Rotating Header Image



Charles Manson’s response to the suggestion of his culpability in the Tate-Labianca murders from 1969 was that he wasn’t there, so he didn’t do it, wasn’t responsible, look elsewhere, wasn’t him, man.

I’m reading this article tonight — (Tuesday September 7, 2004, “What Kerry actually said in 1971,” by MICHAEL BRIGGS) — written by an author who attempts to defend John Kerry’s statements and behaviors of the past (and present, unfortunately), and in the case of this article, Kerry’s 1971 testimony before the U.S. Senate — someone who obviously, also, is making an excessive attempt to impugn SwiftVet author, John O’Neill by meshing O’Neill in with the “evil” Nixon legacy — reminds me of Charles Manson’s defense, then and now.

Because, Manson still insists he wasn’t responsible for the terrible and murderous events that claimed the lives of many and gruesomly, and John Kerry and Kerry apologoists continue to insist that Kerry didn’t blame Vietnam veterans for atrocities, wasn’t, isn’t responsible for harm that Vietnam and countless other American veterans suffered and for decades on because of what John Kerry said and did, and, worse, did not do — and subsequently, is not to be held accountable for results that Kerry wasn’t responsible for. Never mind that Kerry blamed PARTICULAR veterans (still Veterans) and “politicians” and “superiors” who were, according to Kerry, aware of “atrocities” that (the particular) veterans allegedly, as per Kerry, “committed.”

(I paraphrase, as follows) — The Charles Manson defense: “it isn’t what was said, or who said it, it’s the perceptions of everyone else that are responsible. It’s everyone else that is wrong. You did it. You did it to yourselves.”

Kerry condescended to and about the United States’ military presence in South Vietnam, calling it “criminal hypocrisy.”

“Criminal hypocrisy”: now THAT finally makes sense, John Kerry, that makes sense when applied to John Kerry.