John Kerry — Communist agent of influence

Read this:

John Kerry and the VVAW: Hanoi’s American Puppets?

They don’t mention that while John Kerry was operating as an agent
of influence for the Vietnamese Communists, he was still an officer in
the U.S. Naval Reserve.

There is a word for what a serving military officer does when he acts
as an agent for a hostile power during wartime.

That word is ‘treason’.

47 thoughts on “John Kerry — Communist agent of influence

  1. I can hardly credit the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth as being a reliable source of information or interpretation for this sort of thing, unfortunately.

    Honestly, if you’re of an oppositional mind to what Kerry was doing upon his return from Vietnam, it wouldn’t matter a bit if the NVN were sponsoring him, would it? If he was an officer in the Naval Reserve militating against administration policy in Vietnam, howsomeever misguided, then he was a traitor, yes?

  2. In politics, one tries to exploit the maneuvers of the oponents, alies, disinterested parties, and accidental bystanders, or anyone else. Recently, for instance, leftist, rightist, and libertarian groups have voiced their opposition to the PATRIOT act. Does that make you (a libertarian) equal to the communists?

    Of course not. Russia has been using workers’ movement in the US during the cold war, and the US has been using dissidents in the USSR. Neither low-wage US workers nor Russian dissidents were on the payrol of foreign countries.

    John Kerry’s motives were stopping the war and stopping deaths of American soldiers. His goal was NOT installing of Communist regimes from Moscow to Canbera. If he received money or concessions from the Communists, then let’s go ahead and execute him for treason. If he exercised the free speech (with which we do not agree) then he is not guilty.

    The finer point of this discussion is whether we are allowed to speak against a war, during that same war. Eric thinks no, but I would disagree.

  3. He was not using his power of free speech to speak his mind. He was using it to push the propaganda of a communist regime that was bent on taking over South Vietnam. A communist regime that we were at war with. As an officer of the United States of America, yes your free speech is constrained. In trade he got moral support and help quordinating a movment that would lend him status in order to seek political office. With his urging and lies we accepted conditions of our surrender. Treason indeed.

  4. Yes, also the FBI part of this i find intriguing, and if one has an FBI file
    while serving in the military or political office what happens to this
    information if elected president?
    In my opinion the government has the finest paper shredders money can buy!

  5. Only 6 more days until Eric votes for Bush! I can’t wait!

    I’m so chuffed with the comment I posted yesterday, I’m going to post it again!


    Go on Eric, vote for Bush, you know it’s what you’ve always wanted. It’ll be like at the end of 1984, when Winston Smith realises he always loved Big Brother.

    Just promise me you’ll announce it on your blog when you do.

  6. I would propose that the activities of both candidates during the 70’s are equally relevant to the present election.

    Which is to say, not very relevant at all. Why are we bothering with this stuff when we have much more recent activites on which to base a decision?

    It’s not like the wartime performance of a Bush administration needs to be some sort of thought experient. And it’s not like Kerry’s views on the current situation are a secret.

  7. The evidence for this conclusion is about as good as this one:

    ESR is a libertarian;

    ESR was in the past associated with the Libertarian Party;

    Elements of the Libertarian, Green, and other parties have formed an alliance in California over ballot access; therefore,

    ESR is a paid agent of the Green Party.

  8. OK, let’s say that John Kerry’s record was squeaky-clean, that he earned his Purple Hearts fair and square, and that he wasn’t in any way implicated with or under guidance from the Viet Cong.

    Under this best case scenario, at the very best, he’s a hypocrite: on the one hand he slags the troops in Vietnam and on the other he uses his Vietnam war record to bolster his political career.

    I don’t think we need that kind of two-facedness in the White House.

  9. Laza wrote, “The finer point of this discussion is whether we are allowed to speak against a war, during that same war. Eric thinks no, but I would disagree.”

    I’d be very surprised if Eric thinks that. The “finer point” that I believe Eric was making is that JFK, as an officer of the US Navy, was bound by the military Code of Honor (and perhaps by laws as well) which restricted his “free speech.”

    When one accepts the King’s Coin, he becomes the King’s man – an old principle that still applies. Some of us may not agree with that, but I think that most military personnel would.

    Whether or not JFK was legally guilty of treason, many regard him as being guilty of it by virtue of dishonoring his oath. Hence the intense message of SBVT et alia.

    seanc wrote, “I would propose that the activities of both candidates during the 70’s are … not very relevant at all.”

    That would be true if neither candidate was trying to use his activies during the 70s as political capital. Bush does not – mostly because there ain’t no capital there, I suspect.

    Kerry does, on the other hand. And that bothers still more people who see him as playing both ends against the middle. When it made political sense, he was actively anti-war. Now that the opposite stance is more valuable, he’s a Decorated Veteran. This isn’t illegal or even treasonous, but it’s not a class act by any means.

    Had JKF said, “I opposed the war in Viet Nam because it was unjust as I oppose the war in Iraq because it is unjust” then he’d have earned my respect. As it is, his opportunism – on top of being a prototypical “Massachusetts Liberal” make this a pretty easy call for me.

    See John Hosper’s letter to libertarians at on why it should be an easy call for anyone concerned about freedom.

    A brief quote: “There is a belief that’s common among many libertarians that there is no essential difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties — between a John Kerry and a George W. Bush administration; or worse: that a Bush administration would be more undesirable. Such a notion could not be farther from the truth, or potentially more harmful to the cause of liberty.”

    Happy Election, folks!

  10. I like the following bit from John Hosper’s letter..


    Wow, working to defeat the president at a time of war? Sounds like, um, standard operating procedure in an adversarial democracy. I don’t remember the Republicans forswearing criticism of the president when Clinton had troops in action.


  11. Wow!

    Somehow Kerry strikes me as a person, much like recalled Grey Davis of California, who just “wants the job.” Anything he can do to get it, he will. Unfortunately, the republicans are not running a very strong candidate either. I would like a cold war hard ass like Dick Cheney in there (sans health issues).

  12. Of course, this overlooks tha main point that the Swift boaters and POWs are making, that his treason against both America and his pivotal role at painting ALL of them as baby killing a-moral murdering losers and making the situation significanty (understatment) more dire for the POWs in the hanoi hilton.

    Taken en whole, Kerry cannot be seen as anything but a dispicable figure and a traitor who provided aid to an enemy known for mass indescriminate mass murder and just yet another example of the Socialist religion that has wrought the singular gore-rifc example of crimes against humanity with a mountain of 100+ Million tortured mutilated and summary exceuted innocents.

    We know from history that the communists ARE guilty of the very thing he accused our troops of , that RED terror is based on that very thing.

    Kerry is a lower form of life, morally obtuse oppertunistic leftist twisted with marxist evil.

  13. I have been looking for actual verification of this. People like the swiftvets etc are very happy to say that he was still in the ready reserve, others have said that he was not. I have personally been unable to learn Kerry’s release date from military service.

    If he was in the military, he is in violation of several military laws, if he wasn’t he was in violation of the Logan act, which prohibits unauthorized necogiations with foreign powers.

    Either way he did not have the legal right to ‘negociate’ in France. Furthermore, it was not a negociation. It was a meeting. The ‘governmental’ representatives there were from the Democratic Republic of North Vietnam, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government, essentially the political arm of the Viet Cong.

    Whether this is legally treason is best left to someone with more legal experience than me. However, personal opinion, he commited treason, should have either been jailed or shot, never allowed to testify before congress, and never allowed to run for any political seat.


    I object to this paragraph for two reasons:

    1. John Kerry did not accuse ALL soldiers of war crimes. His testimony from Congress was related directly to the soldiers who testified at the Winter Soldier Investigation, and in his testimony he explicitly names THEM as the soldiers who ADMITTED to committing the atrocities described in the SBVFT commercials. The commercials conveniently edit out the part where Kerry explains this.

    In a later interview, when Kerry is asked if he committed any crimes, and when he said that most soldiers did, he was referring specifically to “Free Fire Zones,” which were areas where ANYONE WHO WASN’T A US SOLDIER was considered a fair target.

    2. Kerry’s testimony before congress took place in 1971 or 1972, I believe. There had been POW’s in Viet Nam for years before his testimony. In fact, his testimony came at the tail end of the war and may have had something to do with ending it. That the Viet Cong may have used his testimony against the POW’s is believable, but it may have also shortened the duration of the war and SHORTENED THE LENGTH OF THEIR CAPTIVITY.

    If I speak out against the government because I feel the government is wrong, and an enemy of the government uses that as propaganda against my government, this does not mean that I agree with that enemy or that I support them. To suggest that it does weakens the right to dissent in this country and I find it a thoroughly detestable position.

    As to the original article, like Eric I am also a Libertarian… and I am voting for Kerry, cheerfully and without reservation.

  15. Christopher B… a libertarian voting for Kerry without reservations? I think you had better look in the dictionary for libertarian. Like you, Kerry is a weasel. Kerry uses the excuse that ‘it was the winter soldiers, i was just the messenger’ as the act of a coward.

    Free fire zones ARE NOT areas where EVERYONE is a target. They are areas where the enemy can be engaged without first getting authorization.

    He also was a messanger of Madam Bihn. Saying that if the US just pulls out then there will be a peacefull transition to communist rule in South Veitnam. Kerry was either lying or extremely naive, as history has shown. He has continued throughout his career to make this same mistake. His endless seeming trust of dispicable tyrants and murderers is ridiculous. Again and again he has gone to bat for the enemies of the US and denegrated the US for being the true bad guys that I’m begining to think it isn’t stupidity… it is TREASON. But then I look at his campaign and have to think again… his campaign is awfully stupid. I think he should be very gratefull that Bush is so hated among his base.

    We were WINNING the vietnam war. A position of victory vs. surrender would have been better for getting the POW’s back sooner. Instead we were left at the mercy of Vietnamese Communists who took thier damn sweet time.

    But finally it is getting clearer and clearer that you have it wrong. He didn’t just happen to agree with the North Vietnamese… he was regurgitating their talking points and propoganda… practially an agent of the North Vietnamese communists in our surrender negotiations. Their talking points and propoganda came FIRST and were probably handed directly to John F. Kerry.

  16. “Christopher B… a libertarian voting for Kerry without reservations? I think you had better look in the dictionary for libertarian.”

    I’m perfectly familiar with the definition of a libertarian. I’m voting for Kerry — without reservations — because the alternative is worse. Bush talks the language of fiscal responsibility and small government but doesn’t follow up. He imperils our civil liberties, and is passively sitting by while his party makes a mockery of the Constitution. Kerry is not a knight in shining armor, but he’s also not on a crusade: if I disagree with Bush on matters of policy, I’m S.O.L. If I disagree with Kerry, I’ve got a chance to at least make my case.

    So, in summation, no reservations.

    “Like you, Kerry is a weasel.”

    I prefer “stoat,” thank you.

  17. First. Stoat, that is fucking funny. I do mean that in the best possible way… no sarcasm… I don’t know why I laghed out loud when I read that it just hit me as funny.

    Lesser of two evils? Maybe I underestimated Kerrys campaign. What is it exactly that makes you think we’ll have a chance at having Kerry make any real capitulations towards individual freedom? Sure I think he will quite possible listen… and even hand back polished shiny doublespeak, but he will be trying to fool you into going away and to stop bothering him. In the meantime out of the otherside of his mouth he’ll wonder out loud why your so mean… after all he will only wan’t to confiscate more and more of your private property for the ‘betterment of mankind.’ You will never know if you got through, that is untill he takes some action and then it’ll be too late.

    With Bush you’ll know. Despite the rhetoric in both campaigns Bush has changed policy. McCain Fiengold and ‘Nation Building’ being prominent policy changes. There are others, look at the leadership of the tactics in Iraq and Afganistan. Lots of changes, though granted that Bush and co don’t telegraph them much… if ever. But just take a deeper look at the arguments between the state department, pentagon, and CIA/FBI. These are arguments for the benifit of Bush on the way of making a decision and yes once made it takes some effort to get him to move from it… but shouldn’t any decision by someone once deemed good by them be that way?

