VVAW voted on assassination plot during VN era?

[Mairead]

This is secondhand, from the NYSun via the online Oregon Magazine, so who knows whether there's anything to it. They claim to have witnesses both to the meeting and to Kerry being there, not that that necessarily means much. I could believe in the plot as a COINTELPRO deal, though.

The anti-war group that John Kerry was the principal spokesman for debated and voted on a plot to assassinate politicians who supported the Vietnam War.

Mr. Kerry denies being present at the November 12-15, 1971, meeting in Kansas City of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and says he quit the group before the meeting. But according to the current head of Missouri Veterans for Kerry, Randy Barnes, Mr. Kerry,who was then 27,was at the meeting, voted against the plot, and then orally resigned from the organization.

Mr. Barnes was present as part of the Kansas City host chapter for the 1971 meeting and recounted the incident in a phone interview with The New York Sun this week. In addition to Mr. Barnes’s recollection placing Mr. Kerry at the Kansas City meeting, another Vietnam veteran who attended the meeting, Terry Du-Bose, said that Mr. Kerry was there.

There are at least two other independent corroborations that the antiwar group Vietnam Veterans Against the War, of which Mr. Kerry was the most prominent national spokesman, considered assassinating American political leaders who favored the war.

http://oregonmag.com/KerryVVAWPlot.htm

[papau]

1. Bullshit - turns out Kerry was not there - and that the idiot proposal was

voted down.

Barns is a liar.

The rest of the vets support Kerry's truth.

[Mairead]

2. Barnes --head of Vets for Kerry-- is a liar? Got a cite? And how about

DuBose? Also a liar?

[sangh0]

7. The NY Sun lies for the right-wing

It was started by a bunch of Freepers who felt that Murdoch's NY Post wasn't conservative enough.

And Mairead believes those Freepers

[papau]

16. Murdoch crap - IF BArnes said it he is a liar -but that is indeed a big IF

Mr. Camil’s plan was presented November 12-15, 1971 and voted down - Barnes speaks a truth here that all agree with

But the claims of Mr. Kerry’s involvement in the assassination discussions in Kansas City have apparently not been previously reported - despit 30 years of GOP research.

The lack of VVAW historical papers to include Mr. Kerry’s resignation on Nov 10, - before the meeting - as was reported in Douglas Brinkley’s Tour of Duty and was sourced to to Andrew E. Hunt’s The Turning: A History of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (1999), is the thin reed to hang this crap on.

But no resignation letter fits that which most folks thought - he just resigned verbally.

So it appears we can choose between those that say - and are confirm by Mr. Nicosia, that "He resigned (verbally) from the executive committee" after a spectacular argument with VVAW leader Al Hubbard at the July national leadership meeting in St Louis.


Or we can buy into Slime machine that attacked Clinton - Scafie money and Murdoch's Fox Cable News print arm -The NY Post - and their reports that 2 folks say they think Kerry was there.

Well on behalf of the John Kerry campaign, spokesman David Wade has said that Kerry resigned from Vietnam Veterans Against the War “sometime in the summer of 1971 after the August meeting in St. Louis" and that "Kerry was not at the Kansas City meeting."

But feel free to post FOX Cable News and the NY Post as sources if you want to tear down Kerry. I note only that a group not known for honesty = or indeed even attemping to avoid lying - namely Bush and Company - have yet to touch this piece of crap.

[Mairead]

22. Maybe you should calm down and stop trying to kill the messenger?

A sez this, B sez that so B is *self-evidently* telling the truth. That's a bit embarrassingly partisan, don't you think? If you have nothing solid to counter it with, then say so and start looking! Don't claim by implication that Kerry's self-serving statements are above having to be corroborated! Jeez!

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

29. Claming Down now .... :-)

But the history I recall is the summer blow up - I don't recall Kerry being active post that point.

And others recall the same blow up, and lack of Kerry post blow up.

But that does not prove Barnes has a bad memory.

But Only Barnes and this other fellow - if quoted correctly - recall Kerry at that meeting.

So one chooses sides.

But we are calm again - time for nap!

[formernaderite]

49. Am I missing something...what difference does the date make?

He resigned, didn't he?

[formernaderite]

48. Isn't there a resignation letter?

Let them make a fuss about this, and then let Kerry pull out the letter.

[blm]

53. Mairead....Kucinich wouldn't approve of this direction.

If you're going to post stuff like this, you shouldn't do it in his name.

