OUCH!, this could really hurt!

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
Discovered papers:
Hanoi directed Kerry
[size=+1]Recovered Vietnam documents
'smoking gun' researchers claim.
[/size]
.​


Could it be true? This could be the end of the long-faced foe.


The first documentary evidence that Vietnamese communists were directly steering John Kerry's antiwar group Vietnam Veterans Against the War has been discovered in a U.S. archive, according to a researcher who spoke with WorldNetDaily.

<snip>


"This document enables us to connect the dots," he emphasized. "We now have evidence Madame Binh was directing the antiwar movement ... and the person who implemented her strategy was John Kerry."

July 22, 1971, Kerry called on President Nixon to accept the plan at a press conference in which he surrounded himself with the families of POWs, a strategy outlined in the first document.

The two documents also connect the dots between the Vietnamese communists and the radical U.S. group People's Coalition for Peace and Justice through the person of Al Hubbard, a coordinating member of PCPJ and the executive director of VVAW while Kerry was its national spokesman. "Al Hubbard and John Kerry were carrying out the predetermined agenda of the enemy in a coordinated fashion," Corsi said. "It's a level of collaboration that exceeded anything we had imagined."


WND and supportive links to the digital copies of the documents and more.
This could be it, I can't wait for the spin on this by Kerry's people/litigation teams.

WAAAAAAAY-TO-GO Swifty's, truly an American "David and Goliath" story. Protecting America from enemies both foriegn and domestic, they are Hero's again.


:usa:
 
:rofl:

Issues. Isn't that it. Aren't there supposed to be relevant issues in an election? I knew something was missing. :lloyd:
 
Issues? Iran has come out in support of Bush. That sends up one big honkin red flag to me :shrug:
 
Leslie said:
Issues? Iran has come out in support of Bush. That sends up one big honkin red flag to me :shrug:

That's because they don't want to be 'invaded' next. Why do you think they decided to do as the UN asks so quickly? ;)
 
Two things jump out at me
"It's truly one of those accidents of how things develop in research," he said. "We did not spring any surprise, we just found these documents, and even the archivist didn't know they were there."
and
The two documents were found in boxes containing papers from antiwar activities during 1971-72, but they also turned out to be posted in an Internet database, which enabled further verification, Corsi said

So...two documents archived since the 1970's just happen to turn up? No one was looking for them? What were they looking for anyway?

3 days until Bush reveals the body of Osama.
 
MrBishop said:
Two things jump out at me
and


So...two documents archived since the 1970's just happen to turn up? No one was looking for them? What were they looking for anyway?

3 days until Bush reveals the body of Osama.

Same trick the Democrats used last election with the DUI...
 
Luis G said:
what's the big problem of him being anti-war?

Nothing...until he tried to use it as a 'stepping stone' to the presidency. He claimed he had a strong record for supporting war, so the Republican's threw it right back in his face. That's why so many Democrats got angry over Bush's supposedly missing National Guard records.
 
*you guys are soooo screwed. :eek:

It all ends in voting for the less worst of both, must be a hard choice.
 
Luis G said:
*you guys are soooo screwed. :eek:

It all ends in voting for the less worst of both, must be a hard choice.
You got that right. :crying4:
The problem is..extremeism. Kerry is too extreme left, and bush is too extreme right.
The thing is IMO at this point it's less dangerous on our security to be
on the "right" side instead of the left.
 
Luis G said:
what's the big problem of him being anti-war?
Theres nothing wrong with being anti-war..

But when you're a US reservist under oath to protect America from enemies both foriegn and domestic, then commit acts of sedition by coordinating with the enemy in secret, on foriegn soil, more than once, and then denying it.

Add to that: there may be newly found evidence that shows a young American Lt resv. that was taking his directions from the enemy gov't to subvert the US military actions. Which also matches the FBI files which he also say's are wrong.

Not only would this make him a liar (again) it also make him in-eligable to be a U.S. Senator not mention the POTUS. (...it's another of those pesky little laws we have)
 
Luis G said:
*you guys are soooo screwed. :eek:

It all ends in voting for the less worst of both, must be a hard choice.

I suppose that has a lot do with how you approach a choice.

By you standards, I would always be choosing the lesser of two wrongs; Because I think I'm the perfect guy for the job since I like my opions better then anyone else (unless it involves housewerk or giving birth)..

By that same tolken I would choose cars by which one is less wrong, since there are no cars that meet my wants and desires (Hummer with twice the HP of the current ones, 42" tires, on-board dual-Xeon computer with driver HUD and several flat panels, and 15,000,000 Candle power spotlights 360').

I don't look at which guy I don't like and vote for anybody but him. I look at the choices and vote for the one that will best serve my country and protect my freedoms.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
I don't look at which guy I don't like and vote for anybody but him. I look at the choices and vote for the one that will best serve my country and protect my freedoms.

With only two 'real' parties to choose from...it all ends up being the same no matter which way you come from to get to your decision. You don't like Kerry because you feel that he won't serve the USA and protect your freedoms, so you're voting for anyone but him..in this case...that'd leave Bush. :shrug: I'll reiterate...two choices just aren't enough.
 
I think Bush does a good job, I don't agree with everything, but he is taking us in the right direction.

Kerry, that boy is a confused mess.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
I think Bush does a good job, I don't agree with everything, but he is taking us in the right direction.

Kerry, that boy is a confused mess.

I think that Bush is concentrating too much on proving that the USA is the last great military superpower and not enough on getting the economy back to where it was also the last great economic power.

Low inflation, high joblessness rate, low export/import ratio, lowering US$ (especially against the Yen and Euro)...

Bush has done a good job taking the war to the terrorist (I don't believe that I just said that)...but I doubt that Kerry could've done much worst.
 
MrBishop said:
(I don't believe that I just said that)...but I doubt that Kerry could've done much worst.

I disagree. I believe it "would" be like Vietnam, if in Kerry's hands.
 
the funny thing is, in the grand scheme of things, because of the way the election system works in this country, theres really not a huge difference between these two choices. we are arguing over coke and pepsi really. emotions fly and their are hard core wackos on both sides but they are both over sugared over carbonated over marketed corporate giants. i dont even see spring water on the menu. how refreshing would that be...
 
Thulsa Doom said:
the funny thing is, in the grand scheme of things, because of the way the election system works in this country, theres really not a huge difference between these two choices. we are arguing over coke and pepsi really. emotions fly and their are hard core wackos on both sides but they are both over sugared over carbonated over marketed corporate giants. i dont even see spring water on the menu. how refreshing would that be...
I disagree with that too.
To me they are as different as night and day. They problem is, I like dusk, and dawn. :D
 
Back
Top