Novak: Investigate Kerry's 'Hanoi Jane' Connection

[John Ashcroft]

Longtime Beltway commentator and columnist Robert Novak says it's time for the press to probe Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry's ties to "Hanoi Jane" Fonda just as thoroughly as reporters went after bogus allegations that President Bush went AWOL from the National Guard.

Novak has uncovered new evidence that the anti-American actress and the Massachusetts Democrat were much more closely associated than either Fonda and Kerry now admit.

He reports:

"A 34-year-old flier lists speakers for an anti-Vietnam War rally at Valley Forge State Park, Pa., Sept. 7, 1970. Included were two of that era's most notorious leftist agitators, the Rev. James Bevel and Mark Lane, plus actress Jane Fonda, a symbol of extreme opposition to the war. Leading off the list was a less familiar name: John Kerry."

After Valley Forge, Fonda adopted Kerry's group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, as her "leading cause," according to Kerry biographer Douglas Brinkley.

Minutes for a Sept. 11, 1970 meeting of the VVAW show reveal a plan to "coordinate with Jane Fonda's speaking tour," says Novak. She and actor Donald Sutherland, who was also on hand for Valley Forge, had dubbed their road show the "F*** the Army" tour, according to several books chronicling the anti-war movement.

Novak also reveals that "a later VVAW staff meeting decided to bar the American flag from the organization's offices." At the time, Kerry held the official title of the group's National Coordinator; Fonda was named Honorary National Coordinator.

So how probable is it that they barely knew each other, as Fonda and Kerry now maintain? Not very.

Concludes Novak:

"Documents show they shared the same platform and the same wing of the anti-war movement. That is surely as valid as investigating how many National Guard drills Bush attended."

Anyone think Judy Woodruff is gonna show disdain for Kerry? Or "concern" over certain allegations?... After all, it's the "seriousness of the charge" that warrants a full-scale (press) investigation, right?
Link: here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/19/92734.shtml)

[knuckleboner]

dude, i totally agree that the AWOL allegations are being blown WAY out of proportion. there is little evidence to show it. in fact, the idiots are using the time-renouned conspiracy theorist tactic of saying that there's not enough proof showing he DID go, so he must've been AWOL.



that said, knowing jane fonda better than you let on is not the same thing as being AWOL.

yes, NEITHER should be investigated at this point. but i'm not sure under what circumstances one would EVER need to investigate how well kerry knew fonda.

[FORD]

Novak should know a traitor when he sees one. Especially when he looks in the mirror. I think he's a little nervous because Valerie Plame's husband is part of Judas' campaign.

[John Ashcroft]

Heh heh... Read again KB, that's why I labeled it a "press" investigation...

Remember, they're the real court when it comes to politicians. And they're more than willing to charge, try, and convict Republicans with abandon (Remember "it's the seriousness of the charge"?). You see, I'm pretty clever for a guy who lost to a dead man. I be knowin' some shit.

[John Ashcroft]

Now, onto why the press should hang that miserable traitor Kerry:

Vietnam POW: Hanoi Hilton Torturers Cited Kerry's Speech

A former Vietnam POW is alleging that his Hanoi captors specifically cited Sen. John Kerry's 1971 anti-war testimony to Congress as they brutally tortured him to get him to turn on his fellow GIs.

One-time Navy pilot Paul Galanti was shot down over North Vietnam in 1966 and spent seven years in the infamous Hanoi Hilton.

He told the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday that he learned of Kerry's April 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee while being tortured by his Hanoi Hilton guards.

According to the Times, "during torture sessions, [Galanti] said, his captors cited the antiwar speeches as 'an example of why we should cross over to [their] side.'"

In his account to the Senate, Kerry accused U.S. soldiers of routinely committing rapes, beheadings, mutilations and all manner of atrocities against the Vietnamese people.

Galanti told the Times that Kerry's decision to publicly allege that U.S. soldiers were war criminals "jeopardize[d] those still in battle or in the hands of the enemy."

