bart
Decader
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 861
Lifted from the Boortz website:
WASN'T A CRIME COMMITTED HERE?
There was a meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in in Kansas City in November of 1971. At that meeting there was a plan discussed to assassinate members of Congress. Now ... let's emphasize this point. These anti-war Vietnam veterans were sitting there and discussing murder .. they were discussing the idea of murdering certain members of the Congress of the United States who were in favor of the Vietnam war. Well ... the idea was discussed, and the idea was rejected.
The reports of that Kansas City meeting are disturbing enough. It gets more disturbing when you consider the fact that our not-yet-crowned Democratic candidate for president was a member of that organization. Things get even more interesting when you learn that Kerry was present and a participant in that meeting. Yes ... John Kerry was there while his leftist anti-war colleagues were discussing murdering members of congress.
Now when these reports first came out the sKerry campaign was quick to respond by saying that Kerry "never ever" attended that meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and that he had resigned the organization months earlier. Uh oh ... big oops. It seems that the FBI was interested in the activities of these veterans at that time, and they were being watched. More particularly, Kerry was being watched. The FBI records of that Kansas City meeting show that our presumptive Democratic nominee was at that meeting. No wiggle room ... he was there. Now it seems that the Kerry campaign lied when they said he wasn't.
Time to backtrack. Since the FBI has surveillance records showing Kerry present at that meeting, the Kerry folks need to conjure up a new statement. So now his campaign is releasing a statement saying that Kerry " .. had no personal recollection of this meeting .... [but] if there are valid FBI surveillance reports .... we accept that historical footnote in the account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war."
"Historical footnote?" The participation by a presidential candidate in a discussion about murdering U.S. Senators and Congressmen is a "historical footnote?" John Kerry's presence at and participation in this meeting is an "account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war?"
We're supposed to be satisfied with the revelation that Kerry wasn't particularly fond of the assassination proposals, and that resigned from the Vietnam Veterans against the war soon after that meeting. That's it? He resigned? Well big whoop! You're sitting there at a meeting listening to your colleagues plan the murder of elected officials ... and you merely resign? Hey! How about going to the police? How about telling the FBI that you just heard some people discussing a plot to murder members of Congress? Isn't it a crime to become aware of such a discussion and fail to report it to authorities?
I know ... we've been through this before ... but what if we were reading stories about a Republican presidential candidate who was present at a meeting where the murder of liberal Supreme Court Justices was discussed. Would we be satisfied to learn that the Republican candidate rejected the idea and then disassociated himself from the group having the discussion? Come on. We all know what would be happening now. The Democrats and their loyal media myrmidons would be howling in outrage. There would be demands for investigations ... criminal investigations ... and suggestions that the Republican candidate be charged with aiding and abetting an assassination plot. Believe me, it would be a major story.
With Kerry and his anti-war pals ... no media outrage. No demands for investigations into that Kansas City meeting and any role that sKerry played. Nothing. You might hear about it on Fox News, and you might read about it in the Drudge Report --- but that's pretty much it.
This story won't get any traction in the mainstream DC and New York press corps because it doesn't serve the personal aims of the people who would carry it to the forefront. Well over 90% of the people who are in a position to ask these questions about Kerry's involvement in that Kansas City meeting, and his actions (or lack thereof) afterwards, want Kerry to beat George Bush in November. If someone else pushes this story into the limelight, they'll groan a bit and give it a degree of due diligence. They're just as happy, though, to see it just go away.
So here's what you have to ask yourself. Do you want a president who once overheard a discussion about assassinating members of Congress ... and then did nothing about it?
WASN'T A CRIME COMMITTED HERE?
There was a meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in in Kansas City in November of 1971. At that meeting there was a plan discussed to assassinate members of Congress. Now ... let's emphasize this point. These anti-war Vietnam veterans were sitting there and discussing murder .. they were discussing the idea of murdering certain members of the Congress of the United States who were in favor of the Vietnam war. Well ... the idea was discussed, and the idea was rejected.
The reports of that Kansas City meeting are disturbing enough. It gets more disturbing when you consider the fact that our not-yet-crowned Democratic candidate for president was a member of that organization. Things get even more interesting when you learn that Kerry was present and a participant in that meeting. Yes ... John Kerry was there while his leftist anti-war colleagues were discussing murdering members of congress.
Now when these reports first came out the sKerry campaign was quick to respond by saying that Kerry "never ever" attended that meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and that he had resigned the organization months earlier. Uh oh ... big oops. It seems that the FBI was interested in the activities of these veterans at that time, and they were being watched. More particularly, Kerry was being watched. The FBI records of that Kansas City meeting show that our presumptive Democratic nominee was at that meeting. No wiggle room ... he was there. Now it seems that the Kerry campaign lied when they said he wasn't.
Time to backtrack. Since the FBI has surveillance records showing Kerry present at that meeting, the Kerry folks need to conjure up a new statement. So now his campaign is releasing a statement saying that Kerry " .. had no personal recollection of this meeting .... [but] if there are valid FBI surveillance reports .... we accept that historical footnote in the account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war."
"Historical footnote?" The participation by a presidential candidate in a discussion about murdering U.S. Senators and Congressmen is a "historical footnote?" John Kerry's presence at and participation in this meeting is an "account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war?"
We're supposed to be satisfied with the revelation that Kerry wasn't particularly fond of the assassination proposals, and that resigned from the Vietnam Veterans against the war soon after that meeting. That's it? He resigned? Well big whoop! You're sitting there at a meeting listening to your colleagues plan the murder of elected officials ... and you merely resign? Hey! How about going to the police? How about telling the FBI that you just heard some people discussing a plot to murder members of Congress? Isn't it a crime to become aware of such a discussion and fail to report it to authorities?
I know ... we've been through this before ... but what if we were reading stories about a Republican presidential candidate who was present at a meeting where the murder of liberal Supreme Court Justices was discussed. Would we be satisfied to learn that the Republican candidate rejected the idea and then disassociated himself from the group having the discussion? Come on. We all know what would be happening now. The Democrats and their loyal media myrmidons would be howling in outrage. There would be demands for investigations ... criminal investigations ... and suggestions that the Republican candidate be charged with aiding and abetting an assassination plot. Believe me, it would be a major story.
With Kerry and his anti-war pals ... no media outrage. No demands for investigations into that Kansas City meeting and any role that sKerry played. Nothing. You might hear about it on Fox News, and you might read about it in the Drudge Report --- but that's pretty much it.
This story won't get any traction in the mainstream DC and New York press corps because it doesn't serve the personal aims of the people who would carry it to the forefront. Well over 90% of the people who are in a position to ask these questions about Kerry's involvement in that Kansas City meeting, and his actions (or lack thereof) afterwards, want Kerry to beat George Bush in November. If someone else pushes this story into the limelight, they'll groan a bit and give it a degree of due diligence. They're just as happy, though, to see it just go away.
So here's what you have to ask yourself. Do you want a president who once overheard a discussion about assassinating members of Congress ... and then did nothing about it?
Last edited:
