What a Putz!

S. Korean who met Kerry aides was a spy

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A South Korean embassy official who met with John Kerry fund-raisers to talk about creating a political group for Korean-Americans was in fact a spy for his country, raising concerns among U.S. officials that he or Seoul may have tried to influence the fall presidential election.

South Korean and U.S. officials told The Associated Press that Chung Byung-Man, a consular officer in Los Angeles, worked for South Korea’s National Intelligence Service at the time he was meeting with Kerry fund-raisers.

A spokesman for the South Korean consulate office said Chung was sent home in May amid “speculation” he became involved with the Kerry campaign and Democratic Party through contacts with fund-raiser Rick Yi and that his identity couldn’t be discussed further.

“According to international tradition, we cannot identify, we cannot say who he is, because he is intelligence people,” spokesman Min Ryu said. The State Department said it has discussed Chung’s reported activities with the South Korean government and has no reason to doubt Seoul’s representations he was an intelligence agent.

The department believes Chung’s contacts with donors and fund-raisers, if accurately described in reports, were “inconsistent” with the 1963 Vienna Convention that prohibits visiting foreign officials from interfering in the internal politics and affairs of host countries, a spokesman for its legal affairs office said.

Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said the campaign did not know Chung was an intelligence agent or that Yi, one of the campaign’s key fund-raisers in the Asian-American community, was meeting with him until it was brought to light by the AP.

$4,000 returned

The AP first reported this spring that Yi and other Kerry fund-raisers and donors had met with Chung, but at the time Chung was only identified as a diplomat. Yi resigned from the Kerry campaign after the AP story appeared, and Kerry returned $4,000 in donations he had solicited because of concerns about their origins.

Democratic donors and fund-raisers who said they were uncomfortable with the activities alerted the AP to the meetings and Chung’s identity as an intelligence agent.

A South Korean government official in Seoul and two longtime U.S. officials in Washington, both speaking on condition of anonymity because Chung’s intelligence work is classified, told the AP that Chung worked for South Korea’s NIS, the country’s CIA equivalent.

The U.S. officials said Chung had registered with the Justice Department as a friendly foreign intelligence agent on U.S. soil, and that his activities had raised concern he or his government had tried to influence the fall presidential election through “extracurricular activities.”

Chung left in May

The FBI has not begun a formal counterintelligence investigation because Chung left the United States in May, the officials said.

The NIS dismissed any suggestion the South Korean government tried to influence American politics as a “totally groundless rumor and all fiction.”

South Korea has been frustrated over the deadlock in talks on North Korea’s nuclear activities, while at the same facing the Bush administration’s planned withdrawal of thousands of U.S. troops from the tense region. One expert said Chung’s actions were consistent with Seoul’s concerns with the Bush administration even if he didn’t get a direct order.

“It is certainly possible that these actions would not reflect an order from the top but rather point to the unaccountability of a rather high-ranking officer to pursue their own agenda or what they perceive to be the agenda of their superiors,” said Nicholas Eberstadt, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute.

But, nonetheless, this sort of intervention certainly provides a faithful reflection of the general attitude of Roh Moo-hyun’s administration toward the presidential race,” Eberstadt said. “There’s an awful lot of people in this (South Korean) government who can’t stand the Bush administration and would love to see Bush lose.”

South Korean officials said Yi and Chung had known each other for some time. Before moving to Los Angeles, Chung worked in South Korea’s consular offices in Atlanta, where Yi was working for a high-tech company. Yi worked in White House

Yi had worked in the Clinton White House as a military attache, and eventually went into business in the Atlanta area with the son of disgraced former South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan. Yi began raising money for Kerry in 2003 and raised about $500,000 for Democratic causes.

Yi told the AP that he met with Chung at least three times in California to discuss starting a political action group for Korean-Americans. “He contacted me to ask me to help him set up a Korean-American Leadership Council,” Yi said, adding he turned down the offer because he was too busy.

Before the discussions with Chung in California, Yi had started a Korean-American political group in the Atlanta area called the Pacific Democratic Alliance, according to incorporation papers filed in March 2002 with the state of Georgia.

South Korean officials said Yi asked Chung to help introduce him to Korean-Americans in California as Yi began fund-raising in the state. Chung made some personal introductions but never directly solicited political donations, Ryu said.

