Snopes on Fonda-Kerry alleged photo

[Abdul Alhazred]

Snopes (Barbara and David Mikkelson) the master debunkers, say 'UNDETERMINED'.

John Kerry (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp?print=y)

So what if it is Kerry? Click the link.

[a_unique_person]

SFW, Him and thousands of others attend an anti-war rally that Jane Fonda happened to attend, when there were millions attending other rallies over the years around the country.

[a_unique_person]

There is that now famous photo of Headscratcher at the political rally stand right behind Monica Lewinsky where Bill Clinton is giving her a big hello. Does that mean that Headscratcher and Monica...no.... say it isn't true HS.

[Silicon]

HAW HAW....


"Actress Jane Fonda was present at the Valley Forge rally. (She was not yet known as "Hanoi Jane," however, as her infamous trip to North Vietnam did not occur until two years later.)"


Now the Right Wing has completely lost it. To expect that Kerry could predict the future and NOT SIT 3 rows behind a traitor, 2 years before she did it!


How dumb IS newsmax? Or rather, how dumb do they think we are?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/9/134218.shtml

[Clancie]

Silicon,

I agree. But it doesn't matter if it was two years before....I'm sure they're delighted to have a "smear picture" and figure that most Americans won't bother with the "little details", like that one.

I'm sure Karl Rove is digging up and twisting around all the nasty innuendo about Kerry's patriotism, "liberalism", etc. that he can find and already leaking it to right wing members of the press at....newsmax...at Fox (Ailes' network),and all the other willing conduits of right wing slurs like Bob Novak at CNN, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest.....

Its going to get very very ugly....again. :(

[Abdul Alhazred]

I wasn't there, but I was at rallies not unlike it. Yes I was an anti-war protestor. And I seem to be sort of a right winger now, because I don't think the situation now is similar. And yes I'll admit it I was a draft avoider, unlike war hero Kerry.

So what?

Not an issue I'll be voting on.

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Silicon
How dumb IS newsmax? Or rather, how dumb do they think we are?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/9/134218.shtml
You know, over the years a lot of posters (coughJediKnightcough) have posted links to Newsmax articles, but I never bothered to click on one until now. Man, that is one dumb site! Are they serious? They make Fox News look "fair and balanced". Who runs newsmax, anyway?

At any rate, I'm genuinely baffled by the article. The gist of it seems to be that Kerry's opposition to the war in Vietnam 30 years ago is some kind of scandal, the final nail in his political coffin. Are they on ether? Even most Republicans nowadays admit that the Vietnam debacle was a mistake.

Reading that article makes me feel like I just sustained a head injury and entered some kind of parrallel Bill O'Reilly bizarro universe where Vietnam worked out just peachy for all involved.

[Clancie]

I understand people opposed to the war not wanting to go fight.

But what about someone like Bush? Since he apparently thought the Vietnam war was just, and had no objections to it, shouldn't he have felt a patriotic duty to go and help his countrymen fight for this good cause?

I don't think much of someone who thinks other Americans should fight and die for a cause -he- believes in....but he doesn't have the integrity or patriotism to risk his -own- life (just because he's rich and well connected and doesn't have to...).

[DavidJames]

You know, over the years a lot of posters (coughJediKnightcough) have posted links to Newsmax articles, but I never bothered to click on one until now. Man, that is one dumb site! Are they serious? They make Fox News look "fair and balanced"

Lots of the right leaning skeptics post from newsmax. Surprised? not me, people have to find places to support (or create) their opinions :)

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Silicon
Now the Right Wing has completely lost it."Now?"

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by DavidJames


Lots of the right leaning skeptics post from newsmax. Surprised? not me, people have to find places to support (or create) their opinions :)

I hope you are being sarcastic.

How can you say Skeptics like www.newsmax.com when they advertise crap like this:

http://www.johnellis.com/fs_main.htm

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Clancie
I understand people opposed to the war not wanting to go fight.

