Bring it on, John

[MDM4AU 336]

Bring it on, John

by Oliver North

August 27, 2004

  "Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry

Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?

Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist, host of the Fox News Channel's War Stories and founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.

LINK

[BamaGrad03 0]

Doesnt get more clear cut than that.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Ollie is the man!! Now that Hanoi John is firing his staff, it will be interesting to see what "fresh ideas" the new morons...I mean....campaign advisors bring to the table.

[tiger88 934]

What can you add to that?

tigeral? texastiger? other kerry fans? rebuttal?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

What can you add to that?

tigeral? texastiger? other kerry fans? rebuttal?

Your new hero is a convicted felon now?

[tiger88 934]

What can you add to that?

tigeral? texastiger? other kerry fans? rebuttal?

Your new hero is a convicted felon now?

You call that a rebuttal?

I guess you live by the old if you don't like the message shoot the messenger saying. :roll:

Whenever you're ready to rebutt the undeniably factual info. in this article, we'll be waiting.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

What can you add to that?

tigeral? texastiger? other kerry fans? rebuttal?

Your new hero is a convicted felon now?

You call that a rebuttal?

I guess you live by the old if you don't like the message shoot the messenger saying. :roll:

Whenever you're ready to rebutt the undeniably factual info. in this article, we'll be waiting.

Your heroes are your business.

What is substantively "new" in his letter that we haven't already kicked to death 20 times?

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam."

This is a lie. We have already established that you've never read the transcript, you haven't educated yourself, you just repeat the same old tripe that others say. Any you want people to waste their time rebutting a convicted liar when you should be able to read that and know it is inaccurate.

Do you really compare John Kerry's testimony to Jane Fonda's antics? If so, you didn't stop smoking dope soon enough. Too much damage is already done.

[tiger88 934]

What can you add to that?

tigeral? texastiger? other kerry fans? rebuttal?

Your new hero is a convicted felon now?

You call that a rebuttal?

I guess you live by the old if you don't like the message shoot the messenger saying. :roll:

Whenever you're ready to rebutt the undeniably factual info. in this article, we'll be waiting.

Your heroes are your business.

What is substantively "new" in his letter that we haven't already kicked to death 20 times?

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam."

This is a lie. We have already established that you've never read the transcript, you haven't educated yourself, you just repeat the same old tripe that others say. Any you want people to waste their time rebutting a convicted liar when you should be able to read that and know it is inaccurate.

Do you really compare John Kerry's testimony to Jane Fonda's antics? If so, you didn't stop smoking dope soon enough. Too much damage is already done.

OK texastiger, I just looked up the transcript to read parts of it again and could you please explaun to me how your quoted north statement is a lie?

North says that kerry testified that he had knowledge of those things occuring and that is exactly what the transcript notes. He was relating what he claims he was told by other vets. Since he chose to relate these third person stories in front of a senate subcommittee it is exactly like he is making the accusation himself. If he isn't then why did he tell the subcommittee this info.?

Do I equate kerry's post war antics with fonda's antics. No, you came up with that one all on your own :roll: . I would say that they were definitely alike in many ways.

texastiger, you might want to consider smoking some pot. It might loosen you up a little and help you get over your intellectual insecurities that cause you to incessantly attack the intelligence of those who try to have conversations with you on this forum :roll: .

[TexasTiger 13,006]

What can you add to that?

tigeral? texastiger? other kerry fans? rebuttal?

Your new hero is a convicted felon now?

You call that a rebuttal?

I guess you live by the old if you don't like the message shoot the messenger saying. :roll:

Whenever you're ready to rebutt the undeniably factual info. in this article, we'll be waiting.

Your heroes are your business.

What is substantively "new" in his letter that we haven't already kicked to death 20 times?

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam."

This is a lie. We have already established that you've never read the transcript, you haven't educated yourself, you just repeat the same old tripe that others say. Any you want people to waste their time rebutting a convicted liar when you should be able to read that and know it is inaccurate.

Do you really compare John Kerry's testimony to Jane Fonda's antics? If so, you didn't stop smoking dope soon enough. Too much damage is already done.

OK texastiger, I just looked up the transcript to read parts of it again and could you please explaun to me how your quoted north statement is a lie?

North says that kerry testified that he had knowledge of those things occuring and that is exactly what the transcript notes. He was relating what he claims he was told by other vets. Since he chose to relate these third person stories in front of a senate subcommittee it is exactly like he is making the accusation himself. If he isn't then why did he tell the subcommittee this info.?

Do I equate kerry's post war antics with fonda's antics. No, you came up with that one all on your own :roll: . I would say that they were definitely alike in many ways.

texastiger, you might want to consider smoking some pot. It might loosen you up a little and help you get over your intellectual insecurities that cause you to incessantly attack the intelligence of those who try to have conversations with you on this forum :roll: .

Tiger 88:

I apologize to you for the personal comments. That is not a direction, as I recall, that you usually go, at least not that strongly.

My frustration comes largely from having the same old opinions thrown out there as if they were facts and being asked to rebutt an opinion. This is largely Ollie's opinion of his take on the facts. There are no alleged "new" facts to rebut. As I asked, what is substantively different from what has gone before? What do you really expect those of us who disagree with you to say? Are you truly inviting a genuine conversation? Titan Tiger and I disagree on quite a bit, but he genuinely engages in conversation and we generally disagree respectfully, at least after we had one little silly back and forth on both our parts. But instead of wasting my time on such things, and responding in an unpleasant fashion, I'm sure I should just focus my efforts elsewhere.

But to finish this one out first...

He was relating what he claims he was told by other vets. Since he chose to relate these third person stories in front of a senate subcommittee it is exactly like he is making the accusation himself. If he isn't then why did he tell the subcommittee this info.?

This preceded the statement at issue:

I would like to say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.

I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.

Winter soldier Investigation

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally...

The testimony he relayed was documented, not something he merely "claimed he was told". He was chosen by Congress to speak for the group. He made it clear that he was, in that case, relaying a message. He did not claim that those atrocities in that list were observed or told to him in Viet Nam. This was clearly public "knowledge" as to what was testified to in Detroit, not presented by him as if he was the source of the "knowledge", second-hand or otherwise. For that section of the tesimony, his role was that as messenger at the invitation of Congress to deliver that message.

How his statement ended and the Senate Chairman's comments:

But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbarous war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and the fear that have driven this country these last 10 years and more and so when, in 30 years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory but mean instead the pace where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

Thank you. (Applause.)

The Chairman: Mr. Kerry, it is quite evident from that demonstration that you are speaking not only for yourself but for all your associates, as you properly said in the beginning.

You said you wished to communicate. I can't imagine anyone communicating more eloquently than you did. I think it is extremely helpful and beneficial to the committee and the country to have you make such a statement.

You said you had been awake all night. I can see that you spent that time very well indeed. (Laughter)

Perhaps that was the better part, better that you should be awake than otherwise.

Proposals Before Committee

You have said that the question before this committee and the Congress is really how to end the war. The resolutions about which we have been hearing testimony during the past several days, the sponsors of which are some members of this committee, are seeking the most practical way that we can find and, I believe, to do it at the earliest opportunity that we can. That is the purpose of these hearing and that is why you were brought here.

You said this:

Do I equate kerry's post war antics with fonda's antics. No, you came up with that one all on your own :roll: . I would say that they were definitely alike in many ways.

I didn't come up with it at all. The letter you specifically asked me to respond to ended thusly:

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?

Instead of trying some pot, I'll just try to make better use of my time. Thanks for the tip, though.

[Tiger Al 0]

He was relating what he claims he was told by other vets. Since he chose to relate these third person stories in front of a senate subcommittee it is exactly like he is making the accusation himself. If he isn't then why did he tell the subcommittee this info.?

What you said here is fair enough. You probably COULD make the argument that Kerry, as spokesman for VVAW, should've spent the resources necessary (money, time, etc.) to thouroughly vet this information before he publicly made these statements. I suppose that's fair enough. But, here's what I find interesting with your line of thinking...you (Bush supporters) don't seem to apply it to Dubya when talking about the war in Iraq. He said there were lots of WMD's and that we knew where they were but when it's suggested that he be held accountable when that turns out not to be true, it was just bad intelligence. Bush claims that Iraq had drones that could attack the US here but when that's shown to be false, it was just bad intelligence. Saddam and 9/11, bad intelligence. Saddam and al Qaeda, bad intelligence. And the list could go on into just about everything else he's failed at the last 3 1/2 yrs. The sad pattern with Bush is it's always, always, always somebody elses fault. In probably the rarest instance of honesty he's displayed, the other day he admitted that we'll never win the war on terror only to backtrack the next day and say that not only can it be won, but that we're winning it. WTF???

So, if you believe it's reasonable to think that Bush, commanding the vast resources that this country possesses can be so easily misled time after time, why is it so unreasonable to believe that Kerry was misled, too, in some cases?

As I've said many, many times before...hate Kerry if you like but hate him for honest reasons.

[tiger88 934]

texastiger,

no prob on the personal stuff. That is a nasty habit you have though.

I personally barely if at all read any prior threads about kerry's testimony. You can dress it up anyway you want to but, he testified to having the knowledge just like north claimed. It may have been documented, but he presented it as personal knowledge from what I've read.

You have done nothing to rebutt anything in the letter with any validity and if you are so edgy on the subject then maybe it's best you don't.

Btw, suggesting that kerry should also apologize for his actions in no way, shape, form, or fashion "equates" their actions. Both of their actions were very hurtful to vietnam vets. Nobody said they were equal.

[tiger88 934]

He was relating what he claims he was told by other vets. Since he chose to relate these third person stories in front of a senate subcommittee it is exactly like he is making the accusation himself. If he isn't then why did he tell the subcommittee this info.?

What you said here is fair enough. You probably COULD make the argument that Kerry, as spokesman for VVAW, should've spent the resources necessary (money, time, etc.) to thouroughly vet this information before he publicly made these statements. I suppose that's fair enough. But, here's what I find interesting with your line of thinking...you (Bush supporters) don't seem to apply it to Dubya when talking about the war in Iraq. He said there were lots of WMD's and that we knew where they were but when it's suggested that he be held accountable when that turns out not to be true, it was just bad intelligence. Bush claims that Iraq had drones that could attack the US here but when that's shown to be false, it was just bad intelligence. Saddam and 9/11, bad intelligence. Saddam and al Qaeda, bad intelligence. And the list could go on into just about everything else he's failed at the last 3 1/2 yrs. The sad pattern with Bush is it's always, always, always somebody elses fault. In probably the rarest instance of honesty he's displayed, the other day he admitted that we'll never win the war on terror only to backtrack the next day and say that not only can it be won, but that we're winning it. WTF???

So, if you believe it's reasonable to think that Bush, commanding the vast resources that this country possesses can be so easily misled time after time, why is it so unreasonable to believe that Kerry was misled, too, in some cases?

As I've said many, many times before...hate Kerry if you like but hate him for honest reasons.

Thats a good point al. I don't hate kerry at all. I think it would be a much worse thing if he were elected than bush. For whatever reasons he said what he said it just makes him look bad.

I spend far more time on politics than the average citizen, but not as much as many on this board so I don't know all the specifics about why he said what he said. If I were him I woulda got this issue out there earlier and thoroughly addressed it and issued a very public apology along the lines of jane fonda. Even if I felt I were in the right I woulda found some way to word a sincere apology that most woulda heard. I guess I'm an armchair politician.

[Tiger Al 0]

If I were him I woulda got this issue out there earlier and thoroughly addressed it and issued a very public apology along the lines of jane fonda. Even if I felt I were in the right I woulda found some way to word a sincere apology that most woulda heard.

Has Kerry gotten on national TV during primetime and begged forgiveness in between fits of uncontrolled sobbing? No. He has explained his feelings from that period many times and apologized, not for doing what he did but for some of the things he said. As for Fonda, if the people on this board are any indication, her apology got her zero forgiveness and as long as Kerry's running for president, he wouldn't get any, either. But it's nice for Ollie to offer.

[tiger88 934]

Believe it or don't that is the first time I have ever heard janes apology. It does begin to bring forgiveness from me and helps me see her in a different light. The magnitude of what she did is why some may have trouble forgiving her, but imo, her apology sounds sincere and I'll take it at face value.

Likewise, I have never heard or seen any of kerry's apologies. No sobbing necessary :roll: , just speak from the heart about it so more people can be aware of what he did and why.

[Tigermike 3,053]

What can you add to that?

tigeral? texastiger? other kerry fans? rebuttal?

Your new hero is a convicted felon now?

And as such should never, ever be forgiven! Unless of course he is a democrat.

