Same person. Comsymp then, Comsymp now. It's hard to see the thread. To a real dyed-in-the-wool Comsymp, anything which weakens the homeland of the Bourgiosie is good, even if it's radical Islam. To a hater of the West, anything which weakens the West is good, even if it's radical Islam. To a hater of Christianity, anything. . .you get the drift.

I do not mean to say that Hanoi John is a hater of Christianity. I do believe that he is an opportunist from Massachusetts attempting to ride his Comsymp, Hesperophobic, anti-Christian base to power.

With respect, I would suggest that there isn't a contradiction in the two Kerry quotes. The first claim is simply that Kerry will conscientiously defend the country when he is president. The second claim simply means that Kerry considered it an error for American to think that young Americans' deaths in VietNam actually had anything to do with the preservation of freedom. Their deaths were in vain. I mean no disrespect, and I appreciate the chance to make this comment. I wish you the best. Peace.

Mr. Green:

Thanks for participating. You need not couch your comment. If you wander through the comments, you will see all that we suffer for our art.

The contradiction I see is that John Kerry, in order to show that he would be tough on terrorism now (a position for which his political record shows no support at all), claims that he "defended" the country as a young man. As a young man, on the other hand, he rejected the idea that fighting in Viet Nam was in any way related to defending the country. The Vietnamese were, after all, peaceful agrarians who just wanted us to leave their country and stop propping up the oppressive South Vietnamese government.

jgreen is correct, the quotes aren't contradictory. They are two sides of the same coin.

Kerry values stability over freedom.

To him, the wogs weren’t worth the effort then, and they aren’t now.