But what about someone like Bush? Since he apparently thought the Vietnam war was just, and had no objections to it, shouldn't he have felt a patriotic duty to go and help his countrymen fight for this good cause?

I don't think much of someone who thinks other Americans should fight and die for a cause -he- believes in....but he doesn't have the integrity or patriotism to risk his -own- life (just because he's rich and well connected and doesn't have to...).
Well that's a rather good point. And rather telling. Some are all too willing to have others die for what they claim to believe in.
Let's all say it together, "Hypocrite."

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by subgenius

Well that's a rather good point. And rather telling. Some are all too willing to have others die for what they claim to believe in.
Let's all say it together, "Hypocrite."

It's really interesting that John Kerry is waving his Vietnam service like an American flag after spending so many years denouncing Vietnam and the US and his fellow soldiers. Yeah, "hypocrite", that's the word I was looking for.

Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/)

[kevinsbikes]

Is it even relevant that he was/wasn't there? My personal stance is that I am not for war, however when I was in the Marines, I wouldn't even hesitate to stab out the enemies eyes with a dinner fork. ...and as soon as the mission was over, I would still be against war. I didn't attend any rallies and I wouldn't hold it against anybody that did... military or not.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by kevinsbikes
Is it even relevant that he was/wasn't there? My personal stance is that I am not for war, however when I was in the Marines, I wouldn't even hesitate to stab out the enemies eyes with a dinner fork. ...and as soon as the mission was over, I would still be against war. I didn't attend any rallies and I wouldn't hold it against anybody that did... military or not.
It's relevant, because the Democrat party is making it a relevant issue in their campaign. "Bush was a deserter, Kerry was a decorated war hero". Never mind that Kerry wanted to go into the war and become a hero like JFK and after the war Kerry saw that Vietnam was unpopular, so he became an anti-war protestor. Never mind that Kerry voted for the Iraq war and is now speaking out against it. See any patterns emerging?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


It's really interesting that John Kerry is waving his Vietnam service like an American flag after spending so many years denouncing Vietnam and the US and his fellow soldiers. Yeah, "hypocrite", that's the word I was looking for.

Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/)

False dilemma, you can hate what vietnam represented but say that you stood by your country. You can also realise, as he did when he got there, that he had been conned. He still did his time, and he risked his life for it. More than Dubya could ever have claimed to have done. As for those vets who don't like him, fair enough, no said they ever had to. I think the conservatives just hate the fact that there are so many vets who do like him.

As for campaigning on your military record, it is a time honoured American tradition, not that I would approve of it generally. However, dubya is quite happy to campaign on his supposed conversion to being a bible thumping god botherer.

[zenith-nadir]

What's the controversy?

Look closely at the two pics.

The earlobes, nose and lips on the guy sitting behind Jane do not match Kerry's lips and earlobes in the other pic.

I'd say they are not the same guy.


Open this link in another window, size the window so you can put the two pics side by side and inspect the nose, lips and ears.

Kerry picture (http://www.talion.com/kerry-military.jpg)

Not the same guy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

It's relevant, because the Democrat party is making it a relevant issue in their campaign. "Bush was a deserter, Kerry was a decorated war hero". Never mind that Kerry wanted to go into the war and become a hero like JFK and after the war Kerry saw that Vietnam was unpopular, so he became an anti-war protestor. Never mind that Kerry voted for the Iraq war and is now speaking out against it. See any patterns emerging?

He's as much a politician as all the rest of them?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


False dilemma, you can hate what vietnam represented but say that you stood by your country. You can also realise, as he did when he got there, that he had been conned. He still did his time, and he risked his life for it. More than Dubya could ever have claimed to have done. As for those vets who don't like him, fair enough, no said they ever had to. I think the conservatives just hate the fact that there are so many vets who do like him.

As for campaigning on your military record, it is a time honoured American tradition, not that I would approve of it generally. However, dubya is quite happy to campaign on his supposed conversion to being a bible thumping god botherer.