[Tiger Al 0]

Believe it or don't that is the first time I have ever heard janes apology. It does begin to bring forgiveness from me and helps me see her in a different light. The magnitude of what she did is why some may have trouble forgiving her, but imo, her apology sounds sincere and I'll take it at face value.

Likewise, I have never heard or seen any of kerry's apologies. No sobbing necessary :roll: , just speak from the heart about it so more people can be aware of what he did and why.

You seem to be stepping towards forgiveness and that makes you a big man in my opinion, tiger88.

Here's Kerry on 'Meet The Press,'

MR. RUSSERT:  Before we take a break, I want to talk about Vietnam.  You are a decorated war hero of Vietnam, prominently used in your advertising.  You first appeared on MEET THE PRESS back in 1971, your first appearance.  I want to roll what you told the country then and come back and talk about it:

(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War):  There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones.  I conducted harassment and interdiction fire.  I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.  I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages.  All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare.  All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.  And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  You committed atrocities.

SEN. KERRY:  Where did all that dark hair go, Tim?  That's a big question for me.  You know, I

thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word.  I think it's an inappropriate word.  I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure.  I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger.  It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.

MR. RUSSERT:  You used the word "war criminals."

SEN. KERRY:  Well, let me just finish.  Let me must finish.  It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it today.  I don't like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them.  But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top.  And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions.  There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that.  I mean, books have chronicled that, so I'm not going to walk away from that.  But I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.

MR. RUSSERT:  But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on.  A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony...

SEN. KERRY:  Actually, a lot of them have been documented.

MR. RUSSERT:  So you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY:  A lot of those stories have been documented.  Have some been discredited?  Sure, they have, Tim.  The problem is that's not where the focus should have been.  And, you know, when you're angry about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable of not--I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. Needless to say, I'm proud that I stood up.  I don't want anybody to think twice about it.  I'm proud that I took the position that I took to oppose it.  I think we saved lives, and I'm proud that I stood up at a time when it was important to stand up, but I'm not going to quibble, you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more artfully at times.

[Tiger Al 0]

What can you add to that?

tigeral? texastiger? other kerry fans? rebuttal?

Your new hero is a convicted felon now?

And as such should never, ever be forgiven! Unless of course he is a democrat.

Even after forgiveness isn't he STILL a convicted felon, regardless of political affiliation?

[Tigermike 3,053]

What can you add to that?

tigeral? texastiger? other kerry fans? rebuttal?

Your new hero is a convicted felon now?

And as such should never, ever be forgiven! Unless of course he is a democrat.

Even after forgiveness isn't he STILL a convicted felon, regardless of political affiliation?

I'm sure your alter ego TexasTiger posted that with a truly forgiving attitude didn't he? And if you want to be absolutely correct about forgiveness Al, if he were forgiven, it would never be brought up again Forgiveness does not say I forgive you but,,,,,,,

Forgiveness says I forgive, go and sin no more. Has Mr. North continued with what caused him to be a "convicted felon", or has he made something of his life?

[Aubie7 0]

Flip, Flop,Flip,Flop,Flip,Flop,.................

[Tiger Al 0]

Flip, Flop,Flip,Flop,Flip,Flop,.................

Are you using this as a noun or a verb?

[CCTAU 3,342]

So. Is sKerry a liar or a war criminal? For either I would not vote for him.

Just as I would never vote for Ollie. I like him, but that does not excuse what he was caught up in in the past. And the past does bear witness on the future when it comes to military or political actions.

[DKW 86 7,440]

If I were him I woulda got this issue out there earlier and thoroughly addressed it and issued a very public apology along the lines of jane fonda. Even if I felt I were in the right I woulda found some way to word a sincere apology that most woulda heard.

Has Kerry gotten on national TV during primetime and begged forgiveness in between fits of uncontrolled sobbing? No. He has explained his feelings from that period many times and apologized, not for doing what he did but for some of the things he said. As for Fonda, if the people on this board are any indication, her apology got her zero forgiveness and as long as Kerry's running for president, he wouldn't get any, either. But it's nice for Ollie to offer.

I forgive Jane Fonda. She recently 3-4 years ago became born-again. I think she was wrong and I do forgive her. Hernew politics is just politics and I can get by that. She is now a sister in Christ and I have defended her in church and other places as well.