QandO
Questions and Observations| « Of course, its the media's fault! Doh! | Main | Law of Free Trade: The costs, visible; the benefits, invisible » |
|
July 02, 2004 I get email We all do ... and a lot of it is spam. Some of it is targeted, based on some information the emailer has gathered on you. Maybe writing for a blog where you have blasted John Kerry in the past is where this one came from: John Kerry has a long and well-documented history of providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of war -- particularly in the case of North Vietnam. Kerry. By his own account, Kerry violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer, and he further stands in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare. My reaction? A roll of the eyes and a hearty, "You've got to be kidding!" This is lame, terribly lame. This is the same sort of quasi-legal, pseudo-nonsense which was floating around concerning Bill Clinton in '96 and later. Its patent nonsense. John Kerry has enough of a record to go after that we don't have to invent stupidity like this. And that's what it is. Nonsense. Anyone falling for this simply destroys his future credibility. While I may think Kerry is misguided and has done and said some stupid and unfortunate things, I do not believe he has ever purposely done anything to give "aid and comfort" to the enemy. That's important. Yes, what he said back then was used by the enemy. But the provison of aid and comfort to the enemy is a purposeful act. Jane Fonda purposely acted to give aid and comfort when she went to North Vietnam. Kerry, on the other hand, didn't do what he did with the purpose of providing aid and comfort. And as remarkably stupid, ill advised, ill informed and destructive as his testimony was, it doesn't rise to the level of 'aid and comfort'. It is certainly, in my estimation, something which he can never live down and something for which he should be held responsible, but treason? It just doesn't rise to that level. Jane Fonda? Traitor. John Kerry? Misguided, ill informed and stupid. But no traitor. |
"Misguided, ill informed and stupid"
In other words, a perfect candidate for POTUS.
At least he is not a moron.
Posted by: Uncle Bill at July 2, 2004 06:12 PM
Actually that's debatable. One might define a moron as ill informed, misguided and stupid. I certainly wouldn't argue.
Posted by: McQ at July 2, 2004 06:43 PM
McQ,
I have been a fan of this blog since Jon and I crossed paths a few months ago. While my views usually differ largely from yours (at least everything other than fiscal policy), I like to take in your opinions. I can accept you calling Kerry misguided and ill informed (such is the difference of opinion in politics), but to call him "stupid" is a bit misguided itself. No one could ever rise to the level that he has by being stupid. While we can disagree on policy, and have a good debate at the same time, I don't think we need to bring it down to the level of calling each other "stupid."
Yours respectfully,
Sean
Posted by: sean at July 3, 2004 01:41 AM
Okay, so Kerry isn't stupid. He's blessed with a talent for being on the wrong side of every economic and defense policy that's worked over the past 20+ years. That's not stupidity, that's incredibly consistent pig-headedness.
Posted by: Steverino at July 3, 2004 02:38 AM
Sean ... the inference wasn't that Kerry is stupid ... he's not ... it was that what he said and did at that time were stupid ... and I still believe that to be true. In my opinion it wasn't a smart thing to do at all.
I've discussed responsible debate on here before, and Kerry's dissent wasn't responsibile in the least. He simply became the mouthpiece for a pack of what have since been shown to be lies (his responsibility was to check them out thoroughly before repeating them ... and he didn't) and thereby falsely indicted an entire generation of soldiers as war criminals ... among them me. Allowing one' self to be used like that, even if your beliefs are strong, is not the most intelligent thing in the world, Sean.
I think the term is appropriate for his actions at the time, and that's what its use was aimed toward, those actions and activities, not his overall intellect. Its an answer to the email essentially calling him a traitor based on those incidents.
And as a note, I appreciate your civil disagreement now and in the past. I wish more on your side (actually on both sides) could learn from you and emulate your civility.
Posted by: McQ at July 3, 2004 07:06 AM
No, Kerry isn't stupid.
One needs to be smart to be a good liar, after all.
Posted by: Bithead at July 3, 2004 07:54 AM
Sean
I wish you could convince more of those on your side of the same argument. Kerry isnt stupid but at the same time I find his stand on issues (as proven by time not what he mouths) highly disgusting. He may not be stupid but he is a lying opportunist.
Posted by: retired military at July 3, 2004 09:35 PM
Good for you. People calling Kerry a traitor, accusing him of treason, are irrational and silly. Meeting with North Vietnamese people on neutral territory (Paris) to advise them on how to negotiate a peace, or saying credulous and offensive things about what was going on in the fields of Vietnam, does not rise to the level of treason. Claims to the contrary are just silly, and no military prosecutor or tribunal would be willing to take on a case like this--not because he's a Senator, but because what he did simply does not rise to that level.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at July 8, 2004 01:53 AM
Here's my question, guys.
Am I allowed to call what Kerry and his group did "aid and comfort to the enemy" if the enemy says he got aid and comfort from it?
That's the only thing that keeps me leaning toward treason here. Had General Giap not come out and said that without groups like the VVAW for whom Kerry was the public face Hanoi would have surrendered, I might think differently.
Posted by: Jimmie at July 8, 2004 08:58 AM
Jimmie: You can call him whatever you wish, of course.
I simply drew a line in the sand for me. That line says the difference between aid and comfort and just being naive and dumb are whether the acts were done with the purpose of providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy. There is little doubt that Fonda's trip to North VN had the purpose of providing "aid and comfort", and thus I look upon her as a traitor.
As much as I disagree with what Kerry did and said, I can find no inkling that his purpose was to provide aid and comfort to the enemy. Therefore, although disgusted and offended by what he did, it doesn't rise to the level of purposeful aid and comfort and therefore isn't treason.
Posted by: McQ at July 8, 2004 09:21 AM
Jimmie:
You ought not call what Sen. Kerry did providing "aid and comfort to the enemy." That phrase has a particular legal meaning and what Sen. Kerry did during his youth does not rise to that level.
Was it a stupid thing to do? Yes, but smart people can do stupid things - I am considered pretty smart (I am a lawyer) and yet I have done things that, in retrospect, weren't too swift.
Yours,
Mike
Posted by: Mike at July 8, 2004 09:28 AM
McQ,
I definitely understand your point of view. I hold it myself about more than a couple people who have been called traitors recently. Intent is, I think, very important. But I can't believe that the whole of the word "treason" lies with intent.
His intention to aid or comfort the enemy is less important to me than the fact that it did just that. He may have been acting recklessly and foolishly, but what he did contributed to the deaths of millions. I'm not so willing to let him off the hook because he didn't mean to. There are plenty of people in prison (though I'm not advocating prison for Kerry) because they acted foolishly or negligently and someone died.
Posted by: Jimmie at July 8, 2004 11:17 AM