I guess he didn't learn his "lesson" because he voted for the war in Iraq and is now denouncing that as well. C'mon, the only dilemna here is which of Kerry's two faces are you looking at.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Clancie
I understand people opposed to the war not wanting to go fight.

But what about someone like Bush? Since he apparently thought the Vietnam war was just, and had no objections to it, shouldn't he have felt a patriotic duty to go and help his countrymen fight for this good cause?

I don't think much of someone who thinks other Americans should fight and die for a cause -he- believes in....but he doesn't have the integrity or patriotism to risk his -own- life (just because he's rich and well connected and doesn't have to...). Bush didn't really notice Vietnam, and he wasn't going to let it ruin his good times. I really don't think Bush was every socially or politically aware enough to have much of an opinion.

[kevinsbikes]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

It's relevant, because the Democrat party is making it a relevant issue in their campaign. "Bush was a deserter, Kerry was a decorated war hero". Never mind that Kerry wanted to go into the war and become a hero like JFK and after the war Kerry saw that Vietnam was unpopular, so he became an anti-war protestor. Never mind that Kerry voted for the Iraq war and is now speaking out against it. See any patterns emerging?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. A large majority of politicians are power hungry freaks that will tell you what you want to hear to get elected. I still want Dean in office.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by kevinsbikes


Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. A large majority of politicians are power hungry freaks that will tell you what you want to hear to get elected. I still want Dean in office.

It's certainly true that Dean has real positions and sticks to them.

Kerry voted for war in the Senate, and later said that Bush lied us into war. But the lie came after the vote.

The lie was in the State of The Union Address on January 20th. The vote in the Senate was in the preceding October.

Bush lied and Kerry is precognitive! :p

[richardm]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

Never mind that Kerry wanted to go into the war and become a hero like JFK and after the war Kerry saw that Vietnam was unpopular, so he became an anti-war protestor.

If he became an anti-war protestor after the war, what was he doing at an anti-war protest in 1970? It might be a better argument that once he'd seen the horror of war at first hand, he was determined to do his part to put a stop to it.

[Snide]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
What's the controversy?

Look closely at the two pics.

The earlobes, nose and lips on the guy sitting behind Jane do not match Kerry's lips and earlobes in the other pic.

I'd say they are not the same guy.


Open this link in another window, size the window so you can put the two pics side by side and inspect the nose, lips and ears.

Kerry picture (http://www.talion.com/kerry-military.jpg)

Not the same guy.
Are you sure you're looking at the right guy in the Fonda picture? I ask because I made the mistake of looking first at the bearded guy right behind her.

I don't see any earlobes in the Fonda picture.

[Clancie]

Posted by Zero

Bush didn't really notice Vietnam, and he wasn't going to let it ruin his good times. I really don't think Bush was every socially or politically aware enough to have much of an opinion.
If you're right and he was that self-absorbed and apathetic (even though he was actively campaigning for Republicans at the time)...well, its almost worse than lacking the integrity and patriotism to "put your money where your mouth is" and go and risk your own life for your beliefs.

Republicans like to run against Democrats on "character" issues. Let's see how Bush addresses it now that the questions are about -his- character.


(Btw, has Bush ever come out and flatly said, "I served every day I was expected to in Alabama? I think I've only heard him say, "I received an honorable discharge" and "I got my paycheck." Has he ever said that he did such-and-such a job every month? Has he ever said, flaty, "Yes, I was there." ?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Clancie


Republicans like to run against Democrats on "character" issues. Let's see how Bush addresses it now that the questions are about -his- character.


Didn't they already address that in 2000? He simply said he is a changed man. It worked for half the voters in 2000, even after Fox broke his DUI story a few days before the election.

Character issues were a big deal with some GOP moralists because Clinton never stopped acting amorally. Most people I talked to didn't care about him dodging the draft. As my GOP voing father once told me, "you did anything you could not to go to vietnam". However, in light of Flowers and a pattern of infidelity, the draft avoidance was just another piece of the pattern to the GOP morality police.

