John Kerry: Put Up or Shut Up!!

An open letter to John Kerry Because I know he posts here.

dear John

In 2004, paid partisans of George Bush savaged your honorable military record, adding the loathesome term Swiftboating to our political record, like the Republicans added "waterboarding" and "scoring a 'Cheney'" (when you shoot the guy wearing the orange vest and hat) Their charges against you were extensive and detailed--and, I thought, easily seen through as pure BS.

When the Swiftboating started in 2004, I wrote you immediately demanding you  disprove the BS--you didn't get started untill almost a month after I sent th email. That was a bad move, John, really bad, and, just as I predicted, it hurt your campaign. I sent you money anyway, more than all previous political donations combined, and voted for you.

Being a loyal Democrat and, like yourself a Vietnam combat vet  I have defended you and your record at every forum possible, including ex-military ones with all those nasty old conservatives. Like you, I also protested the Vietnam war when I got out of the Army, and, unlike you, I'm protesting this one.

I have been defending you and your record for  for almost 4 years now and what I want to know is: when the hell are you going to start?  I'm getting dam tired of defending your record when you put so little effort into defending it yourself and if you don't start, I'm going to stop.

There were two people runnning in Nov '04 with military records but yours was the only one gone through with a shitrake and a shovel---despite the fact that George Bush's honorable discharge" shows him with NO medals at all, "NONE" in his qualfications box and a clear statement saying he didn't finish his military obligation! ("...Officer has a 6 year commitment..and has completed 5 years, 4 months and 5 days..")  Why am I the only one who compared your discharge to Bush's? YOU should do this--and publically!! NOW!!!

You got beaten by a man with NO MEDALS ON HIS DISCHARGE AT ALL, John!! And "NONE" in his qualficatons box!!   Because his partisans took the heat off of him with the Swiftboating, Bush's record was given a complete bye in the media although there's many, _many signs of falsification, missing documents, embezzlement, fraudulent discharge and other serious crimes. You got beaten befause you wouldn't fight back and when you did it was not effectively. Bush's paperwork has more ireegularities than a French verb and more smoking guns than a John Wayne movie but YOUR record got the shaft AND he beat you--doesn't that piss you off, John? Didn't that make you want to do something about it? Like maybe get the CBS memos investigated?

In the units I was in (US Army paratroops) the general order was "Fight with what you have untill relieved!"  You quit fighting, John, long before you were relieved: these Swiftboat clowns are STILL savaging your record with impunity--and what the hell are you doing about it?

This latest thing with Boone Pickens is more of the same. When are YOU going to refute his claims?? And just one, isn't going to cut it-- they'll only say the rest were right.
But if thats the best you can do, then do it!!

these charges agsinst you are well known and have been for 4 years now. You should be well versed in them and you should have an easy refutation for all of them--if I can do it, you should be able to rattle it right off. When are you going to start? Whenever it is, it's years too late!!

You should be out front leading the defense of your record, not me.   Pickens recent "Million Dollar Bet" against you wouldn't have made even the back pages except you had to stand up and take the bait. You said you would take the bet--so where are you now??  Get off your ass, out of the Senate and go FIGHT!! Or you sure never would have made it in my unit. And if you don't, we'll all know the S-Boaters are probably right, or there's a lot of stuff you don't want loked at like they say.

Is that right John? Are the Swiftboaters right about you?  You better get off your ass and finsh the fight you accepted from  Pickens or Goddammit, I want all the money back I gave you in '04. And one thing for sure--if you don't finish this fight, and I mean decisively, I'll never defend you again.

So put up or shut up John--you owe it to me and all the rest of us out there 'been defending you for years--when are you going to relieve us?

•  Tip Jar

  Get of your ass and fight, John! Sue the bastards!! Put them under oath and see how their story changes.

  And for Gods sake, and America's, have the CBS memos investigated--America needs to know the truth!!

  by exlrrp on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 06:49:26 AM PDT

  •  Although I don't know what else he could have...

    ...done, the "don't taze me incident was his political epitaph.

    by Salo on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:11:07 AM PDT

•  John Kerry always appeared too comfy and smug

  about the status quo. he ain't doin' nothin'.

  by PeckingOrder on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 06:58:22 AM PDT

  •  Thats what it looks like

    hate to say it but Ive pretty much given up defending him already, I'd rather go after Bush's fraudulent record, its more fun. Just click on my name

    by exlrrp on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:01:25 AM PDT

  •  Gee is that why he

    fought Nixon on the Vietnam War?

