Feb. 10, 2004 | Many months before the dormant controversy over
George W. Bush's military career resurfaced, conservatives and
Republicans were raking over yellowed clippings as they sought to revive
dim memories of the Vietnam War. Their target was not the errant
National Guard Lt. Bush, of course, but the decorated Navy Lt. John F.
Kerry.

Last year, when Kerry was considered the front-runner for the Democratic
presidential nomination, he began to take flak from the far right over
his antiwar activism and his war record. Those attacks slowed when his
candidacy stalled and temporarily sank.

But now, as he claims primary victories and climbs past Bush in the
polls, Kerry is again the prime target of conservative invective that
depicts his peace activism as unpatriotic, anti-military, and somehow
hostile to his brothers in arms. With scrutiny focused on Bush's alleged
failure to fulfill his Guard obligations, the destruction of Kerry's
character has reached red-alert urgency on the right. And a key purveyor
of this anti-Kerry propaganda is a former Green Beret named Ted Sampley,
who has run a profitable business as a "POW/MIA advocate" from his home
in North Carolina for most of the past two decades. Few remember that
Sampley was critical to efforts to similarly smear Sen. John McCain,
another war hero, when he ran for president against George W. Bush in
2000. Now Sampley has started an organization pointedly calling itself
"Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry," which proclaims its determination to
ruin Kerry's campaign.

Republicans are understandably rattled by Kerry's political appeal to
Vietnam-era veterans -- and, by extension, to veterans of more recent
conflicts as well. From the beginning, the Massachusetts senator has
been accompanied by a contingent of vets; but their presence was
dramatized last month in Iowa by the sudden appearance of James
Rassmann, a veteran who described how Kerry had pulled him out of a
river, while machine-gun fire raked their boat, and saved his life. That
was why he had traveled from California to join the campaign, Rassmann
explained -- even though he is a registered Republican.

The Democratic vet offensive inspired a pair of contradictory responding
salvos from the Republicans. Versions of both have appeared recently on
the Wall Street Journal editorial pages. In a brief essay published on
Feb. 7, World War II hero Bob Dole warned that "we do not need to divide
America over who served and how," and pointed out that Kerry himself had
issued a similar plea in 1992 regarding the issue of Bill Clinton's
Vietnam draft history. Dole forgot to note that his fellow Republicans,
ignoring Kerry's plea, incessantly excoriated Clinton as a draft dodger
and worse.

Only two weeks earlier, the Journal editors had published a harsh attack
on Kerry's war record titled "Conduct Unbecoming: Kerry Doesn't Deserve
Vietnam Vets' Support." Written by a former Special Forces lieutenant,
the essay complains that Kerry's antiwar activism was "financed by Jane
Fonda," whose 1972 solidarity visit to Hanoi made her a permanent symbol
of betrayal to many Vietnam vets. "Many veterans believe these protests
led to more American deaths," wrote the author, Stephen Sherman, "and to
the enslavement of the people on whose behalf the protests were
ostensibly being undertaken." Significantly, he also berates Kerry for
suppressing a "revealing inquiry" into the POW/MIA issue, another matter
of deep sensitivity for vets, as co-chairman of a Senate investigating
committee. Even for the Journal, that was a remarkably irresponsible
accusation.

But for the Republicans, cutting off Kerry's potential base among
veterans is as vital as deflecting questions about Bush's military
record. From obscure Web sites to Rush Limbaugh to the Weekly Standard,
the right-wing media are eagerly popularizing the same attacks featured
in Sherman's essay. The Web site for Ted Sampley's Vietnam Veterans
Against Kerry offers a pungent example of the right's rhetorical style:
The Viet Cong's National Liberation Front flag is the background to a
shot of a young, fatigue-clad Kerry. That picture is pure computer magic
-- in other words, a fake.

According to author Susan Katz Keating, who has written extensively on
Vietnam veterans and the POW/MIA movement for the Washington Times and
Soldier of Fortune magazine, deception is what Sampley does for a
living. Her book "Prisoners of Hope: Exploiting the POW-MIA Myth in
America," published in 1994 by Random House, exposes how Sampley and his
allies abused the hopes of grieving families for fun and profit. Their
best-known victim, until now, was Sen. John McCain. He first drew
Sampley's poisonous attention when, along with Kerry, he debunked the
idea that Americans were still being held by Vietnam, and endorsed the
restoration of diplomatic relations with the Communist government.

Keating describes in detail how, in 1992, Sampley commenced a
"scurrilous" crusade to punish McCain:

"Sampley ... accused McCain of being a weak-minded coward who had
escaped death by collaborating with the enemy. Sampley claimed that
McCain had first been compromised by the Vietnamese, then recruited by
the Soviets.