[Mairead]

54. I'm posting it under my own name, b.

The fact that I don't turn off my DK flag is an artifact of the software.

Please don't try to shut me down or close your ears because you don't like the message. That won't make anything go away. If the two witnesses weren't there, or are impeachable, or are being misquoted, or something else---then why not expose the fraud? And if they were there--it should be easy to check--and it is all real, then wouldn't it be better to be able to lay out the full story?

Sometimes I think I trust Kerry more than his supporters do.

[blm]

63. Nope. But some of us know how much rightwing material was planted against

Kerry BY DESIGN of the very people so many on the left claim to be opposing.

Promoting COINTELPRO? Come on.

The right plays so many on the left for the knee-jerk reactions they have come to count on over the last 4 decades.

What do you hope will come of your post? Personally, I think it's WAY beneath your obvious intellect.

[stopthegop]

4. how do you know they're lying?

[sangh0]

8. heir lips were moving

The NY Sun is a right-wing rag

[stopthegop]

11. so in other words...you hope they're lying?...because your

post above does nothing to show the individual are lying...

[sangh0]

17. No, I know they are lying

but it was a nice try

Try again

[stopthegop]

18. no...you don't...you think they are..not the same

you want them to be lying because you hate them, and people you hate lie a lot...you'd believe it if the story was about GWB going to a similar meeting of another group...this one's just inconvenient..true or not

[sangh0]

27. They are liars, and no I don't hate them. I pity them

The only hate here is the hate you demonstrate when you claim the ability to read my mind

[stopthegop]

34. have a good evening...

[sangh0]

38. So you won't defend your mind-reading

I can't say that I blame you

[Homer12]

3. It will be the main talking point in the RW echo chamber

by Tomorrow.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Unfortunately, I agree. It's probably on Drudge, as we speak.

This is not good for Kerry.....especially if he was at that meeting. It will still be bad even if he wasn't there.... just because he was a member....Oy Vey, Oy Vey, Oy Vey. This is not good.

[Homer12]

15. It does not have to be true at all

David Brock had it down to the tee when he said that stories that hurt Democrats don't have to be true, just that they hurt them in the short term.

This is what Bushco needed.

Who know's if it will work since the Right-Wing echo chamber has hurt it's own credability.

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. That's true.

All they have to do is SAY IT.....then the damage is done. Shelton did it to Wes Clark.

[mopinko]

5. "considered assassinating American political leaders"

at the behest of cointelpro, i would bet my bottom dollar. if there is any truth to it at all.

[Mick Knox]

9. ugh.. does it end? 8 months to go..

What more does roveco have in store..

This story is not good....

[bobthedrummer]

10. The use of agents and infiltrators was rampant then {and now}

many people were set up by the feds and local law enforcement, many of the most radical ideas were fostered by plants-who not only provided ideas but also materials.

Sheesh, I thought everyone in my generation (boomer) knew that.

This is just more bullshit, get used to it-fight back with the truth.

I think the "family jewels" of J. Edgar Hoover are in the hands of BFEE-plus there is a spook war going on--that's where this stuff comes from IMHO and experience.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

12. & per Bill MOyers NOW the other week -- it's still happening

they talked with a peace group who had a local police agent attending their meetings & talking up the need for violent direct action.

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. I didn't know that and I'm a baby boomer...

but a "young" one. :7

[Mairead]

24. Yeppers. Thick as fleas in Texas.

Our wonderful government (during both GOP and Democratic rulerships, we should note) was pretty blatantly not on the side of the People, or truth, or fairness, or any other desirable thing.

[BringEmOn]

32. Was Kerry a spook?

This has bothered me all along. He just doesn't strike me as the true antiwar type. Staged arrest...phoney medal throwing?... Many of the S&B gravitate toward the CIA and other spook activity. I doubt that he would infiltrate to be used as an instigator, but to gather information on the antiwar movement. Just wondering...

[blm]

52. Kerry was a TARGET. The plotting against him is on the Nixon tapes.

Geez...don't some of you people have a CLUE what has gone on the last 4 decades?

You'd rather attack Kerry than Nixon, Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2. Kerry has exposed more of their corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history and some of you can't get that thru your own skulls.