And of course, after he stained a dress in the oral office and subsequently gave false testimony to a federal grand jury, the moralists stood on the street corners going "see, i told you so!".

So the point with Bush is that his character is untouchable for his voting base. His voting base believes in "fast food salvation". You repeat a 30 second prayer of salvation at a Bill Graham conference and you have attained salvation. Coke abuse, bong hits, Irisk drinking, and blowing off guard duty are all forgiven now as long as they remain in the past.

Enter into the strange and bizarre world of morality politics!

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Snide

Are you sure you're looking at the right guy in the Fonda picture? I ask because I made the mistake of looking first at the bearded guy right behind her.

I don't see any earlobes in the Fonda picture. That guy with the beard is obviously Brad Pitt. This proves time travel exists.

[Upchurch]

I still think that's Elvis on the right side, behind the guy with the hat. Of course, don't forget Dan Ackroyd and Corey Feldman (sp?).

[Hutch]

I wonder, has anybody ever dug out any quotes from President Shrub..er, Bush from the Vietnam era where he was gung-ho for the war? I have to think the Dems are looking for it. Or is it just inference that his Father and the Republicans he campaigned for were pro-war, so therefore he was?

Given that the Bush side hasn't given out any 1960-70's speeches by GWB that are anti-war, I guess it's a moot point.

[headscratcher4]

AUP: the only "job" I got from Monica was an elbow in the ribs...

On topic: how is Kerry hypocritical. He highlights his sevice because a) he went. b). he behaved exceptionally well under the duress of war and combat. c). his battlefield experience taught him (in theory) many lessons about himself, his charachter. In addition, he has never shied away from talking about how his war experience made him against the war. Indeed, they are part and parcel of the same experience. Some who went reached different conclusions, but it isn't hypocracy by any normal definition of the word.

Why is it hypocracy to have served, served well, yet conclude that the policies that lead to the war were wrong? Many did, policiticans and soldiers, as well as ordinary people. Were they all hypocrites.

No, the real sad story is all of the chicken hawks who never took a stand, never served (or served in a way that kept them out of harm's way) yet who lament the distructive politics of the time -- you know that sad hippie period that erroded core values. It erroded core values because the policies behind the war erroded core values...young men from the working class fighting a war because they couldn't get dad to get them in a gaurd unit. Kerry went, he explains how it changed him. IT isn't hypocracy. He really did the things (in some form) that won him the medals. He also talks about what made him throw his medals back at the government. Hypocracy would be to have served, than opposed the war but today claim not to have opposed it, or to have never served but today claim the war was right and that people who didn't serve were wrong...or something like that.

BTW, nothing in what Kerry has said about his service or his opposition in any way disrespects those who also served...it may be at varrience with some of their experiene and conclusions, but Kerry to my recollection has only ever honored and praised those that served and fought in VN, whether they too came to oppose the war or not.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by corplinx


Didn't they already address that in 2000? He simply said he is a changed man. It worked for half the voters in 2000, even after Fox broke his DUI story a few days before the election.

(snip)

So the point with Bush is that his character is untouchable for his voting base. His voting base believes in "fast food salvation". You repeat a 30 second prayer of salvation at a Bill Graham conference and you have attained salvation. Coke abuse, bong hits, Irisk drinking, and blowing off guard duty are all forgiven now as long as they remain in the past.

Enter into the strange and bizarre world of morality politics!

Totally agree with you here, corplinx, the US is what? 70-90% Christian? Most people believe in redemption, its probably a matter of personal opinion if you believe GWB was redeemed or not. I expect most people think he has, and so his past actions are not an issue.

Speaking of the bizarre world of morality politics, I understand Bill Clinton has an extensive knowledge of the Bible, and I'd put money on the table that he could beat Bush in any Bible literacy quiz.

BTW, HS4, you rock. Great post. You know, I never saw that Hooters commercial again, so I don't know if they replaced you with a Hooters girl or not.

