I would like Kerry (and us) to talk proudly about his anti-war efforts

[A_Possum]

He talks proudly about his service and defends himself from attacks on it. This is one of the things that makes the smearvets look bad (besides the fact that they're lying dishonorable scum, but that aside.)

A lot of DU'ers think Kerry should be more proactive in countering attacks that can be clearly foreseen. OK, it's my belief that a trip through freeperland will indicate one of the coming attacks is going to involve Kerry's anti-war activities. This is part III of III. We've seen parts I (slime Kerry's medals), part II (misrepresent his "war crimes" testimony before congress). Part III will be, "Kerry negotiated with the enemy in Paris. Kerry committed treason."

I wanted to find out what exactly Kerry did, as a historical fact, since the Paris talks are not mentioned in either the Brinkley book or the Globe's Kerry biography. So I googled. (I need my own little medal for slogging through the stinking mud of the enemy territory for hours last night, but hey--it's my patriotic duty. ;)) Corsi has Part III all laid out in freeperland. See above. "Kerry is a traitor. He illegally negotiated with Madame Binh," etc.

It's hard to even find anything actually historical vs freep. However, in the Q/A of Kerry's Congressional testimony, he talks at length about his discussions with the North and South Vietnamese delegations in Paris. So this is a fact, unlike the smearvet lies.

I tried to post about it last night and got ridiculed, along with the implication I was just pushing RW talking points. Well, that's dumb, IMO. I'm looking ahead to how this kind of smear can be defanged before it ever gets a toehold.

When I read Kerry's replies in the Q/A, what I saw was that he had spoken to the Paris delegations for two good reasons: one, to make sure that the POW's would be freed if there was a cease-fire, and two, as a part of his effort to end the war as quickly as possible so that no more American men's lives were lost. I dismiss the freep claims that what he did was illegal, since I'm sure if it had been, he'd have been arrested on the way out of the hearing. He made no bones about doing it.

So, this is my conclusion:

"Spin" is what you put on a fact. The fact exists, the question is how it's perceived. The Republican spin will be, "talking to the enemy makes you a traitor," which carries a nice hot word that the media will love and splash all over the place, probably on Nov. 1.

It's my belief that the best counter to this would be to go out there NOW and start spinning this the other way now, without any hint of shame or reserve. What Kerry did was courageous and gutsy, and he was trying to save lives by getting the POW's home and ending the war ASAP. He put his own reputation on the line to do it. And he was taken seriously by the congressional committee, whose job it was to advise the President.

So, while I'm just another armchair strategist, if you start getting those freep e-mails about this "Kerry is a traitor because he negotiated with the North Vietnamese," stay calm and proud. Reply with vigor. He was putting himself on the line for the sake of American soldiers.

In his testimony, Kerry himself said:

Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, frankly it does not appeal to me if American men have to continue to die when they don't have to, particularly when it seems the Government of this country is more concerned with the legality of where men sleep than it is with the legality of where they drop bombs. (Applause.)...

But at the present moment that is not going to happen, so we are talking about men continuing to die for nothing and I think there is a tremendous moral question here which the Congress of the United States is ignoring...

But I think if can talk in this legislative body about filibustering for porkbarrell programs, then we should start now to talk about filibustering for the saving of lives and of our country. (Applause.)

And this, Mr. Chairman, is what we are trying to convey."

That sounds like a patriot to me.