    Or fought Reagan/Bush on the Contras. I guess investigating the government and proving that the government was allowing crack cocaine in and using the proceeds of its sale to support right wing Jesuit priest kiiling thugs in Central America.
    http://www.pbs.org/...

    Or BCCI where he stood against a Former Democratic President (Carter), the current President, and most of the Senate to demand accountability on BCCI. BCCI a corrupt Pakistani bank that funded Pakistan's bomb, had bought Democrats and Republicans to prevent investigation as they bought an American bank. Kerry persisted for 5 years against everyone and was a key player in closing BCCI.

    Who fought Alito? HRC, nooooo Obama, nooooo. It was John Kerry - again against the Democratic leadership allied with the Clintons.

    Who led in 2006 in the fight against Bush on chnaging the Iraq policy - not any of the current candidates - it was Kerry and Feingold.

    Overall there are few who have fought as much as he has.

    by karenc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:45:03 AM PDT

•  DId I just go back in time 3 years?

  by ablington on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:00:52 AM PDT

•  Dude

  get a life and move on.

  by bam bam on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:03:06 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the cogent comment n/t

    by exlrrp on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:08:56 AM PDT

  •  Kerry keeps bringing it up

    Didn't he put a hold on someone for financing the Swift Boat ads?  The diarist is correct that Kerry should either clearly refute all charges or drop it himself.  

    by Lois on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:12:29 AM PDT

    •  The Navy's own records counter the SBVT

      Kerry did not bring this up Pickens did. As to putting a hold on someone who financed the SBVT ads - he didn't. He grilled him. Before Kerry said anything, Fox said that the SBVT lied and that Kerry did volunteer, served and was a hero.

      Kerry's questioning focused on getting him to accept that it was personally wrong to give money to fund a campaign he knew was untrue. Kerry did not need to put a hold on him - he wasn't getting out of committee with a recommendation.

      Bush recess appointed him.

      by karenc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:50:36 AM PDT

•  I hear ya . . .

  I had some difficulty adjusting back to reality after 2004 as well.  Kerry has nothing to prove and there's certainly no need for him to close the barn door three years after the horse took a hike.

  by MajorFlaw on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:12:28 AM PDT

  •  He should not have taken the bet then

    Pickens slur would never have made the front pages if Kerry hadn't jumped in. Whyin the world did he do it?

    he picked up the challenge--to drop it again unanswered wou'd show some real chickenshit.

    he owes it to himself more than anyone else.

    by exlrrp on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:17:35 AM PDT

    •  Um . . .

      he owes it to himself more than anyone else.

      Wouldn't the best judge of what Kerry owes to himself be err, Kerry?  Kinda presumptuous of you to answer that one for him.

      by MajorFlaw on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:19:49 AM PDT

      •  Ummm???

        So you think Kerry is better off picking up the challenge from Pickens and than dropping it then finishing the fight?

        I don't think Kerry thinks that at all---and I sure don't! Are you saying candidates shoyuldn't be judged on their actions (or non actions?) I sure do.

        I think Kerry owes it to us who defend him but even more to himself to finsh this fight decisively. His reputation was left in tatters--thats a good ending?

        by exlrrp on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:24:19 AM PDT

        •  Oh please, Kerry's reputation isn't in tatters.

          He's an honorable guy who got mugged by a gang of lying scumbags.  If this becomes an issue in his senate re election campaign he'll have to deal with it but until then I'm gonna trust his judgment about what he needs to do.  I guess we're just gonna disagree.

          by MajorFlaw on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:30:20 AM PDT

          •  Guess so

            But lets look at our points of agreement:
            "..He's an honorable guy who got mugged by a gang of lying scumbags..."
            I agree with that 100%  I just think he should be more aggressive in defending his honorable record

            by exlrrp on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:38:55 AM PDT

            •  Fair enough.

              by MajorFlaw on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:42:38 AM PDT

              •  got a

                minute...?

                by condoleaser on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:35:26 AM PDT

                •  But of course.

                  Worthy cause indeed.

                  by MajorFlaw on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:23:39 AM PDT

            •  You ever debated

              a zealot who just uses his sheer willpower to reject any logic that underminse the false truth he holds on to for dear life?

              Do you know what it would take to make someone like that admit the truth? Now can you imagine doing that without any verification from objective sources (like ideally the news media)? I mean the evidence and the truth was out their, unfortunatly the MSM was gave the lies equal if not more consideration.

              You can have the best lawyer in world with the best case, but if you are in a trial where both the judge and the jury already know their verdict, you are fucked no matter what the truth is.

              by bam bam on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:55:45 AM PDT

          •  Kerry is a Senator that his time has...

            past him.  Kerry forgot why he wanted to go into politics.  He is not the advocate anymore.  He is part of the status quo.  

            Support Ed O' Reilly, a true Progressive, in the Primaries.

            by miller415 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:18:45 AM PDT

            •  Pffffffffft.

              by MajorFlaw on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:20:10 AM PDT

              •  And that reply means...

                you sprung a flat?

                by miller415 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:22:30 AM PDT

            •  Gee it seems to me like Kerry has provided

              more leadership than any Senator I can name in the last 3 years. On just three of the key issues facing the US, Kerry is a genuine leader.

              He has led on Iraq with Kerry/Feingold, which is the core of the bill that over half the Senate voted for earlier this year.

              His speech on Afghanistan lays out a foreign policy tha t is an idealistic ration alternative to the awful neo-con ideas.
              http://www.sais-jhu.edu/ That same philosophy has been expressed with reguards to Iraq, Lebanon and the West Bsnk. Here's a link for Lebanon, http://www.johnkerry.com/...
              Sounds like John Kerry is in the forefront of progressive and sane foreign policy.

              On the environment, Kerry has a consistent almost 4 decade record. He is one of the leaders in the Senate on this. He also, with Olympia Snowe, negotiated the increase in CAFE standards - the first in 2 decades. He is probably the best person overall in the Senate on environmental issues.

              So far, all Ed O'Reilly has seemed to do is attack Senator Kerry. It is very hard to think why Massachusetts would replace a dedicated public servant with John Kerry's record and abilities with someone who has so little judgment that he joined the SBVT in saying that the Senator needs to defend his service for which the military respected by giving him extremely prestigious medals.

              by karenc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:34:41 AM PDT

        •  Kerry's actions for his entire public life and

          his service have been exemplary and honorable.

          by karenc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:57:03 AM PDT

    •  Because the offer was all over RW radio and

      they were spinning it that as no one had come forward, there were no lies.

      Look at the pattern of how these things work. Once they saturate that level, they appear on Fox, then on some of the other networks' shows.

      He is not dropping it. He responded last - essentially calling Pickens a weisel.

      You should be ashamed to even think of calling the good senator chicken shit.

      by karenc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:55:07 AM PDT

•  Thanks For The Diary & Letter To Kerry

  You are saying what I know many of us, especially those of use that are Vietnam Vets and worked so hard to support Kerry in '04, have been thinking.  Thank you for putting it in words.  

  Note to Kerry:  Get off your duff and turn to.

  by freepress4all on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:21:18 AM PDT

  •  Thanks!!

    I appreciate that, from another Vietnam Veteran

    by exlrrp on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:25:43 AM PDT

    •  Welcome Home, Brother

      I never could understand how one Vietnam Vet, specifically that little worm that spearheaded the efforts to spread the lies about Kerry, could try to discredit another Vietnam Vet for political gain.  

      by freepress4all on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:34:17 AM PDT

      •  Wouldn't have happened without Bush

        It was GWB himself that is to blame for it, if not, the SBers never would have gotten off the ground.

        What was REALLY intersting about this is how far Bush is from the Swifboaters views----publically thhatis. Both he and Cheny publically praised Kerry's record at the same time their Swifboaters, who they  paid, were pissing all over Kerry's record.

        Huge anomaly, eh? Bush gets the credit for baing a nice guy while his Peasants With Pitchforks and internet MauMaus did all the damage--definiotely getting it both ways.

        Bush could have stopped it at any time, and an honorable man would have----but thats the wholoe problem right there, isn't it.

