004

WASHINGTON — In a question-and-answer session before a Senate committee in 1971, John F. Kerry, who was a leading antiwar activist at the time, asserted that 200,000 Vietnamese per year were being “murdered by the United States of America” and said he had gone to Paris and “talked with both delegations at the peace talks” and met with communist representatives.

From: NY Daily Sun, “HOW KERRY QUIT VETERANS GROUP AMID DARK PLOT When Talk Turned To Assassination He Exited, Vet Says,” by Thomas Lipscome, March 12, 2004.

The anti-war group that John Kerry was the principal spokesman for debated and voted on a plot to assassinate politicians who supported the Vietnam War.

Mr. Kerry denies being present at the November 12-15, 1971, meeting in Kansas City of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and says he quit the group before the meeting. 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.

Mr. Barnes was present as part of the Kansas City host chapter for the 1971 meeting and recounted the incident in a phone interview with The New York Sun this week.

In addition to Mr. Barnes’s recollection placing Mr. Kerry at the Kansas City meeting, another Vietnam veteran who attended the meeting, Terry Du-Bose, said that Mr. Kerry was there.

There are at least two other independent corroborations that the antiwar group Vietnam Veterans Against the War, of which Mr. Kerry was the most prominent national spokesman, considered assassinating American political leaders who favored the war.

Gerald Nicosia’s 2001 book “Home To War” reports that one of the key leaders of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Scott Camil,“proposed the assassination of the most hard-core conservative members of Congress,as well as any other powerful, intractable opponents of the antiwar movement.”The book reports on the Kansas City meeting at which Mr.Camil’s plan was debated and then voted down.

From: WorldNetDaily, “FBI verifies Kerry at ‘assassination summit’; Records back claim he was at meeting that discussed killing senators,” by Scott Stanley Jr, March 23, 2004.

News management may have reached an embarrassing low in the Los Angeles Times for March 23 where an article by staff writer John M. Glionna purports to offer selections from the FBI file on soon-to-be Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who was under surveillance by the G-Men as a member of the executive board of the pro-Viet Cong Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Presenting items from 50 documents carefully selected from what it reported were 14 boxes of related government papers 12 feet high, the Times confirmed from the FBI and other witnesses that Kerry had resigned from the VVAW leadership in November 1971 at a Kansas City board meeting to run for Congress….

…Kerry reportedly voted against the killings but did not leave the meeting and call a cop. Until the FBI surveillance report surfaced to put him in the middle of the assassination discussion, Kerry claimed to have resigned before the meeting at which VVAW discussed the murder plan.

Are these credible enough?

Some of the FBI files in question can be viewed at http://www.paperlessarchives.com/john_kerry.html

Here’s more, from the Opinion Journal, “Kerry’s Other War Record His antiwar activities deserve more scrutiny from the press,” by John Fund, March 29, 2004

John Kerry mentions his service in Vietnam so frequently that it has become a running joke on the campaign press plane. He seldom if ever mentions his postwar activities as a national coordinator and principal spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group he says he quit in 1971 because he was concerned about its radical agenda. One reason may be that a credibility gap has started to widen over his antiwar history, and he clearly doesn’t want to discuss it at length. His campaign is issuing misleading and evasive statements on his antiwar service in a way that would do the Pentagon spinners of the Johnson and Nixon administrations proud.

In fact, Mr. Kerry acts as if he can’t remember much about the VVAW at all. This month his campaign several times said he “never, ever” attended a Kansas City meeting of antiwar leadership where members discussed and voted on an assassination plot against pro-war U.S. senators. Then, when confronted with FBI surveillance records of the meeting, the campaign acknowledged his presence as “an historical footnote.” Mr. Kerry told a Boston radio station the whole story was “such ancient history.” It was time to move on.

Not so fast. Mr. Kerry’s campaign has done more than contradict itself. It has been in full coverup mode. John Musgrave, one of the six witnesses who placed Mr. Kerry at the Kansas City meeting, says the head of Veterans for Kerry, John Hurley, called him twice and pressured him to change the story he had already told a Kansas City Star reporter about the 1971 meeting.

The above article describes all 3 issues in detail.

As to you statement: “And the fact that you start off with “25% of the rank and file” leads me to believe you don’t have the credible sources.”

I’m guessing that you’re a liberal Democrat or a “truther.”

Further, I also don’t give a crap if YOU think my sources are credible or not. You seem to be in denial of the truth.