[democracyindanger]

13. What a wonderful magazine

In the same issue as this Kerry story is:

- A piece extolling the great virtues of Gibson's "Passion," and how
"Hollywood is a cesspool of no-talent slugs with delusions of artistic grandeur and Leftist agendas."

http://oregonmag.com/PassionChrist.htm

- An article that reveals an Oregon Dem memo about strategy for the Presidential campaign, with comments like "Oregon liberals (both Democrat and Republican) don't recognize truth as a concept," "The surplus disappeared down the maw of the recession the Clinton Administration left to George Bush," and more beauts.

http://oregonmag.com/OrDemMemo.htm

- A screed describing how gay rights (which the writer refers to as 'gay rites') should be used to ensure Bush's election. "Smack 'em in the face with Bush."

http://oregonmag.com/GayRites.htm

Nice source.

[Mairead]

19. The question should be whether it happened, not where it was reported

Why is it so hard to deal with the merits?

[stopthegop]

20. some people lack confidence..and as such fear this type of

story...

[Mairead]

25. I hear that. (*sigh*)

It tells us how much they truly believe in the merits and probity of their candidate.

[sangh0]

28. Right, the 1st question is whether it happened

and since an accusation by a right-wing smear rag is not credible, there is no reason to believe it actually did happen.

But you'll spread it around, just the same

[democracyindanger]

33. Where it was reported

speaks to its merits. Personally, I don't trust obscure, right-wing vanity Internet magazines, although sadly, it's clear that some people do.

[MrBenchley]

35. Why?

Why even pretend a right wing cesspool like this has merits?

[The Magistrate]

36. To Answer Your Question, Sir

If it were not for reactionary swill like this, the hard left die-hard opponents of Sen. Kerry would have nothing to offer in opposition to his electoral prospects, which it is an article of faith among them are poor.

In other circumstances, of course, these would be among the first to denounce citation of a right wing source, and consider citing such a source tantamount to confession of rightist views.

However, these people are, in effect, in alliance just now with the worst elements of reaction in our polity, as they seek the defeat of the Democratic Party's nominee for President themselves, and thus they want to see the widest possible circulation given to reactionary attacks against Sen. Kerry, as this will suit their purpose, and there is no other prolific source of anti-Kerry material, besides the odd Socialist splinter....

"People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American politics is all about."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[MrBenchley]

41. There are people for whom no candidate is pure enough

I've never understood that.

[sangh0]

39. Why?

Convenience

[blondeatlast]

40. Don't you question the sources yourself, in your OP?

Look, I'm a DK supporter too, but to quote an obviously wingnut cyberrag is not gonna win our guy any fans.

Sheesh.

[Mairead]

42. You want the truth? No, I don't care where something's being said

That's not important. What's important is *what's* being said. If I were a Kerry supporter, and found myself standing in a group of people when some rightwinger starts up with the 'Kerry was part of a group that....', you can bet your bum I wouldn't try to dismiss it by saying 'Oh that's from the Sun and it's a rightwing rag, don't pay any attention' because people *do* and *would* pay attention. I'd want to be able to say 'That proposal is proven to have came from an FBI plant who had infiltrated VVAW because they were looking for Reds under beds, the phoney proposal was voted down by 200-0, and they caught the guy and...' yada yada and have the citations to hand.

Lies can be proven to be lies, but the truth is going to go right on being the truth and it doesn't matter how uncomfortable it makes you or how much you really really really want it not to have happened.

Forewarned is forearmed, but ignorant is ignorant.

[blondeatlast]

43. Lies carry on, often longer than the truth. Remember, there are still

WMDs to be found in Iraq. :eyes:

It does matter where it comes from, esdpecially on a progressive MB.

If DU isn't progressive enough for you, well, ...

[Mairead]

46. Look, if you want to keep your head stuck in the sand, be my guest

You'll have lots of company, and I don't mean only by cat depositions.

[sangh0]

67. Not questioning the source is "keep your head stuck in the sand"

and you haven't even determined that this actually happened, and yet you continue to complain about it.

I'd say you're not one to talk about others putting their heads in the sand

[OKNancy]

45. Start here

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_Forbes_Kerry's_military_service#Kerry:_The_Vietnam_Smear

[Robb]

21. Mother Jones believes

he quit VVAW on November 10th.

[Mairead]

26. I doubt that's really a "believes", more likely it's a "repeats".

I'd be quite surprised if the reporter did independent research into the question, wouldn't you?

[Robb]

30. Not particularly.

Harris and Cohn are exceptional journalists turned editor and publisher. I don't think impugning them or MJ would help the case for the Sun's credibility.

[blondeatlast]

44. Not at all--MJ's reprters and eds are top-notch investigators.

It's a must read for true progressives.

[Leilani]

37. This is nothing new

This story has been floating around the web for about a week.

I decided to ignore it, considering the source.

[Mairead]

47. What a wonderful candidate you guys foisted on us.

More than half the posts directed at the messenger rather than the message (and the rest in defence of same), and not one post with any facts in refutation. That's pretty sad, people.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mikehiggins]

55. What facts could refute a claim like this?

Kerry says he wasn't there. Other people say he was. We're talking about a meeting three decades ago or so ago at which some radical proposals were discussed.

I know things like that were discussed back then because that was not an uncommon theme. Terrorism didn't start with bin Laden, you know. Just consider the Weathermen, for one example, and the sporadic bombings across the US. Killing US politicians could easily come up in the course of discussions (somebody oughta blow that sob's head off), but most likely any serious discussion had to come about through the efforts of government agents. The use of agents provocatuer (sic) during that period (and others) is well documented and beyond question.

The relevent part of the story is that (a) the group rejected the idea and (b) Kerry reportedly resigned in short order once topics like that began to be discussed. His status as a target for Nixon's ire is well established by the tapes recently shown/heard on national TV.

And, by the way? I never wanted Kerry to be our candidate.

[Mairead]

57. What facts? All of them, I'd think.

Such as: did the meeting take place? Was Kerry there? Was the idea of assassination brought up? Was the assassination idea a COINTELPRO entrapment attempt? Was it rejected? Did Kerry, if he was there, resign at that point? And if he was there, why didn't he inform the FBI?

[sangha]

59. You can't prove a negative, Mairead

It's a standard right-wing ploy, and you are helping to futhre it along on DU. Make a ridiculous claim, and then make the other side prove it didn't happen. It takes an incredibly shallow line of reasoning to not see right through this.

How about this shocking suggestion - Don't believe it until it's proven true.

Shocking, right?

[Mairead]

60. What parts do you think are not true, Sangha?

And why.

[sangh0]

68. Take some responsibility for your actions, Mairead

It's not my burden to prove anything is untrue. It's YOUR burden to prove it's true, and why.

Typical propoganda tactic to tell a lie and demand that other's debunk it. I'm not surprised you refuse to defend your own posts.

[Mairead]

70. Too late. Bye.

[sangh0]

72. Typical turn of the tail and run

How's that sand looking?

[Monte Carlo]

56. Why do you waste our time and yours with this tripe?

You know that this is just a hit piece, that emerged at a very convenient time.

You don't have to like Kerry as the Democratic candidate, but you cannot be sore that your candidate didn't win it forever. It's a futile and even a counter-productive exercise.

[Mairead]

58. I'd urge you to rethink your assumptions here. Every single one

of them is wrong apart from my not liking Kerry as the candidate. Every single one of them.

[Dhalgren]

61. Everyone needs to remember how "radicalized"

we had become by the late 60's/early 70's. I was a member of a succession of progressively radicalized groups at that time and many would not believe what was discussed and contemplated seriously back then. We had been pushed to the wall and saw no way out short of violence. But if you were "turned-off" by the direction a group was taking you might resign in disgust, but you would never - never - turn anyone in to the cops, FBI or otherwise. They were the enemy, they were not to be trusted and it would make your skin crawl just thinking about talking to them. No, if the VVAW discussed assassinating people (and they may well have) and Kerry decided to quit because of it (or other similar reasons), he would never have reported anyone to the FBI - it would have been unthinkable. This all may be true, but does not change my opinion of Kerry, at all, except that, if so, he didn't rat-out his comrades.

[Mairead]

62. What was Kennedy's (or his speechwriter's) summary?

'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable'? Something like that.

It's not hard to get to the point where authority no longer commands any respect or the existing order any loyalty. And every Seattle, Milan, or Miami pries another brick from the wall and smashes it to dust.

I have a series of news photos of an unarmed protester being set upon first by one cop who beat him with a nightstick, then, after he was already on the ground, by a half-dozen more cops, all surrounding him and clubbing him a la Rodney King. Only this victim was a White U/Minn grad student and it happened in full view of fifty or more students and faculty on the other side of the street. The cops didn't care.

[seaglass]

64. A more reputable source shows that Barnes was not

as positive that Kerry was there as this article purports.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/8175091.htm?1c

You have to register to read the entire article.

"Members of the group that John Kerry propelled to the center of the anti-war movement and that helped launch his political career do not agree, however, whether the man now on course to the Democratic presidential nomination was around for the debate.

At least one enthusiastic Kerry supporter said he remembered him attending at least the start of the group's national steering committee meeting and urging the organization to distance itself from radicals.

“John said, … I think his exact words were, ‘You guys are getting way too radical, you're defeating your purpose, and I quit,' ” Randy Barnes said Friday.

A Kansas Citian and an active volunteer this year for Kerry's presidential run, Barnes said upon reflection later in the day that he could “not be absolutely certain” that Kerry was in Kansas City for the meeting."

Snip

In addition, the veteran (Camil) that proposed the idea was quoted as saying Kerry wasn't there and that the idea didn't float at all and he took a lot of criticism for bringing it up.

Now my question - do you know how to use google? When you really want to find an answer out do you ever try to find it for yourself?

In the time that you've wasted starting this thread and responding to other posters you could have had some of the answers for yourself but instead it seems you would rather drag in right wing smear. Sad.

[Mairead]

65. "you could have had some of the answers for yourself"

It's not my job to defend Kerry--I'm not one of his supporters. But in fact I've had that information in hand since yesterday. When everyone attacked me instead of simply doing the little bit of research that you and I both know was all that was required, it became obvious that if I wanted to know anything, I'd better go find it out for myself because Kerry's supposed supporters are more interested in splashing around endlessly in De Nial and criticising people.

So to complete the summary you started: The meeting occurred, the idea of assassination was raised, it was almost certainly not a COINTELPRO entrapment attempt, it was strongly voted down amid considerable criticism. It's not clear whether Kerry was there (1 or possibly 2 yes, 1 no, 2 maybe), and it's not known at present when or how he resigned because any written record (e.g. a letter) that might exist appears to have been misplaced.

[seaglass]

66. Oh, I understand it is your job to be on the offense.

Yes, it totally makes sense that if there are two conflicting reports out there, the right wing one is what we should be relying on for the truth.

Do you normally rely on that source for your news?

What was the purpose of this thread? I'm not thinking very good things about your intentions but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, so please explain to me why your post was legit.

[sangh0]

69. Mairead won't defend her posts (see posts above)

She might ask you to prove that she's wrong, as if we are obligated to believe something just because it can't be disproved.

[Mairead]

71. "What was the purpose of this thread?"

Everything there is to know about my intentions is contained in the basenote. I came across the story, I put it out in a way that made my personal skepticism clear. But, as it turns out--mirabile dictu!--the story is a legitimate one and basic details correct. The meeting really happened, assassination really was voted on, and there are real attendees who really believe Kerry was there for it. The Sun wasn't completely honest, but I didn't expect them to be--I only wondered which parts they were being less-than-honest about.

Now, if the Kerry supporters involved feel they behaved appropriately by ignoring the actual substance and attacking me instead, then I think they need to go away somewhere quiet and do a searching introspection of their maturity and motives. Because throwing shite from the middle of De Nial is not the behavior of a grown-up. It's just not.

[sangh0]

73. Why won't you defend yourself?

What are you afraid of?

[seaglass]

74. But you made it clear that it was very simple for you to

find an alternate version of this story, which is much less sensational. So my question is, with a choice of two stories, why did you choose to post this one - especially if you questioned its credibility?

I'm just going to let this drop, I think I've got a fairly good idea of your intentions.

[Mairead]

75. "why did you choose to post this one?"

Because that was the one I had in my hand. One, not two. I presumed that Kerry's supporters would already have any refutation in their hand, so why should I duplicate the work? I was quite surprised to find myself being attacked instead. It was only AFTER I realised that I wasn't going to get anything but ...um, 'complaints'... in response that I went looking for the information on my own.

(edit) And no, it wasn't 'much less sensational'. The major difference is in how definite Barnes was about whether Kerry was there. The Sun article implied he was certain, the KC one revealed that on reflection he felt less sure.

[sangh0]

76. Very disingenous

Because that was the one I had in my hand.

Do you think anyone is going to believe that you posted it "because that was the one I had in my hand"?

presumed that Kerry's supporters would already have any refutation in their hand

Yeah, we also have a stack of evidence proving that Kerry was not on the Grassy Knoll. You seek to put the burden for proving statements on Kerry supporters, but you never feel any burden to prove the assertions you've made. Why the double-standard?

The major difference is in how definite Barnes was about whether Kerry was there

Well, *that's* not too important. After all, you are obviously concerned about assasinations, not the primaries. That's why you posted it in the forum devoted to the Democratic Primaries. This has nothing to do with the primaries. You just want the truth (but won't do anything to see if the story is actually true)