        Thanks and welcome home too

        by exlrrp on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:50:34 AM PDT

      •  Being a Rethug takes presidense(sp) over all n/t.

        by miller415 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:21:08 AM PDT

•  Kerry and his military record

  I remember getting all kinds of attacks here in 2004 for saying this but its the truth:  Kerry made a huge mistake to predicate his campaign on being a war hero.  Having defended Bill Clinton's draft dodging (with statements on the Senate floor, too), John Kerry himself had made military service and war heroism moot.  Then he runs for President himself and runs on being a hero 35 years in the past.  It didn't make sense; it never made sense for the Democratic Party, either.  If dodging military service with multiple layers of help from political influence didn't disqualify Bill Clinton, what the heck was John Kerry talking about?  

  by Lois on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:21:42 AM PDT

  •  He was up against Bush and its wartime

    I think Kerry  was thinking that his military service record would havve stood him in good standing in a time of war and normally it would have.

    But Bush has a military record, tho fraudulent, and I think anyone who went up against Bush would have been better off with a military record. But who could have told that the opposition would have gone after his record so fiercely?

    Kerry plain saw it as an asset but he didn't comprehend the shitstorm it would unleash. And he never uderstood that george BUsh's military record was something to go after too. I firmly think that the main reason for the Swiftboating was to take the focus off of Bush's fraudulent record but thats because Ive studied the fraud in Bush's record

    he never played it well at all. I think he might have beaten if he played it better

    by exlrrp on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:34:18 AM PDT

    •  I think the whole issue was moot

      Personally, one of the reasons I never voted for Bill Clinton was that I followed the story on how he got out of military service. It is a complicated, multi-layered scheme using at least 3 avenues of political influence SEPARATELY (Sen. Fulbright, Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller and Clinton's own uncle Raymond, a politically connected car dealer) to secure desirable spots that would put him past some date and then he'd drop the slot.  

      Its quite an interesting story of political influence and dishonesty.   I had relatives who were in the service in the same time period and they secured spots in the National Guard and in the Army that kept them out of any possibility of being sent into combat and they had NO political influence working for them.  Bill Clinton simply felt entitled not to have to waste any time in any form of military service!  That was the truth of the matter and the entire Democratic Party thought it was just fine - with John Kerry making speeches.  You don't get to come back later on and quibble that Bush should get nailed to the wall for skipping out on a few days of doing clerical work.  In 1992, Clinton's opponent (the first Bush) was a war hero, too, and we'd just had a war the year before.  

      by Lois on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:59:34 AM PDT

      •  Its more than "skipping ot a few days"

        George Bush skipped out MANY days. According to his posted pay records, he skipped out of, in one year alone (May 1972-73) NINE WHOLE MONTHS!! Out of a year!!!

        Don't take my word for it, read it right off the page, look at the gaps. This also includes the MANDATORY 14 day training in august of that year!

        One of the basic unfairnesses that few caught in the '04 campaign was that all the critical takes of militaery records went to Kerry--yet Bush's paerwork is OBVIOUSLY irregular--thats why Bushco scrambleed it up before they released them on a Friday afternooon.

        Tho Kerry's record has been gone through with a rake and a pointed shovel, no one ever asked Bush why there's NO medals at all on his discharge, why it says "NONE" in his qualifications box, why it says "Officer has a 6 year commitment... and has completed 5 years 4 months and 5 days..." and why the SOB never showed up to sign it.

        Don't take my word for that either, read that one right off the page too

        by exlrrp on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:17:10 AM PDT

        •  But so what? He did more than Clinton, right?

          No offense but having chosen Bill Clinton over Medal of Honor winner Bob Kerrey in 1992, the Democratic party made a statement:  Military service or use of political influence to evade military service is a non issue and does not disqualify someone from the presidency.  Even lying about it is a non-issue.  The Democrats made their bargain and then tried to renege on it in 2004.  Well, it didn't sell.

          by Lois on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:51:45 AM PDT

          •  Kerry likely would have prefered Tsongus

            who was a friend or Kerrey, who he worked with and who he supported when he was attacked as a war criminal.

            Ever candidate uses their biography when they run. In Kerry's case in his acceptance speech he spoke of having served and of having come back to protest.