Because he did, Galanti said, "John Kerry was a traitor to the men he served with." and America as a whole

"The Viet Cong didn't think they had to win the war on the battlefield," the ex-POW said, "because thanks to these protesters they were going to win it on the streets of San Francisco and Washington."

Although Galanti's fellow POW, Sen. John McCain, has been silent in recent years about the damage Sen. Kerry caused as a leader of the radical group Vietnam Veterans Against the War, in 1973 McCain told U.S. News & World Report that throughout his imprisonment, his North Vietnamese captors were "bombarding us with anti-war quotes from people in high places back in Washington."

"This was the most effective propaganda they had to use against us," the Arizona Republican explained.

But Galanti is the first POW to say that his Hanoi Hilton guards expressly invoked Sen. Kerry's words during their brutal torture sessions.

In his comments to the Times, he accused said the Democratic presidential front-runner of having blood on his hands, contending, "The Vietnam memorial has thousands of additional names due to John Kerry and others like him." AND THAT'S THE GOD DAMNED TRUTH!

In a follow-up interview with Fox News Channel's John Gibson, Galanti said he'll take his story directly to the American people if the press fails to expose the truth about candidate Kerry.

"Let me tell you one thing, it looks like John Kerry is going to get the nomination," he told Gibson. "If he does, I'm going to come out of the woodwork, and there's a whole bunch of us [who feel] the same way."

Link: here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/19/111136.shtml)

[knuckleboner]

yeah, i saw the "press," i just think the press focuses too much on stupid shit (like the AWOL charge) as it is. they don't need to be doing MORE...


as for kerry...i'm not sure anti-war statements should be inherently prohibited during hostilities simply because they might aid the enemy. the main focus of kerry's testimony was that vietnam did not present a direct threat to america and that therefore he couldn't justify the deaths of american soldiers to further that end.

it's a fine line, to be sure, but declining to oppose the war you think is needlessly killing americans in order to avoid aiding the enemy who might needlessly kill americans is a bit of a paradox.

i'll admit, kerry's mentioning of U.S. committed atrocities wasn't quite necessary in his testimony. (though, no doubt, there were some U.S. committed attrocities.) i would not have included that in testimony designed to bring the boys back home.

still, while i am eternally sorry this galanti had to spend any time as a POW over there, i will have to question his, "The Vietnam memorial has thousands of additional names due to John Kerry and others like him," comment. how many more thousands were killed because of the endless ceasefires and political posturing during the war.

and, since vietnam DID in fact become communist, and the world didn't end, does monday-morning-quarterbacking suggest that we added a full 58,000 additional names to the wall? who knows, perhaps if there was more anti-war sentiment in 1963, we could've taken most of those names off. perhaps.



(however, the anti-war movement's black eye will ALWAYS be the treatment of the troops. many anti-war protesters were good. but it is shameful how many vilified the individual soldiers. yes, some soldiers were bad. but i'm guessing the vast majority of the millions over there were not. they were doing their duty and should be commended, even if you chose to vilify the decision to commence hostilities.)

[John Ashcroft]

Hey, Vietnam was a shining example of how Democrat's run wars. Like I've mentioned before, I'm not defending the war at all. But I can say with assurance that that fucking mess was no fault of the soldiers on the ground over there. And to have assholes like Kerry and Fonda spit on them when they came home (or in front of Congress) is just plain wrong, and shows more about their character than the troops who endured their venomous attacks.

Now, given that modern-day Dems are limp-dicked at running wars, and the fact that they run them by watching opinion polls (not by listening to their Generals), you don't think protestors like Kerry and Fonda delayed or outright killed hard decisions in the execution of the war? You don't think that the decisions NOT to bomb "Politically sensitive" targets in North Vietnam lead to increased American casualties??? Hell, it prolonged the war until Nixon decided to cut our losses and run. If you don't think the pressure from people like Kerry didn't prolong the Vietnam war, you're fooling yourself dude. I know that there were other factors, but the rabid anti-war crowd just added to them, and the American G.I. suffered for it.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
But I can say with assurance that that fucking mess was no fault of the soldiers on the ground over there.



i agree 100%. no doubt.