    I’ve got lots of other examples of policy changes… the quantonimo prisoners… the difference in the way Iran is being treated vs Iraq… the whole silly dance of diplomacy with the UN before the start of the Iraq leg of the war…

    The Kerry painting of Bush as a stuborn pigheaded bore is a pile of QaQaa.

  18. The Logan Act has never been enforced against *anybody*, not even Logan. It’s just a noise, and obviously offends the First Amendment, as long as you don’t claim to be speaking for the U.S. government when you aren’t.

    As for this *@!#$ about Kerry’s discharge, the second page (not the first, which is about Kerry’s formal discharge as an enlisted man to accept his officer’s commission) of makes it clear that he was discharged from active service on 1970-03-01, honorably. The date of his discharge from the reserve, also honorable, is given at
    and is 1978-02-16. He was not bound by the UCMJ after 1970.

  19. Omar K. Ravenhurst.. No not Guantanomo in of itself… but the fact that at first the policy was no court sessions for any of them… and that realeses would be rare. Political pressure has changed that and many of them have had hearings and been released earlier then they probably would have been. Thats a change in policy. That was my point.

  20. Omar K. Ravenhurst… also that is stupid. Kadafi supporting Bush… thats your argument for saying that Terrorists support Bush? I’d use that for an argument that ex Terrorists support Bush… well some of them would… if they weren’t dead.


    That’s not a change in policy — the Supreme Court told them their policy was WRONG and that they were REQUIRED to change it. That’s a far cry from the administration taking a step back and saying “hey wait a minute, this may not be the appropriate thing to do.”

    The best you can say about Guantanimo is that the Bush Administration wisely decided not to start a Constitutional crisis by ignoring the Supreme Court decision.

  22. put on your seatbelts, Now were in for one hell of a ride….
    todays news will determine the best man!

  23. The court ordered that the those who were not ‘enemy combatants’ were entitled to access to hc and the judiciary or hearings. Specifically they were the two austrailians and twelve kuwaitis. The judgement is also relevant to others in similar situations like Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen.

    But even the ‘enemy combatants’ are getting hearings and will probably be released. This the Supreme Court DID NOT rule on. That is what I’m talking about.

    The Administration means it too. For instance they have dismissed officers sitting on the tribunal out of fear that they would be biased against the defendants.

    It’s a convienient spin that the good things happening at Gitmo are ONLY because the Supremes ordered it.

    This has been fun but I think this is REALLY OT, sorry ESR.

  24. Oh… yea stoat… they are known for unnecessary or excess killing, overkill. Reminded me of Kerry’s goose stunt.

  25. Yes I think we have. I think now we know when some one acts like a traiter… they probably are.

  26. I’m a libertarian voting for kerry for one reason only.

    Self-defense. I can’t abide the idea that a single party (republican or democrat) should control the government.

    Eric, your reaction is, well, reactionary – The vietnam war was a time that bitterly divided the country, and scarred everyone on both sides that had to cope with it.

    Since you’re reading swiftboat’s stuff, have you actually read Kerry’s testamony before the senate foreign relations committee in 1971?

  27. John Kerry is a communist, he has for 20 years been helping them from the Vietcong to the sandinistas, everywhere an enemy of america is found, you find John Kerrys support


    WMD in iraq
    This amazing investigative report uncovers evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Over 30 plus kilos of weapons grade Anthrax have been turned over to US-Coalition Provincial Authority

  28. No, Mr. name, I’ve more or less given up arguing with idiotic positions. The claim that “the terrorists” support Kerry deserves only mockery. But I will make one last plea for sanity, since Raymond has given me a perfect opportunity: see here.

  29. Was Kerry acting as an “agent of influence”? Or was he campaigning against the war because he realised that it was pointless and obscene? He didn’t seem much of a Communist sympathiser when he fought and killed them for his country – which is more than Bush did.

    But you’re definitely right to focus on Kerry’s dangerous record of peace activism – and not, say, the Patriot Act, indefinite internment without trial at Gitmo, the DMCA and so on.