Kee Whan Ha, president of the Korean American Federation of Los Angeles and a donor to both Kerry and Republican candidates, said it was common knowledge within the community that Chung worked for intelligence.

This must some of Kerry's "Foreign leaders" that he was referencing!!!!

BWHAHAHAHAHA !!!!

I'll bet if the truth could be uncovered, that Kerry's campaign has alot of contributors who would be considered enemies of the US...perhaps some Al Qaeda money? Nortrh Korea? Iran? Hezbollah? All rooters for Kerry I'm sure.

Kerry's Latest Speech

I am John Kerry.

I was against the first Iraq war, I am against the second Iraq war, but I voted for it. Now I'm against it but I was for it. I support the UN. I'm against terrorism and against the Iraq war. But I voted for the Iraq war. So, I voted against the first war and supported the second war, wait...

I'm against gay marriage but for gay unions. I support gays but think the San Francisco mayor is wrong. I support gay marriages. No, wait, gay unions.

I'm Catholic. Wait, I'm Jewish. My dad was Jewish. But I was raised Catholic. What am I? I don't want to confuse people.

I am for abortions, but wait, I'm Catholic, and Catholics are pro-life. But I might consider putting pro-life judges in office, but I'm not sure. I do know I voted for a pro-life judge, but I stated that it was a mistake.

I went to Vietnam. But I was against Vietnam. I testified against fellow US troops in Vietnam, threw my medals away and led others to do the same. But I am a war hero. Against the war.

I stated I threw my medals away then I threw my ribbons away. I then revealed that I threw my ribbons away but not my medals, then lately I stated that I threw someone else's medals away and never threw anything of mine away.

I believe Ribbons and medals aren't the same thing. Medals come with ribbons, so now I believe that ribbons and medals are the same thing besides the fact that ribbons are cloth and medals are metal.

I wrote a book that pictured the US flag upside-down on its cover. But now I fly and campaign in a plane with a large flag right-side up on it.

Yasser Arafat is a hero and a statesman. The Israelis shouldn't kill Palestinian terrorists, but they should stop terrorism. Yasser Arafat is a terrorist supporter. I support Mideast peace.

I am for the common man, unlike Bush. I am against the rich. But my family is worth 700 million dollars has a jet and many SUVs. I am the common man.

I am against sending jobs overseas. My wife is a Heinz heir. Heinz has most factories offshore. I am against rewarding companies for exporting jobs as long as it is not Heinz.

I own $1 million in Wal-Mart stock. I believe Wal-Mart is evil by driving small business owners out of town. I am a capitalist and I own part of Wal-Mart but I am a good guy for small corporate America.

I own SUVs when I talk to my followers in Detroit, MI. Teresa owns SUVs, I don't, when I talk to tree hugging followers. I have a campaign jet that gets 1/3 mpg, which is great fuel efficiency.

I am against making military service an issue in presidential elections. I defended draft dodger Clinton and stated that all serve in their own capacity whether they draft dodge or not. Did I mention, I served in Vietnam and am a hero? Are you questioning my patriotism? I served in Vietnam. My opponent didn't. I have three purple hearts! I am a hero. I am qualified to run this country since I served.

I spent Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia, being shot at by the drunken South Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge, while president Nixon was lying to the country and saying that there were no troops in Cambodia. What's that you say, Nixon wasn't president in 1968, well it must have been some other president then. Who was that president with the phony silver star, it was probably him.

Are you sure the Khmer Rouge were not active until 1970, well I guess I must not have been there then. That's right I was actually in my basecamp in Vietnam at least 55 miles from the Cambodian border and I spent the evening writing in my journal about being in Cambodia. I got confused after I said it so many times between 1968 and 1986.

I am a real hero though, just spend three minutes with the people who served with me and they will tell you. No, not those 200 plus veterans who served with me and say I lied, and not all those veterans that signed affidavits that say I am a phony, I mean just these 8 people that travel around with me (my band of brothers).

I am John Kerry.

I want to be your President

That speech would be sad or maybe funny if it wasn't ALL true.

How can anyone with an intellegence level greater than that of a retarded garden vegetable vote for John 'flip-flopping' Kerry?

Bet you this will get some responses....

Whew, I need to go get my flame-retardent suit now............

