Gee that sounds like an injury to me. And not something you would call deliberately self inflicted. If an injury occurs in the persecution of a battle. You get the award. That would have to be the first one then, and not the last two that supposedly got him out of duty early so he could go home.
Okay...except that there was no reason to fire the mortar, he was jacking around. It's self inflicted...and it only required a bandaid. Any self-respecting man would have been embarrassed, put a bandaid on it himself, and moved on.
But, again, on November 3rd, he can stare at his medals all day...he'll have nothing else to do.
link?Okay...except that there was no reason to fire the mortar, he was jacking around.
Frankly I don't care that Kerry couldn't operate weapons effectively in Vietnam.
Personally I don't care too much about what he said before Congress. It's obvious why the vets do and I can't blame them for that.
About the only rumor from Kerry's youth that I would care about was did he meet with VietCong representatives in Paris while the war was still in progress?
That seems a bit extreme for anyone who wants to be president. Even with a divisive unpopular war.
I don't know if I have ever seen the explanation behind that photo. I have seen a photo. But no dates and no context. It could have been the South Vietnamese he was meeting for all I could tell.
Caption: First peace meeting between VVAW and the NLF, Paris, 1971.
Damn, it's like you've never heard of Google.
Though the picture doesn't show Kerry, he DOES admit to meeting with them in Paris in his Congressional Testimony:
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
April 22, 1971 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA -
UNITED STATES SENATE;
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in Room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (Chairman) presiding.
.
.
.
CHAIRMAN. Do you support or do you have any particular views about any one of them you wish to give the committee?
KERRY. My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
.
.
.
KERRY. Mr. Chairman, I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera. I understand these things. But what I am saying is that I believe that there is a mood in this country which I know you are aware of and you have been one of the strongest critics of this war for the longest time. But I think if we can talk in this legislative body about filibustering for porkbarrel programs, then we should start now to talk about filibustering for the saving of lives and of our country.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
It was a peace treaty negotiation? That makes sense and there was nothing wrong with it if its with both parties present.
go watch "fog of war" by the way.
What's the VVAW doing at a peace negotiation? They weren't an official arm of the U.S. Government...and, I don't see any U.S. Government officials in the photo.
Its not without precendent in international policy. It happens all of the time. Usually as no more than a goodwill gesture.
Palestinians and Israelis hold these meetings regularly.
That's not good for Kerry to say the least.
Despurado...wouldn't that be kinda like Jessee Jackson doing his thing?
I don't know about Palestinian or Israeli law, but, in these United States, it's illegal to negotiate with a country, on behalf of the U.S. Government, and particularly one with which we are at war.
...it's illegal to negotiate with a country, on behalf of the U.S. Government, and particularly one with which we are at war.
Whoa! Stop the presses. Has Yoni uncovered a scoop? Did he unearth a delaration of war in Vietnam that no one else knows about or has ever seen?
STFU, one with which we are engaged in hostilities.
It's illegal to negotiate peace on behalf of the U.S. Government -- without the government's permission.
#1. Find me the law, barrister. You referenced it. Produce itSTFU, one with which we are engaged in hostilities.
#2. It won't say "during hostilities". It will say "In a state of war" if it exists at all. The "police action" is a way for the exec to get around congressional oversight. It also leaves a few loophole for protesters, though. Too bad.
le 18, Part 1, Chap. 45, Sec. 953 of the U.S. Government Code says (today and in 1970), in pertinent part:"#1. Find me the law, barrister. You referenced it. Produce it"
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this le or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
"This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
Well, well, Yoni. You surprise me sometimes. Perhaps he was just telling them he was pissed that they shot at him. Until a transcript of their meeting (with no proportional fonts or superscripts) can be produced to PROVE was was discussed, you really can't prosecute this.
"This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
Yeah.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote