« Beldar's most memorable elevator ride | Main | NYT reporter Judith Miller thinks her "job" is to defy the law »

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

LAT repeats NYT's error on Kerry meeting with "both sides" in Paris

PoliPundit's caught the LAT yesterday making the same error — claiming (falsely) that Kerry met with "both sides" in 1970 at the Paris peace talks before his 1971 Fulbright Committee testimony — that the NYT made on three successive days last month, and then, after complaints,  belatedly made the subject of an apparently unnoticed correction.  Of course, Los Angeles is several time zones behind New York, but I don't think that's an adequate excuse.

Both papers and the rest of the MSM, of course, continue to ignore the dispute between the Kerry camp and rabidly-pro-Kerry Vietnam-protest-historian Gerald Nicosia on whether Kerry made at least one additional trip to Paris to meet with our country’s enemies, in 1971 after his testimony before the Fulbright Committee.  (Hat-tip PrestoPundit.)

Posted by Beldar at 09:42 PM in Mainstream Media, Politics (2006 & earlier), SwiftVets | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to LAT repeats NYT's error on Kerry meeting with "both sides" in Paris and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


(1) Roundguy made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 10:11:29 PM | Permalink

What really ticks me off is the feeding frenzy on something of no consequence (Bush TANG service) vs. the deliberate obfuscation of Kerry's after war shenanigans. The most serious of these issues asks why Kerry, who was still in the Navy, gets a free pass to go to Hanoi with little or no scrutiny. My God, can you imagine the media frenzy if Bush was the one going to meet the NV?

(2) Sue Bob made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 10:26:32 PM | Permalink


I'm beginning to believe that the individuals in the MSM don't see anything wrong about Kerry meeting with the enemy.

(3) Chuck made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 10:42:57 PM | Permalink

Having been a subscriber to the LA Times for the past 30 years, I can assure you that this miserable excuse of a newspaper at this point wouldn't pass the test for toilet paper. It's unfortunate, because I can trace this decline in credibility to the influence of Robert Scheer, a well-known liar from the new left who had a free ride from the late 1960's, without significant review or criticism, to publish lies about Viet Nam in Ramparts magazine. Scheer's only fall back is his reliance on the mainstream media which has been corrupt for as long as I can remember.

(4) DC Carter made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 11:49:25 PM | Permalink

Is it just me? Am I in some weird episode of the Twilight Zone? Why is this issue not more important to the public (present company excluded, of course)? Why is this not being covered on the evening news? …I know, I know, dumb question.

When I bring up the topic of Kerry’s Paris meetings with the North Vietnamese, some of my friends will get that funny glazed over ‘Oh you Conservatives, always trying to dish the dirt, why can’t you just let things be, it was so long ago; and anyway, I’m sure that’s just something you’ve made up’ look.

This is the most serious and damning criticism of Kerry’s record to date, which is really saying something. It’s graver than Teddy Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick or Clinton’s White House infidelities. It is equally damning that the MSM cannot and will not bring light to these potentially treasonable actions by someone who is one step away from the Presidency.

Good work on the part of Beldar and the blogosphere; you all have done an outstanding job of raising some truly important questions and issues of which the public needs to be aware.

(5) marc made the following comment | Oct 7, 2004 1:57:35 AM | Permalink

I emailed them on it.

Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 5:11 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Two Wealthy Texans Refuel Swift Boat Attack Ads

I refer to this article - http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-swiftvets5oct05,1,2164292.story?coll=la-news-a_section

Specifically this para –

During his 1971 speech to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry talked about private meetings he had attended the previous May in Paris with representatives from the U.S.-backed South and communist North Vietnamese governments.

Some reporters! – Kerry did not meet with the “U.S. – backed South…”. Kerry met with the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, while still a US Naval Officer during a time of war. Check Kerry’s own testimony.

Can you please print a correction to this misleading article.

Thank you,

Marc Landers

Their response.

Thanks for writing. I'm told a correction of that article is coming and I expect to see it printed in the next day or so.

Kent Zelas
Asst. Readers' Representative

Let us know if they print a correction.


Suggestion to all bloggers and commenters.

Please post an email address to who we can email our complaints to. It is great that bloggers are exposing the media bias and lies but "action" is what counts. Just look at what is happening to CBS.

I think more people will take action if the email address is included in the post rather than let the reader hunt for the email address themselves.

The LA Times is a good case in point. You have to search about 3 or 4 webpages to get to the email address for reader complaints.

Much better if it is in the post so we can just copy and paste into Outlook.

Better yet, maybe bloggers should have a "complain to media" category on their blogroll. There they could list all the email address of the complaints department of Lame Stream Media.