Vanceone on April 3, 2007 at 5:48 PM

So smear and innuendo are what is important, not facts? If you are so convinced about this you should have seen at least one or two sources which caused you to decide this. Or is reading it on the internet enough?
I do note that you don’t offer anything at all to support the other two claims.
Riiiiiight.

Ya! That number seems low to me!

georgej on April 3, 2007 at 4:10 PM

No, it doesn’t really answer them, sir.

(a) What empirical data do you have to define 25% of all Democrats as traitors?
(b)What credible sources support your claims about Kerry?
(c)You are adding your interpretation of aiding and abetting to the three actions you described regarding members of congress.

Just as the 9-11 truthers can’t prove all their claims, I can’t accept your explanations without that credible source information. And the fact that you start off with “25% of the rank and file” leads me to believe you don’t have the credible sources.

Let’s take these one at a time.

“All Democrats are traitors?”

Not all. About 25% of the rank and file, and all the party leadership.

“Again? What specific charges makes you say that.”

Aiding abetting Al Qaeda since the 2003 invasion. Giving aid and comfort to our enemies during a time of war. Actively sabotaging the war in Congress by (1) attemtping to defund a “hot war” while American troops are in combat, (2) openly undercutting the President by “separate diplomacy” in violation the Logan Act, and (3) by unathorized contact by Rep. Jim McDermott with Saddam Hussein prior to the invasion following Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s divulging of our war plan to Saddam’s ally, Assad, in Syria.

“How exactly was Kerry a traitor?”

Kerry went to Paris in 1971 to coordinate the activities of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War with the government of North Vietnam. In addition, John Kerry committed perjury under oath that American’s were wantonly, repeatedly, and with command approval, openly committing war crimes on the people of South Vietnam. Finally, John Kerry, as a national director of the VVAW, at a meeting of the board of directors, voted on a proposal to MURDER SIX UNITED STATES SENATORS. Further, as required by law, John Kerry failed to notify the FBI that his organizatin was conspiring to commit sedition.

John Kerry did all these things as a RESERVE OFFICER of the UNITED STATES NAVY.

Why John Kerry sits in the United States Senate instead of having long ago, kicked his last at the end of a rope after having put to death for treason, I’ll never understand.

Does this answer your questions, sir?

Well… John Kerry put the rumors to rest yesterday about who approached who in ‘04 to float John McCain as a potential VP. It wasn’t Team Kerry… It was McCain:
According to Sen. Kerry, it was John McCain’s staff who appr…

McCain’s not my guy I, but if Kerry says it, it must be a lie.

Perchant on April 3, 2007 at 3:42 PM

All Democrats are traitors? Again? What specific charges makes you say that. How exactly was Kerry a traitor? Poor candidate and someone whose ideas I didn’t agree with – yes. But if the best you can do in the way of debate is to use labels there is no point in debating. Gets a little boring to hear it over and over as well.

The word traitor has been used so liberally that it has lost the stark meaning it once had.

Bradky on April 3, 2007 at 3:15 PM

And treason has become so common from Democrats that it has lost the stark meaning it once had. It’s not something that happens in the shadows anymore. Heck, the Democrats chose the male Jane Fonda as their presidential nominee last time.

There is something about John McCain which makes me very queasy. I would trade John McCain and Chuckles Hagel for Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.

I’d trade Hagel for a six pack of beer.

A true Republican in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. And oh yeah — in the mold of John F’n’ Kerry, too…….

Bad Candy on April 3, 2007 at 2:45 PM

The word traitor has been used so liberally that it has lost the stark meaning it once had. Benedict Arnold, Rosenbergs, Aldrich Ames, the Walker father and son team… those are real traitors.
I don’t like McCain for a couple of different reasons regardless of which party he is claiming to be in.

Slublog on April 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM

I read the link you provided. McCain seemed to be clearly saying that benefit of the doubt was in order regarding the claims about his injuries. This is where I think the SwiftBoat guys went too far — all the post military antics Kerry engaged in were the only areas that really needed to be focused on. Not his service specifically.

Even *gulp* Murtha deserves the same consideration regarding his service. His whacked out ideas and statements after that are another matter entirely.

I just don’t see McCain getting the nomination; it relies on us having too short a memory.

Quite a pair. All that’s missing is the rubber pants and the whips.

This is not true…If there is one person on this earth that John McCain absolutely hates it is John Kerry, and for obvious reasons…This is just not to be believed.

Not quite sure that’s true. After all, McCain defended Kerry against the Swift Boaters and defended his record on national defense.