Rory, here are my reasons:

I hesitate to respond to this thread because I truly believe that I will not convince very many people (if any). My experience has been that if you are willing to post, your opinions are strongly set. Just as I could never vote for GW, I expect that there are others (on this board, maybe a lot!) that could never vote for Kerry. But, here goes anyway. My reasons for Kerry:

1. The environment - I see GW as representing a group that for want of a better word, I will call extractors. Global warming is "junk science", trees serve no purpose other than lumber or pulp, streams and rivers are best used for Hydro and Irrigation, etc. I believe that Kerry stands for conservation and the use of technology to preserve and protect our National resources.

2. National defense - I believe that GW has diluted our resources (people and money) in the War on Terror through his adventure in Iraq. Afghanistan was a correct response. If you looked to define those country's involved in State sponsored Terrorism that posed a threat to the US on 9/10/2001 I believe the list would have looked like this:

Afghanistan

Iran

Syria

Saudi Arabia

Pakistan

North Korea

I believe that Kerry will reprioritize our War on Terror to go after those that can and will try to harm us. And, yes, I do believe that GW (and those in his Administration) lied to us about Iraq. I remember watching Donald Rumsfeld on Meet the Press in February 2003 (approx.) saying, "Of course Sadaam has WMD, We know that, and we know where they are." Now, this statement was made while the UN weapons inspectors were still on the ground. My red flag went on full alert when I heard this because I knew that GW was going after Iraq no matter what. And, it also meant that this Administration had no intention or motivation to find WMD - otherwise why wouldn't they have just told the UN Inspectors where the weapons were? I believe that he has strengthened the terrorists in the long run because of what we have done in Iraq.

3. The deficit - GW has chosen to fight his war "on the come". Rightly or wrongly, Kerry has supported a balanced budget. He has shown that he is willing to make the hard choices (in his case, usually higher taxes) in order to fund the Budget. GW has no more Budget discipline that a sailor on leave, drunk on Saturday night.

4. The economy - Under GW's watch, the economy has stunk. The root cause of the decline may have not been in his power to control, however, his response is certainly under his control. Job creation has not lived up to his own projections given early this year. The types of jobs created, are not the ones that will sustain the middle class. Kerry's plan of investing in Infrastructure holds much more promise to me than the failed ideas of the "trickle down effect." Reducing taxes while running huge deficits, does nothing to help the economy in the short run and causes escalating damage in the long run.

5. Libertarian issues - I believe that John Kerry represents a much more "hands off" approach on moral issues. I do not want my Govt. telling me what to do and setting out a moral code for me to live by. That is between me and my God (and my God is not GW or John Ashcroft, or Pat Robertson.)

6. Leadership - Every four years, we the stockholders (voters) get to have a referendum on the CEO. I believe that any Company in America that had a CEO make the above blunders would vote to get in new blood. GW has rightly earned the label decisive. However, decisive and wrong still makes you wrong. I do not trust his judgement and I will cast a vote for change.

These are my reasons why I will cast my vote for John Kerry in November. I don't intend to get into a debate here, I doubt very much that I can convince anyone who posts that my position should prevail. And, I can guarantee you that nobody will convince me to vote for GW. If I did, I'm afraid that lightning would strike me dead.

Maybe instead of continously focusing on whether or how John Kerry has changed his position, Geoge Bush and the rest of his drones should examine if any of them are correct. Every ocasion that I hear Bush on the news, he's says the same thing, "My opponent can't be taken seriously because he change his position." What ever happened to talking about what you can do and justifying what you've done.???????

Considering what a disaster Iraq has become, how can anyone follow someone that claims, "If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't change a thing. Stay the course."

What's that about insanity and repeating actions expecting a different outcome?

And there is the issue to debate. A lot of us do not see Iraq as a disaster. Have mistakes been made? Yes but that doesn't mean we are not right.

See, conservatives know that war is not perfect and what you liberals are critisizing is the fact that the world is not perfect.

You relish the fact that their have been mistakes because that is how you gain political power. You cannot name me one war, one conflict where everything went perfectly.

We controlled Japan's government after WWII till 1948-49. Why? Because we wanted to make sure that the system we left them with was better than what was there before.


I would rather have someone stay the course and make minor adjustments as needed than someone who has NO PLAN AT ALL.

Kerry has no position and that is the issue. You got him as your nominee now deal with it.

Ya all of you who received a free lobotomy

Nice lead that was awesome I died laughing