Elroy Re...I'll help you resolve that seeming contradiction. Meeting the Viet Cong in Paris in 1970 may technically fit some definition of the word "treason" that you can provide, but (in my opinion) the meeting was not treasonous.
Why do I say that? If it were treasonous, the US authorities would have prosecuted Kerry and thrown him in the slammer in 1971.
Whether Kerry was treasonous probably depends upon 2 issues, either of which, would have made it treason; what was discussed, and did Kerry know he still was in the navy, subject to its rules and regulations. Kerry didn't release his notes on the meetings, and I have no idea how clearly the navy briefs their personal, upon discharge from active duty, what their obligations are for their period of inactive duty. The fact that the navy didn't prosecute Kerry, doesn't necessarily mean they were, or weren't traitorous, as political considerations probably were more paramount.
2-I don't mind John Kerry meeting some Viet Cong representatives in Paris in 1970.
You should mind. Even if Kerry didn't discuss treasonous acts, or didn't know he technically was committing treason, it shows extremely poor judgement at its best; and should you be voting for a guy who has exhibited extremely poor judgement. What kind of knowledge did Kerry hope to gain, and did that knowledge undermine the final treaty terms. Certainly, if you were president, you wouldn't want me running to Osama, trying to make a deal, undermining your authority. Why should Kerry be treated differently. |
