Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

I think many people of 1970 would never have believed being
anti-war would be a negative attribute in the future.

You are missing the point of the crystal ball allusion in this case; the
poster meant that Kerry had no way of knowing Hanoi Jane would two years
later become...well, Hanoi Jane. But in actuality, Kerry had an apparently

That's precisely the point I was trying to reference, although
perhaps with poor examples.

Playing one's Leftist, anti-war games is one thing; actually
visiting the camp of your active enemy quite another. Yet
this sort of thing has become de rigeur for groups attempting
to score points in opposition to US administration goals.
Quite a few people, some of them prominent, made visits to
Iraq just before the war. They invariably return with a "new
understanding" of the target people who "do not want war".

Unfortunately, the political polarization in the US between
conservative and liberal has become so extreme, that the
slightest "discrepancy" or "fuzzy info" becomes material to
be "spun up" into scandal. Try to put the spin you want on
the info (or lack of it), hand it to selected members of
the press favorable to your views, present it as "news" and
see if it gains "traction".

Both sides do it, but since Republicans have predominately
occupied the White House since Nixon, they have been more
often the targets.

If Kerry thought of being President some day (as apparently
Clinton did from college days), he might have stayed clear
of Jane...but only if he realized the political climate *of the
nation* might change. People get older, sometimes wiser,
friends and cliques separate, and people mature (generally).

The political world you inhabit today might not be the one you
must live and work in 10 or 20 years! And in the current US
political climate, *anything* you do is going to get dredged
up and negatively spun by your political opponents if you run
from President.

These must be great times for private investigators!


SMH