"To those who know McCain and are familiar with his behavior in
captivity, the charge is ludicrous. McCain resisted his captors to such
a degree that he was isolated in a special prison for troublemakers. He
repeatedly refused special favors, including early release, and emerged
as a spiritual and religious leader for other prisoners. Nonetheless,
Sampley was persistent enough in his claims that the press in McCain's
home state of Arizona picked up on the KGB story."

In 1992, Sampley wrote a long article that portrayed McCain as a
"Manchurian candidate," who had betrayed America to the North Vietnamese
and then enlisted as a secret Communist agent. But it wasn't until seven
years later that the celebrated Navy pilot and ex-POW found out how much
damage such smears could inflict. After McCain declared his presidential
candidacy in 1999, Sampley revived the "Manchurian candidate" smear as a
convenient weapon for the Senator's political enemies. Some of them,
including the prominent conservative Paul Weyrich and Richard Mellon
Scaife's Newsmax Web site, didn't hesitate to pick up the slimy stuff
generated by Sampley. The fringe assault on McCain, amplified by the
likes of Weyrich and talk radio, caused grave injury to his campaign
during the pivotal South Carolina primary.

Insinuations of treason are being revived for deployment against Kerry,
who happens to be a close friend of McCain (Kerry defended McCain
against Sampley, denouncing him as a "stupid ass" in print). The
simplest way to tar Kerry as an antiwar extremist -- and indict him for
unpatriotic betrayal in the eyes of many vets -- is to pair him with
"Hanoi Jane" Fonda. On Monday, Rush Limbaugh published a photograph of
Fonda at what appears to be an antiwar rally, under the headline "John
Kerry With Hanoi Jane in September, 1970." And indeed, a blurry face
about two rows behind her does resemble the young Kerry.

But Limbaugh, like so many who attack Kerry for working with Fonda
against the war, distorts reality. Fonda didn't travel to Hanoi until
August 1972. Obviously that was two years after the September 1970 rally
and, more important, a year after she joined demonstrations led by Kerry
and his fellow vets in Vietnam Veterans Against the War. By the time
Fonda visited Hanoi, Kerry was running for Congress in Boston. There's
no evidence that he worked with Fonda after her notorious trip. (If
Monday's rant indicates Limbaugh's state of mind, he is absolutely
unhinged by the prospect of renewed debate over Vietnam. Might his
hysteria have anything to do with his own embarrassing escape from the
draft?)

Searching for proof of Kerry's alleged anti-American radicalism has
frustrated his more intelligent adversaries. The current issue of the
Weekly Standard carries a windy account of this ongoing quest by David
Skinner, who dug up a copy of the New Soldier, a 1971 antiwar volume
that carried Kerry's byline. Skinner offers a long, dull account of his
effort to find a copy of this minor, somewhat moldy period piece -- and
when he does, the results are anticlimactic. "Anti-Kerry oppo
researchers will be disappointed to learn that Kerry wrote very little
of the book," he reveals at long last. "It reprints his [1971] Senate
testimony and includes a brief afterword from him." Skinner can't manage
to work up much righteous anger. At the end, he complains that in the
midst of the movement's turmoil, Kerry "was able to have his cake and
eat it, too, becoming the establishment, patriotic face of a radical,
anti-patriotic movement."

Please allow me to translate: The Weekly Standard found nothing because
there was nothing to find. But that won't stop the desperate, screaming
smears, escalating in volume as Kerry stumps toward his party's nomination.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Joe Conason writes a regular journal for Salon.

For links see
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason...ear/index.html

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:30:35 -0500, Jim wrote:

Republicans are understandably rattled by Kerry's political appeal to
Vietnam-era veterans --

Not really, Kerry is a traitor.

Because he's friends with Jane Fonda? Whew, that'll play big in the
upcoming election.

I see no mention of Kerry in the article mentioned. He was out of Naum
before Jane arrived (which you would have known had you read the article
posted)

WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:30:35 -0500, Jim wrote:


Republicans are understandably rattled by Kerry's political appeal to
Vietnam-era veterans --


Not really, Kerry is a traitor.

Kerry's pal Hanoi Jane Fonda calling American POWS "liars &
hypocrites"

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm

"To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return
home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and
describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North
Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not
hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda
said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured
was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured.
These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had
been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were
"exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted.
She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States
have POWs come home looking like football players. These football
players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military
careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make
themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according
to law."

