Kerry Met With The Enemy, Advocated Their Position
Tue March 23rd, 2004 23:07 MSTFrom John Kerry’s own 1971 Testimony:
I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government
Kerry ignores the fact that the PRG is merely a puppet of the North Vietnamese (DRV)
and of all eight of Madam Binh’s points
In other words, the enemy negotiating 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.
I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that.
As to the argument concerning the danger to our troops were we to withdraw or state that we would, they have also said many times in conjunction with that statement that all of our troops, the moment we set a date, will be given safe conduct out of Vietnam.
Safe conduct is what you give a defeated army after they surrender, which is what Kerry is advocating.
The only other important point is that we allow the South Vietnamese people to determine their own figure and that ostensibly is what we have been fighting for anyway.
I would, therefore, submit that the most expedient means of getting out of South Vietnam would be for the President of the United States to declare a cease-fire, to stop this blind commitment to a dictatorial regime, the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime, accept a coalition regime which would represent all the political forces of the country
The coalition would actually be between the North through their wholly controlled and created puppet government, the PRG, and the actual South Vietnamese government. At the time of this argument, polls in Vietnam showed that the vast majority of Vietnamese preferred to stay with the Thieu government, which they knew was not nearly as oppressive as the communists.
which is in fact what a representative government is supposed to do and which is in fact what this Government here in this country purports to do, and pull the troops out without losing one more American, and still further without losing the South Vietnamese.
Anybody who understood communist tactics knew that this coalition government would rapidly be controlled by the communists, and South Vietnam would cease to exists.
At this point, you have to ask yourself: “Was Kerry a total fool, or was he an traitor?”
So, if you’re voting for Kerry, which do you prefer? The fool or the traitor
John,
Don’t be so narrow minded. They don’t have to choose. They could be both fools and traitors at the same time!
I totally agree with Rhod, John!
Next time, how ’bout it, try not to be so darned ‘mean-spirited,’ will you? If it is indeed–as is oft said–a woman’s prerogative to change her mind on a whimsy, why then can’t a Silver Star-holding fifth-columnist do the same? I mean, after all, Kerry IS ‘French–and by all means, like the Kennedy’s, he’s entitled to the ‘divine right’ to rule, as well (l’etat, c’est moi!) It’s not like he’s one of us, a mere ‘commoner,’ after all!
Convictions, consmictions, as a good Harvardian might say…. I mean, what is resolve when there are caviar and champagne to be had at the mere flick of one’s wrist?
In the future, try to remember yourself, John…. Remember your ‘place’ in life….
John Kerry was such a trendsetter even for his then tender years. Negotiating and surrendering to the enemy. What a coup. He anticipated Jimmy Carter by at least a decade.