[rikzilla]

Once again,

It's hard so disagree with HS,...he's just too darned rational. ;)
Perhaps it would be better for all sides if all charges of VietNam era malfeasence be deemed off limits? I'd be more interested to know the particulars about how each man would govern, rather than how many mistakes they made 30 years ago.

Were the election held today I'd vote for Bush because he's done well (IMHO) in the WOT, and because I simply do not trust the Dems to continue to keep up the military pressure on Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. If not for this issue, I'd likely be voting for Mr. Kerry. Although, I would fear the re-emergence of higher taxes and bigger government as well. :rolleyes:

-z

[headscratcher4]

Rik:

The fact that you think me rational is frightening....;)

In any event...while I disagree with Rik's conclusions, he voices rational, policy based arguments for making a political determination...would that more (including me) were so inclined.

Now, back to the personal attacks!:D

[Clancie]

Posted by corplinx

Didn't they already address that (the character issue) in 2000? He simply said he is a changed man. It worked for half the voters in 2000, even after Fox broke his DUI story a few days before the election.

I'll have to disagree. The DUI story doesn't matter because Bush's claim that he's changed holds up to scrutiny.

In the case of his military record, it looks as if he lied about how much duty he did in the Guard. He lied (I believe) in 2000, and he's still lying.

If the records eventually show that he did not serve the time required in Alabama--when he keeps insisting (in an oddly non-specific way) that he did....well, it will be the lying that undermines his crediblity, not just that he goofed off on his duty thirty years ago.

The issue of persistently lying* makes it much more relevant to his character today than the DUI.



*if he is...

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Clancie


I'll have to disagree. The DUI story doesn't matter because Bush's claim that he's changed holds up to scrutiny.

In the case of his military record, it looks as if he lied about how much duty he did in the Guard. He lied (I believe) in 2000, and he's still lying.

If the records eventually show that he did not serve the time required in Alabama--when he keeps insisting (in an oddly non-specific way) that he did....well, it will be the lying that undermines his crediblity, not just that he goofed off on his duty thirty years ago.

The issue of persistently lying* makes it much more relevant to his character today than the DUI.



*if he is...

Exactly, if there is a lie, than it is the kind of lie that they used to complain about with Clinton...never could pin him down or get him to admit something was amiss....I think the public did/and will again excuse someone who thirty years ago "goofed" off, smoked dope, drank too much, etc. As long as they own up to it (we love a good public confessional).

Democrats make a mistake on focusing in on this, however, it is a side show. There are better things to look at in the last three years...policies that matter...and that is where you can/should attack Bush...and I say this in spite of my own irrational hatered for the man....

[Zero]

Originally posted by Clancie

If you're right and he was that self-absorbed and apathetic (even though he was actively campaigning for Republicans at the time)...well, its almost worse than lacking the integrity and patriotism to "put your money where your mouth is" and go and risk your own life for your beliefs.

Republicans like to run against Democrats on "character" issues. Let's see how Bush addresses it now that the questions are about -his- character.


(Btw, has Bush ever come out and flatly said, "I served every day I was expected to in Alabama? I think I've only heard him say, "I received an honorable discharge" and "I got my paycheck." Has he ever said that he did such-and-such a job every month? Has he ever said, flaty, "Yes, I was there." ?

He admits that he missed an undetermined amount of time, and was allowed to make it up later...which I don't get. By this sort of logic, you could avoid the draft by enlisting in the National Guard for six years, serve one straight year, and then disappear for the other 5.

[odorousrex]

If it is John Kerry I don't think it will effect him either way. I mean:

{SARCASM}
A democrat at a peace rally in the 70's? GET OUT!
{/SARCASM}

[Skeptic]

Quite apart from the "so what?" aspect of the whole thing, is this even Kerry? It's a blurry photograph, in the crowd, of someone who looks somewhat like Kerry does. Hardly any proof...

Remember Mr. (Ms.?) "Icantakepicturesofdemons"? This seems to be a bit like "Icantakepicturesofkerry".