When will the press ask Kerry if he agrees with his friend Hanoi Jane
Fonda when she called American POWs - "liars & hypocrites?"

WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:30:35 -0500, Jim wrote:

Republicans are understandably rattled by Kerry's political appeal to
Vietnam-era veterans --

Not really, Kerry is a traitor.


Wally the Idiot, a made-for-tv movie coming to you soon.


--
Email sent to is never read.

All that need to be known is Kerry said:
'I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the
world only at the directive of the United Nations'...

Anyone who wants the UN to control the US military is a traitor.

This is from http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=352185



"Jim" wrote in message ...
Feb. 10, 2004 | Many months before the dormant controversy over
George W. Bush's military career resurfaced, conservatives and
Republicans were raking over yellowed clippings as they sought to revive
dim memories of the Vietnam War. Their target was not the errant
National Guard Lt. Bush, of course, but the decorated Navy Lt. John F.
Kerry.

Last year, when Kerry was considered the front-runner for the Democratic
presidential nomination, he began to take flak from the far right over
his antiwar activism and his war record. Those attacks slowed when his
candidacy stalled and temporarily sank.

But now, as he claims primary victories and climbs past Bush in the
polls, Kerry is again the prime target of conservative invective that
depicts his peace activism as unpatriotic, anti-military, and somehow
hostile to his brothers in arms. With scrutiny focused on Bush's alleged
failure to fulfill his Guard obligations, the destruction of Kerry's
character has reached red-alert urgency on the right. And a key purveyor
of this anti-Kerry propaganda is a former Green Beret named Ted Sampley,
who has run a profitable business as a "POW/MIA advocate" from his home
in North Carolina for most of the past two decades. Few remember that
Sampley was critical to efforts to similarly smear Sen. John McCain,
another war hero, when he ran for president against George W. Bush in
2000. Now Sampley has started an organization pointedly calling itself
"Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry," which proclaims its determination to
ruin Kerry's campaign.

Republicans are understandably rattled by Kerry's political appeal to
Vietnam-era veterans -- and, by extension, to veterans of more recent
conflicts as well. From the beginning, the Massachusetts senator has
been accompanied by a contingent of vets; but their presence was
dramatized last month in Iowa by the sudden appearance of James
Rassmann, a veteran who described how Kerry had pulled him out of a
river, while machine-gun fire raked their boat, and saved his life. That
was why he had traveled from California to join the campaign, Rassmann
explained -- even though he is a registered Republican.

The Democratic vet offensive inspired a pair of contradictory responding
salvos from the Republicans. Versions of both have appeared recently on
the Wall Street Journal editorial pages. In a brief essay published on
Feb. 7, World War II hero Bob Dole warned that "we do not need to divide
America over who served and how," and pointed out that Kerry himself had
issued a similar plea in 1992 regarding the issue of Bill Clinton's
Vietnam draft history. Dole forgot to note that his fellow Republicans,
ignoring Kerry's plea, incessantly excoriated Clinton as a draft dodger
and worse.

Only two weeks earlier, the Journal editors had published a harsh attack
on Kerry's war record titled "Conduct Unbecoming: Kerry Doesn't Deserve
Vietnam Vets' Support." Written by a former Special Forces lieutenant,
the essay complains that Kerry's antiwar activism was "financed by Jane
Fonda," whose 1972 solidarity visit to Hanoi made her a permanent symbol
of betrayal to many Vietnam vets. "Many veterans believe these protests
led to more American deaths," wrote the author, Stephen Sherman, "and to
the enslavement of the people on whose behalf the protests were
ostensibly being undertaken." Significantly, he also berates Kerry for
suppressing a "revealing inquiry" into the POW/MIA issue, another matter
of deep sensitivity for vets, as co-chairman of a Senate investigating
committee. Even for the Journal, that was a remarkably irresponsible
accusation.

But for the Republicans, cutting off Kerry's potential base among
veterans is as vital as deflecting questions about Bush's military
record. From obscure Web sites to Rush Limbaugh to the Weekly Standard,
the right-wing media are eagerly popularizing the same attacks featured
in Sherman's essay. The Web site for Ted Sampley's Vietnam Veterans
Against Kerry offers a pungent example of the right's rhetorical style:
The Viet Cong's National Liberation Front flag is the background to a
shot of a young, fatigue-clad Kerry. That picture is pure computer magic
-- in other words, a fake.