    What is this, Libertarians for Fascism?

  30. Omar K. Ravenhurst… I’ve never said they supported Kerry… only idiots like you say they support Bush. Go read the rest of OBL’s transcript… uh… on second thought maybe you shouldn’t… you seem peaceably insane… wouldn’t want to disturb that… we might just get insane.

  31. Ben… didn’t Kerry and Edwards vote for the patriot act… And Kerry voted for the DMCA. This is ‘Liberal Fascism.’

    The Gitmo thing has completely changed…

  32. So, Kerry is a “communist agent of influence” who committed treason and Bush is a draft-dodger who is beholden to the defense companies and takes orders from a higher power (not the electorate).

    Looks like the US has 10, maybe 20 years left as the world’s superpower. Whomever gets elected will ruin the country, either through communism or religiousism. Kiss the scientific and economic lead goodbye first. Once they are gone, the military lead will crumble too.

    Who will step up to fill the role as the world’s superpower? China, Russia, India, Europe? Yikes!

    Perhaps you Americans could change your electoral system so that it is in the hands of an independent, non-partisan body. That seems to have worked with the Federal Reserve. Then maybe you’ll have a chance to elect a president that won’t screw things up.

    Good luck, boy am I going to miss the old USA!

  33. Thats funny. Untill most of the rest of the world gets it we’ll be kicking yer but for a long time. Its called FREE MARKETS and FREEDOM. Even our commie dirtbag traitors have more of a clue then most of Europe.

  34. China will kick USA’s butt. They don’t have freedom or free markets. They are even REAL communists! It’s like Singapore, but with 5 times the US population and a different flag and stuff

  35. Bullshit. They’ve been trying to do the free market thing for a while now. They are just going to have to figure out that Free Markets arn’t without FREEDOM.

  36. Ok I’m done posting here. This is OT. Singapore is the exception that proves the rule. A small uniform popoulation in race, culture, and maybe even political opinion. Has helped the dictatorship in disguise keep controll there. Also the way that singapore has been successfull is the same way the south in America was. Labor intensive efforts taking advantage of slave labor (the citezenry). But Signapore has acted like a free agent embedded in a larger free market. But it won’t last as is, even the leadership of Signapore realizes it and is going through some of the very kind of efforts that China is. They will soon figure out that an INTERNAL free market will eventually require freedom.

    Very petty example from a very petty poster… shove your dictionary up your arse!

  37. Vietcong agent? The guy was a US senator for decades! Come on, only suckers believe crap like this. Every election, people dig out old dirt, interpret in the worst possible way, and run it up the flagpole. I remember when they attacked Clinton. Long before Monica, they looked for anything they could. I remember a red-faced Bob Dornan lecturing to an empty auditorium on C-span about how evil Clinton was for getting out of the draft. They shut up about that this election, I notice. I voted for Bush on taxes and the war, real issues, not because of this swiftboat garbage. The sheeple who take this fringe negative campaigning crap seriously are too stupid to breath without directions. Were you buying it, or shovelling it? If shovelling, why? You’re just a nobody blogger, no way you’d affect the electoral outcome. Why not keep your dignity? Was this a joke? The post doesn’t look ironic. Sad. You are smarter than this.

  38. From Newsweek.

    [Edwards' aides] warned the veep candidate that the story was already out of control and about to get worse. Historian Douglas Brinkley, author of a wartime biography of Kerry, cautioned that Kerry’s diary included mention of a meeting with some North Vietnamese terrorists in Paris. Edwards was flabbergasted. “Let me get this straight,” the senator said. “He met with terrorists? Oh, that’s good.”

  39. Funny, ESR was one of the first blogs where I noticed the whole ‘misunderestimated’ thing. Even now bush is being misunderestimated… I must admit to finding some high humor in this.

  40. Offensive and provocative as always, Mr. Raymond. I hear the goose-steps reverberate in your posting. America will triumph over all. All those opposing war shall be labeled prisoners and be shot. Sieg heil!

Leave a Reply