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by odorousrex
{SARCASM}
A democrat at a peace rally in the 70's? GET OUT!
{/SARCASM}

:D

Bwahahaha! (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870309052#post1870309052)

Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk! (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870309117#post1870309117)

Luke T: And like those photos, this one will serve to "confirm" the belief system of people who already don't like Kerry, and won't make a dent in the belief systems of people who do like him.

headscratcher4: (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870309122#post1870309122) Exactly.

[Mike B.]

Wow!!!

This picture just might be the biggest non-issue issue of all time!!!

:D

[Bottle or the Gun]

It was on 'Hannity' tonight! Who's butt did he kiss before Bush became the Pres?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Once again,

It's hard so disagree with HS,...he's just too darned rational. ;)
Perhaps it would be better for all sides if all charges of VietNam era malfeasence be deemed off limits? I'd be more interested to know the particulars about how each man would govern, rather than how many mistakes they made 30 years ago.

Were the election held today I'd vote for Bush because he's done well (IMHO) in the WOT, and because I simply do not trust the Dems to continue to keep up the military pressure on Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. If not for this issue, I'd likely be voting for Mr. Kerry. Although, I would fear the re-emergence of higher taxes and bigger government as well. :rolleyes:

-z

In fact, he appears to be the biggest loser in the war of terror. Wasn't he the guy who lost a couple of sky scrapers and a wing of the pentagon.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


In fact, he appears to be the biggest loser in the war of terror. Wasn't he the guy who lost a couple of sky scrapers and a wing of the pentagon.

Not only that, but he seems to have trouble narrowing down where the perpetrators are on a map. He managed to pick the one Arab nation in the Middle East that didn't have ties with Al Qaeda to invade and occupy.

One imagines that, given a second term, Bush will invade Mexico for harbouring Al Qaeda terrorists. That, or their WMD's maybe-sometime-in-the-future programmes.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Not only that, but he seems to have trouble narrowing down where the perpetrators are on a map. He managed to pick the one Arab nation in the Middle East that didn't have ties with Al Qaeda to invade and occupy.

One imagines that, given a second term, Bush will invade Mexico for harbouring Al Qaeda terrorists. That, or their WMD's maybe-sometime-in-the-future programmes.

Well, they didn't have Al Qaeda there before, but they appear to be well entrenched there now.

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Well, they didn't have Al Qaeda there before, but they appear to be well entrenched there now.

Like flies to honey...

[ingoa]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Wow!!!

This picture just might be the biggest non-issue issue of all time!!!

:D

Nope. Janet Jackson tit was a bigger non-issue. :D

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Once again,
Although, I would fear the re-emergence of higher taxes and bigger government as well. :rolleyes:

-z

could the government really get any bigger than it has under republican administration?

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by ingoa


Nope. Janet Jackson tit was a bigger non-issue. :D

didn't you hear?!?! JANET JACKSON'S NIPPLE WAS A NEW LOW FOR NETWORK TELEVISION! (http://canoe.ca/Television/feb11_jackson-ap.html) i hear that Fox was quit put out by that declaration. :D

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Not only that, but he seems to have trouble narrowing down where the perpetrators are on a map. He managed to pick the one Arab nation in the Middle East that didn't have ties with Al Qaeda to invade and occupy.

I had no idea Israel had ties to Al Qaeda!

[NightG1]

I took a closer look at that photo and something sure looks suspicious...
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/nightg1/rushisbusted.jpg

[geni]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I had no idea Israel had ties to Al Qaeda!

Israel is an Arab nation?

[Martin]

According to the link in the OP, Snopes now says that it's true.

Quite why anyone should care is beyond me.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Martin
According to the link in the OP, Snopes now says that it's true.

Quite why anyone should care is beyond me.

Its quite obvious. The photo makes it clear that John Kerry was the inspiration for Martin Short's Ed Grimley persona.

[WildCat]

Kerry's enemies are playing this up all wrong. It should be billed as "Proof that sex fiend Kerry was stalking Jane Fonda!" ;)