According to author Susan Katz Keating, who has written extensively on
Vietnam veterans and the POW/MIA movement for the Washington Times and
Soldier of Fortune magazine, deception is what Sampley does for a
living. Her book "Prisoners of Hope: Exploiting the POW-MIA Myth in
America," published in 1994 by Random House, exposes how Sampley and his
allies abused the hopes of grieving families for fun and profit. Their
best-known victim, until now, was Sen. John McCain. He first drew
Sampley's poisonous attention when, along with Kerry, he debunked the
idea that Americans were still being held by Vietnam, and endorsed the
restoration of diplomatic relations with the Communist government.

Keating describes in detail how, in 1992, Sampley commenced a
"scurrilous" crusade to punish McCain:

"Sampley ... accused McCain of being a weak-minded coward who had
escaped death by collaborating with the enemy. Sampley claimed that
McCain had first been compromised by the Vietnamese, then recruited by
the Soviets.

"To those who know McCain and are familiar with his behavior in
captivity, the charge is ludicrous. McCain resisted his captors to such
a degree that he was isolated in a special prison for troublemakers. He
repeatedly refused special favors, including early release, and emerged
as a spiritual and religious leader for other prisoners. Nonetheless,
Sampley was persistent enough in his claims that the press in McCain's
home state of Arizona picked up on the KGB story."

In 1992, Sampley wrote a long article that portrayed McCain as a
"Manchurian candidate," who had betrayed America to the North Vietnamese
and then enlisted as a secret Communist agent. But it wasn't until seven
years later that the celebrated Navy pilot and ex-POW found out how much
damage such smears could inflict. After McCain declared his presidential
candidacy in 1999, Sampley revived the "Manchurian candidate" smear as a
convenient weapon for the Senator's political enemies. Some of them,
including the prominent conservative Paul Weyrich and Richard Mellon
Scaife's Newsmax Web site, didn't hesitate to pick up the slimy stuff
generated by Sampley. The fringe assault on McCain, amplified by the
likes of Weyrich and talk radio, caused grave injury to his campaign
during the pivotal South Carolina primary.

Insinuations of treason are being revived for deployment against Kerry,
who happens to be a close friend of McCain (Kerry defended McCain
against Sampley, denouncing him as a "stupid ass" in print). The
simplest way to tar Kerry as an antiwar extremist -- and indict him for
unpatriotic betrayal in the eyes of many vets -- is to pair him with
"Hanoi Jane" Fonda. On Monday, Rush Limbaugh published a photograph of
Fonda at what appears to be an antiwar rally, under the headline "John
Kerry With Hanoi Jane in September, 1970." And indeed, a blurry face
about two rows behind her does resemble the young Kerry.

But Limbaugh, like so many who attack Kerry for working with Fonda
against the war, distorts reality. Fonda didn't travel to Hanoi until
August 1972. Obviously that was two years after the September 1970 rally
and, more important, a year after she joined demonstrations led by Kerry
and his fellow vets in Vietnam Veterans Against the War. By the time
Fonda visited Hanoi, Kerry was running for Congress in Boston. There's
no evidence that he worked with Fonda after her notorious trip. (If
Monday's rant indicates Limbaugh's state of mind, he is absolutely
unhinged by the prospect of renewed debate over Vietnam. Might his
hysteria have anything to do with his own embarrassing escape from the
draft?)

Searching for proof of Kerry's alleged anti-American radicalism has
frustrated his more intelligent adversaries. The current issue of the
Weekly Standard carries a windy account of this ongoing quest by David
Skinner, who dug up a copy of the New Soldier, a 1971 antiwar volume
that carried Kerry's byline. Skinner offers a long, dull account of his
effort to find a copy of this minor, somewhat moldy period piece -- and
when he does, the results are anticlimactic. "Anti-Kerry oppo
researchers will be disappointed to learn that Kerry wrote very little
of the book," he reveals at long last. "It reprints his [1971] Senate
testimony and includes a brief afterword from him." Skinner can't manage
to work up much righteous anger. At the end, he complains that in the
midst of the movement's turmoil, Kerry "was able to have his cake and
eat it, too, becoming the establishment, patriotic face of a radical,
anti-patriotic movement."

Please allow me to translate: The Weekly Standard found nothing because
there was nothing to find. But that won't stop the desperate, screaming
smears, escalating in volume as Kerry stumps toward his party's
nomination.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Joe Conason writes a regular journal for Salon.

For links see
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason...ear/index.html

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:09:01 GMT, WaIIy
wrote:

Duh, research his antiwar activities. I'm not going to spoonfeed you
this stuff.

The guy volunteered, fought, was highly decorated and got out of the
service. After he served, he stood up for what he believed in. Sounds
to me like a guy willing to give his all for his country.