            The things shown by Kerry's actions - that he was willing to risk his life to save another, that he was creative enough to propose a way to avoid dreaded ambushes, humble enough to ask for the opinions of others on his plan, and persuasive enough to sell the plan to his peers says something. That his records and the comments of his men show that he inspired unusual loyalty and respect form his men says a lot about his character under incredibly difficult circumstances.

            I assume the reason Kerry defended Clinton in the General election was that there were many really bad things that Bush 1 was doing - things Kerry fought through his Iran/Contra and BCCI investigations.

            Kerry has been answering that all the Democrats will do better on foreign policy, healthcare and the environment than the Republicans.  In the general election, I have no doubt he will make the best case that he can for any of them - even if they have in teh past stabbed him in the back.

            This is because given teh alternatives, he clearly sees that as best for the country.

            by karenc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:17:51 AM PDT

            •  I voted for Kerry; did not vote for Clinton

              Frankly, it pained me to see John Kerry being used to run interference for Bill Clinton.  It was the beginning of a pattern that, IMO, damaged the Democratic Party throughout the Clinton years.  Its the reason presidential character (the lies about the draft and other things) matters:  because everyone else in the party gets stuck defending the president.  

              In November 1991, the Senate Judiciary Committee, controlled by Democrats, held unprecedented hearings about a woman making unprovable charges about a Supreme Court nominee that were described to the public as "sexual harassment."  When was the last time you heard a Democrat say the words "sexual harassment" or even "violence against women" except as a throw away line.  They can't because they don't want to talk about Bill Clinton who was accused of rape and successfully sued for sexual harassment, a suit he settled for almost a million dollars in order to avoid trial because there WAS proof.  

              But the most important thing is the way Democrats have been neutered on really important women's issues because that way lies hypocrisy charges.  

              by Lois on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:40:01 AM PDT

              •  I agree with you here

                in fact, in 2004 my 17 year old and I were speaking of the election. I realized as we spoke that the reason I was so much happier voting for Kerry was that the more I read of his past, the more I saw a man of character, honor and commitment.

                When I said this, she asked why I had never spoken against Clinton to her and her sisters. As she pointed out, she knew my values - and Clinton met few of them. His actions with Lewinsky would have gotten him fired in most major companies. I admitted that in part it was that he was on my "team",the Democrats and that it was wrong. (I had always heard the rape charge was never made and a RW lie.)

                What I see know is that I should never have accepted on the part of a Democrat what I wouldn't have accepted from a Republican. In fact the reason I am more interested in defending Kerry, who is not running is that he is a good man, whose reputation has been damaged by both the right wing and the Clinton wing, which fostered the whole "he didn't fight back" theme - nice payment for the support that he gave Clinton in the 1992 general election.

                by karenc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:23:02 AM PDT

                •  Yes, thats what I'm saying, too

                  Kerry, in my opinion, is a great man.  It was painful that party loyalty put him in that position and I am sure that he was put under pressure to make that speech because Clinton was the establishment candidate in '92.  

                  I don't know if the rape charge is true or false but if we live in a world where 3 lacrosse players can be indicted for raping a stripper with a psychiatric history and a history of false accusations and there is no evidence, then how is the accusation of a reputable nursing home owner dismissed so easily.  ????  Dismissing that rape charge so easily puts Democrats on the spot, for sure.  They didn't want to hear it, it was all "vast right wing conspiracy."  

                  But the one that really matters, of course, is the Paula Jones charge:  that Clinton sent a state trooper to fetch her to a hotel room so that he could proposition her for sex.  The state trooper was going to testify that Clinton sent him to fetch her.  Whats the defense?  How lame and corrupt it is that the big women's groups went along with belittling the accuser and standing with the powerful man.  Paula Jones had the goods on him.  How HORRIBLE that Democrats smirked about "trailer park trash" and that "what really happened was consensual" - as though it was Jones who demanded to be taken to Clinton.  In my opinion, that is a story of an actual sexual assault that should be criminal.  

                  by Lois on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:48:28 AM PDT

                  •  That's why I quoted Kerry's speech

                    I have no problem with it as written. I would have a problem had he defended lying and cheating as Clinton did. The comments ring true to me - in terms of not re-fighting the war.

                    The Paula Jones story erupted only after the 1992 election. I agree with you that virtually any way you looked at that story it was seedy. What I regret is that Clinton with his need to keep in the spot light likely hurt both Gore's and Kerry's runs. He really has been a disaster for the party.

                    I never heard Kerry ever defend Clinton on any of the character or sex issues.  

                    by karenc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:00:13 PM PDT

      •  Kerry's speech did not address Clinton's

        scheming or dishonesty. It dealt with the need to heal the wounds from that time period. It also spoke of the fact that in 1969 and later, there were many people who strongly objected to and wanted to end the war. Not all of them acted in bad faith. Kerry did not address Clinton's lack of honor.

        Kerry's speech was a cry from the heart not to tear America apart again, as we had in the 1960s. He was at that time extremely involved with the POW/MIA committee where his goal was to heal the scars from that war here and in Vietnam. (The recent CSPAN replay of film from their efforts in Vietnam was fascinating.) His work led to an intensified effort to repatriate American remains.

        Here is the Senate speech:

        "Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

        I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

        What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

        What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

        What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

        What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary.

        The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam , not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

        We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we

        now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

        Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam ?

        Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

        But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

        I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the Presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

        We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country."

        by karenc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:45:54 AM PDT

        •  Surprise, surprise. Kerry omitted Clinton's lies

          Do you think that sells as anything other than self-serving?

          I said above that I had relatives who did comply with the law and didn't scheme to evade military service but also had no trouble getting slots that put them safely out of danger of being sent into combat.  Lets not forget that in 1988, there were Democrats who went along with the portrayal of enlisting in the National Guard as dishonorable in regard to Dan Quayle's service.  

          But I also had a cousin and classmates who were drafted and sent to Vietnam and one of them was killed in Vietnam.  Surely that counts for something.  It was truly weird for the Democratic Party to argue in 1992 that none of it matters.  Because we are nominating someone who used political influence (3 separate schemes at least!), it doesn't matter any more.

          In my opinion, there was something childish about the 2004 effort to run on Kerry being a military hero.  You have to take the bitter with the sweet and not demand to have it your way all the time.  Kerry should have chosen another theme for his campaign than, "Reporting for duty."  

          by Lois on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:03:20 AM PDT

          •  Self serving would have been to stay out of it

            Kerry's theme was "a call to service" and he defined the service to include - being in the Navy, protesting, being a prosecutor, a LT Governor and a Senator.

            Kerry did not run as a war hero, but as one who served. Other people spoke of his awards - the only time I can remember Kerry speaking of getting awards was before the Firefighters, when he responded to the SBVT. Even then he simply listed the medals.

            Clinton and Kerry never seemed close or allies. Clinton  couldn't have been much weaker in supporting Kerry in 2004, though he spoke more of Kerry's service than Kerry did at the convention.

            by karenc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:25:58 AM PDT

            •  Lets be clear: then Bush & Nat'l Guard

              are a non-issue, right?  Are we in agreement that trying to nail down every jot and tittle of Bush's National Guard record was not a worthy effort?  I remember Max Cleland, a Kerry surrogate, making a big deal out of it and, IMO, Kerry should have put a stop to that, just as he tried to do for Clinton.  (And it would have been a smart move politically, IMO; he would have looked like a mensch.)

              Having not wanted to nail down the Clinton story, chock full of lies and scheming and political influence as it was, why go after Bush?  Why scold people for the way they felt about Clinton's record and then not keep your own high profile supporters in line about attacking Bush?  

              Where's the principle?  

              by Lois on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:51:38 AM PDT

              •  Kerry never made Bush's NG an issue

                other than after he was attacked - saying that IF Bush wanted a debate on it he would be willing. You will be hard pressed to find any other Kerry quote mentioning Bush's service. In fact, I have more often defended Kerry for NOT making it an issue. (The NYT at the time of the Rather report found that finding that Rather's accusations were true would not impact Bush's standing - implying people either already thought that or didn't care.)

                Other Democrats, like McAuliffe tried to make it an issue. Cleland made it an issue only when Bush would not repudiate the SBVT.