i just think that there's a fine line between legitimate protest, designed to bring those guys back home, so another 1,000 or 10,000 don't get killed. (or another 10,000 or 100,000 don't get wounded) and the anti-soldier protest.

like i said, the antiwar movement's enduring black eye was either their outright contempt for the individual soldier, or their refusal to condemn those who were spitting on the soldiers.

but i'm not sure where the right course of action lies. (CLEARLY, supporting the troops, regardless of your feelings on the decisionmaker's policies is part of the right course.) but if one (not necessarily kerry, and DEFINITELY not fond) thought the war was causing unnecessary american deaths, what was the right response?

do nothing, in the hopes that the war will end sooner? protest the war, hoping to stem the causualties in the long run?

yeah, there is clearly a wrong way to protest the war (and many of the antiwar vietnam protests demonstrated that). but is there a right way?

[John Ashcroft]

Vote. Vote in the primaries. Vote in local elections.

If not, shut the fuck up and wait till it's over.

The war was fucked, and it was the leader of the DEMOCRATIC party that fucked it. So under conventional wisdom, all democrats opposed to the Vietnam war should've been switching parties like mo-fos. You think Fonda or Kerry voted for Nixon? Just how against the war were they?

Oh, and BTW, I'd really just like to see Kerry get a dose of what the press hands any given Republican on any given election year. They've spent all kinds of time on the bogus AWOL shit, but have poo-pooed Kerry's supposed affair and his ties to Hanoi Jane. I'm not saying they should bite on the affair thing, but I guarantee that if it was Dubya, we'd be hearing it till the cows come home.

[knuckleboner]

bro, i agree completely that not enough people vote in elections. the %s for the locals is pitiful.

but is that the only thing someone can do to oppose a war? i mean, your state and local reps won't have any impact on a war (though more people SHOULD vote in the elections.) what if a war starts just after a congressional election? you've got at least 18 months until the primaries. is there nothing else to do in the interim?


and i'll give you for certain that the press has spent WAY too much time on the AWOL thing. i'm not sure whether or not they'd have hit a democratic president as hard, but they're sure too much into reporting on what should essentially be a non-issue for the current republican one...

[John Ashcroft]

Dude, national level politicians start somewhere.

And I'm not trying to downplay the effectiveness of the 1st Ammendment. After all, it's why it's the "1st".

All I'm saying is that with freedom comes responsibility. I know, I know... If common sense was common, we wouldn't need a name for it. But still, I truly feel that people like Kerry (and Fonda) weren't just misguided youth. I think they are opportunists of the most dangerous kind. I think they saw an opportunity to bring America to it's knees, coupled with the chance to rise to fame, fortune, and power. They thought the "movement" was stronger than it was, and that's their only miscalculation (although a biggie). I don't see them as champions for morality (after all, the "New JFK" didn't even throw his own medals away). If I'm wrong, please correct me by presenting any evidence that shows what Kerry's done for the betterment of mankind. It's gonna be a hard search, so I'll give you a couple of days...

[Seshmeister]

Let me get this straight.

You think that the Vietnam war was a good idea and the reason the US didn't win was because of traitorous peace protestors?

[John Ashcroft]

Not at all Sesh. I definitely don't want to give that impression (read my earlier posts). The war, which may or may not have started for valid reasons (I feel they were, lots of people feel they weren't), was undermined by politicians running the war by following opinion polls rather than their Generals advice. Kennedy commited us. Right or wrong, it happened. And once you've got our servicemen in harms way, it's every Commander in Chiefs responsibility to minimize their casualties. If that means a bloodletting on the other side so be it. It's not pretty, but it's the nature of the world. It's either stay or go. If you're gonna stay, finish the fucking job. If you're gonna go, pack up and go. There is no in-between. In-between gets people on both sides killed unneccesarily.

Now, about the protestors. I stand by my assessment that they were simply opportunists. Like fucking parasites, prospering at the hands of America's mis-fortune. I'm by no means saying they caused a loss in Vietnam. What I'm saying is their actions prolonged the war, and therefore led to more deaths. All in the name of their own prosperity. And I'd be glad to see evidence that Kerry's somehow bettered mankind.