With hind sight, there's not many around who currently think Viet Nam
was a war we should have fought. Kerry was just one of the one's who
understood that without waiting for 30 years of history to prove it.

Bush skated due to family influence, and didn't stand up for anything,
other than a free ride, as far as I can tell.

How in the heck can you damn Kerry for what he did, and justify Bush's
actions (or actually, lack of)?

bb

Kerry had *every* right to protest the war, as loudly as he wanted.
One could even argue that as a Vet he had "more right" to than others. Be
that as it may.

What will matter is how close he snuggled up to to Hanoi Jane in the course
of his protest activities. She wasn't a protester, she was almost (or
probably) a traitor. I havn't seen any compelling evidence he got close
enough to her (politicly) to have her stink rub off on him.

-W

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:04:23 -0500, Jim wrote:

I see no mention of Kerry in the article mentioned. He was out of Naum
before Jane arrived (which you would have known had you read the article
posted)

Duh, research his antiwar activities. I'm not going to spoonfeed you
this stuff.



WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:30:35 -0500, Jim wrote:


Republicans are understandably rattled by Kerry's political appeal to
Vietnam-era veterans --


Not really, Kerry is a traitor.

Kerry's pal Hanoi Jane Fonda calling American POWS "liars &
hypocrites"

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm

"To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return
home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and
describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North
Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not
hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda
said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured
was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured.
These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had
been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were
"exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted.
She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States
have POWs come home looking like football players. These football
players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military
careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make
themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according
to law."

When will the press ask Kerry if he agrees with his friend Hanoi Jane
Fonda when she called American POWs - "liars & hypocrites?"

Having served with honor, been wounded, and awarded medals for his
actions Sure sound like qualifications to me.

HE spoke his conscience.

Are you trying to say that Viet Nam was a wise decision?

There are 50,000+ names on a wall who would disagree with you, and
countless others who served, and opposed the war.


I will admit I did not serve, but I have friends who are named on the
wall. Did YOU serve? -- Did you Lose anyone?

WaIIy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:04:23 -0500, Jim wrote:


I see no mention of Kerry in the article mentioned. He was out of Naum
before Jane arrived (which you would have known had you read the article
posted)


Duh, research his antiwar activities. I'm not going to spoonfeed you
this stuff.




WaIIy wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:30:35 -0500, Jim wrote:



Republicans are understandably rattled by Kerry's political appeal to
Vietnam-era veterans --


Not really, Kerry is a traitor.

Kerry's pal Hanoi Jane Fonda calling American POWS "liars &
hypocrites"

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm

"To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return
home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and
describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North
Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not
hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda
said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured
was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured.
These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had
been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were
"exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted.
She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States
have POWs come home looking like football players. These football
players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military
careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make
themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according
to law."

When will the press ask Kerry if he agrees with his friend Hanoi Jane
Fonda when she called American POWs - "liars & hypocrites?"

See my last post.

-W

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:55:39 GMT, "Clams Canino"
wrote:

Kerry had *every* right to protest the war, as loudly as he wanted.
One could even argue that as a Vet he had "more right" to than others. Be
that as it may.

Yes, he had a right to. That doesn't change the fact that he gave aid
and comfort to the enemy during a war.


What will matter is how close he snuggled up to to Hanoi Jane in the
course
of his protest activities. She wasn't a protester, she was almost (or
probably) a traitor. I havn't seen any compelling evidence he got close
enough to her (politicly) to have her stink rub off on him.

-W

"WaIIy" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:04:23 -0500, Jim wrote:

I see no mention of Kerry in the article mentioned. He was out of
Naum
before Jane arrived (which you would have known had you read the
article
posted)

Duh, research his antiwar activities. I'm not going to spoonfeed you
this stuff.



WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:30:35 -0500, Jim wrote:


Republicans are understandably rattled by Kerry's political appeal
to
Vietnam-era veterans --


Not really, Kerry is a traitor.

Kerry's pal Hanoi Jane Fonda calling American POWS "liars &
hypocrites"

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm

"To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return
home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years)
and
describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North
Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should
"not
hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars."
Fonda
said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured
was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been
tortured.
These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had
been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were
"exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted.
She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States
have POWs come home looking like football players. These football
players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military
careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make
themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according
to law."

When will the press ask Kerry if he agrees with his friend Hanoi
Jane
Fonda when she called American POWs - "liars & hypocrites?"

"WaIIy" wrote in message

Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy during a war.
He marched in protest under the enemy flag.


OK, that's disturbing........ explain the details. I don't equate Kerry with
Hanoi Jane.

-W