                What I don't get is that on this issue, Kerry is as different as day and night from Clinton, yet you are blaming him for Clinton's sins. Kerry is honorable, even if Clinton isn't. Do you blame Gore, who was also honorable, as well?

                by karenc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:07:24 AM PDT

                •  In '92 he scolded; in '04 he let surrogate attack

                  Right?  The Senate speech in '92 was a scolding of those who thought Bill Clinton's evasion of military service was a legitimate issue:

                  "Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?"

                  What did he say in '04 to put a stop to the fomenting of the Bush National Guard story, even by people who were in his campaign and the Chairman of the Democratic Party?

                  Whats hard to get about the point?  The point is being consistent and principled.   Obviously, yes, I do think Clinton tarred the whole Democratic party, forcing them to be complicit and undermining their moral authority.  I got through to a C-SPAN call-in with Chris Dodd right after the '92 election and asked him if there was ever a draft again in this country, would he try to put punishments in the law for the politicians who used their influence to help Clinton.  His answer was that I should understand that is always going to happen with people at that level.  ????   Geez, what a thing for a Senator to say.  

                  by Lois on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:37:45 AM PDT

                  •  Correction

                    I didn't want that new law to go back and retroactively punish Fulbright, et al.  I wanted the new draft law to have punishments for politicians who use their influence to assist draft evasion.  

                    by Lois on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:51:24 AM PDT

•  I was so happy to see...

  JK stand up to the Swift voters 3 years after they slandered him.  AND that he used Joe Klein as an unofficial adviser.  Yes, the Joe Klein that uses rethugs like Hoekstra as sources when writing about Dem votes in Congress.  Yes, that is the type of hack Kerry listened to in the 04' election.  It is time for sweeping change in Congress.  Vote Progressive Democrat, not just Democrat.

  by miller415 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:13:52 AM PDT

•  they were full of...

  ...crap about him and did it to get vengence for his congressional testimony way back when and to reelect their neo fascist fuhrer

  by TAPayne on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:32:07 AM PDT

•  Kerry fought back in exacty the way that would

  have worked as recently as 2000. He had truth and proof on his side. Producing it in a timely manner - which he did - should have caused the Bush connected SBVT to backfire.

  Before the August attacks, the media already had an incredible amount of information on Kerry's Vietnam service. They had: - about 140 pages of naval records, containing fitness reports that could be seen to completely cover the 3 1/2 years he was in the Navy. They were all glowing - even those written by future SBVT. (They also included one showing that Kerry was approved for a higher security clearance needed for the Brooklyn job - some SBVT very likely signed off on Kerry's character.)

  - The Nixon tapes showed they looked looked into Kerry in 1971, 2 years after he served when people's memories would be fresh. They found he was a hero.

  - The Brinkley book was the work of an academic historian, who interviewed over 100 people and researched the available documentation  Kerry had no editorial control. Brinkley backs Kerry.

  - All the men actually on Kerry's boats when he got any medals back him 100%.

  After the lies came out, the Kerry campaign gave the media 30 some pages disproving charges. With multiple lies identified, it was unconscionable that the media simply went to the next set of lies. They also proved they had links into the Bush campaign. Would you have believed even 4 years ago that people at a convention could mock purple hearts and have the media show purple heart bandaids, with no negative comments, as a novelty of the campaign. This signaled a lot to the country.

  Remember the WAR ROOM, that the Clintons speak of - their goal was to have SOMETHING out to counter any charge in the same news cycle. Kerry beats this by a country mile. Any one of the above points is more substantive than anything the Clintons put out in the changing draft or Flowers stories.

  In addition, Kerry's team gave the media 36 pages of obvious contradictions and things that can be proven to be lies. People claimed to witness things on dates when they were not even in Vietnam.

  How much proof backing Kerry do you need? How many lies do you need to defeat in real time. (Not easy, as they had to find witnesses willing to speak. Consider that BC had it easier - he knew that both the mentioned stories could happen.)

  Kerry has already provided more than amble proof - why do you think that Guilliani and Bill Clinton have called negative attacks on their (or their wife's) campaign swiftboating - the reason is that the word implies despicable lying for political reason.

  As John Kerry did NOT wait a month to counter the SBVT - the media had the proof needed BEFORE the August attacks. He went on to prove that the liars were connected to Bush.

  Have fun siding against Kerry and with the SBVT.

  by karenc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:32:56 AM PDT