(6) Porcell made the following comment | Oct 7, 2004 10:59:23 AM | Permalink


Assuming that Kerry met with North Vietnamese and Viet Kong officials in Paris in 1970 and returned to the U.S. advocating a seven point "peace" program, is this not technically and really treason by the U.S. Constitution's definition of treason, as providing comfort to the enemy during wartime. My source for Kerry's conduct is *Unfit for Command*

One argument I've heard is that the Vietnam War was not officially declared by Congress.

How say you on this?

(7) Beldar made the following comment | Oct 7, 2004 11:29:30 AM | Permalink

Porcell, the long post linked above has my extended take on Kerry's meeting(s) with the enemy and whether they were criminal. The short answer is that I don't think anyone knows enough of the factual details to state with confidence that a crime like treason was committed, and Kerry's entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence. Even giving him every benefit of the doubt, however, the meetings showed extremely bad judgment and boosted Kerry out of the category of "useful fool" and into the category of "eager tool."

(8) Marty made the following comment | Oct 7, 2004 2:08:21 PM | Permalink

Sorry for the non-sequitor but I am writing to others that have mentioned this "group" in the past to see if you can help me find out the truth here...

It seems that MoveonforAmerica.org is now taking donations and running their ads. OR so they say. I don't believe it for one second.

Plus, I think they are fraudulently taking money from the knotheads who might think the ads would be a good idea. (Maybe poetic justice, but still not good.)

I'm just looking for one person who has actually seen one of the ads on T.V. (Fat chance.)

(9) Porcell made the following comment | Oct 7, 2004 3:34:06 PM | Permalink


My apologies for not having been aware of your earlier brilliant long post on this subject. I intend to stay in daily contact with your superb blog, so that this won't happen again.

My take on the issue now is that back in 1970-'71 Kerry was naively interested in ending the Vietnam War, and that he somehow thought that these talks with Madame Binh and others would help this cause. He, also, being a thoroughgoing political whore thought the anti-war cause would score points. This was in a period when Nixon and Kissinger were trying to end the war on honorable terms, though ultimately about three and a half million Vietnamese and Cambodians lost heir lives in the process. Kerry had no clue about the complexity of these dangerous waters, just as I think now he is a muddleheaded poseur who has the potential to lead our nation into serious trouble.

Kerry's basic problem is that while somewhat bright and articulate he lacks character and wisdom, both of which qualities Dubya has, though he struggles with the English language.

(10) Matthew Ryan made the following comment | Oct 7, 2004 4:12:59 PM | Permalink

The MSM is only giving Kerry a temporary pass. Just long enough to defeat the evil Bushitler.

If Kerry is elected, come January the gloves come off. "You were in Paris, meeting with the enemy in 1971? Who knew?". Because as much as they despise Bush,there is no greater prize in journalism than in weakening/knocking off a President. Most folks have heard of Woodward-Bernstein-Drudge. How many know the name of even one reporter in any newspaper (present company excepted)? So Kerry-Bush represents the perfect storm for journalism: take down two presidents in one shot.

And don't forget the Swift Boat Vets. Their charges will mysteriously have merit if Kerry takes office.

(11) MaDr made the following comment | Oct 7, 2004 5:54:24 PM | Permalink

Sue Bob & DC Carter

The Left sees nothing wrong with what Kerry did. From their perspective the ends justify the means (when they do it). They see Kerry as helping to end an amoral war - that's all that matters. Unfortunately this insidious "framing" of the war, crept beyond the confines of the Left with the Lmsm and our education propaganda machines leading the way.

(12) MaDr made the following comment | Oct 7, 2004 6:44:28 PM | Permalink

Whenever I see another Lmsm "error", I'm torn between laughing and crying. Usually I start out laughing, then quickly feel overwhelmed. Overwhelmed, because it's so pervasive and seems such an insurmountable task (turning it around).

Is pointing out errors to the "source" and then receiving an occasional (buried) correction effective? Is it better to go after their customers and/or advertisers? Or maybe it's better to hit the next level media (or their customers and/or advertisers). Maybe we need to go the germinating source - J schools.

So many choices, so little time. That's why I get overwhelmed.

(13) Whigfarmer made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 8:04:20 PM | Permalink

U.S. Code as of: 01/06/03
Section 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five
years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and
shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
U.S. Code as of: 01/06/03
Title 10
Section 904. Art. 104. Aiding the enemy

Any person who -
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition,
supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or
gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or
holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or
military commission may direct.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability

Those laws all seem pretty clear to me. It is alarming to say the least that so many people want to elect as our president, a man that has unrepentantly admitted to breaking them. The aiding the enemy code does not specify that it must be a Congressionaly declaired "War" so a case could certainly be made there if Kerry's actions were not actualy treason.
By the way did I miss the 2/3 majority vote from both houses of congress that would even allow John F'n Kerry to run for office?

The comments to this entry are closed.