two years too late: Kerry attacking swiftboaters

[dajoki]

NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/washington/28kerry.html?ex=1306468800&en=7158a8002070ee5a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Kerry Pressing Swift Boat Case Long After Loss
Charlie Neibergall/Associated Press

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: May 28, 2006

<<snip>>

Three decades after the Vietnam War and nearly two years after Mr. Kerry's failed presidential bid, most Americans have probably forgotten why it ever mattered whether he went to Cambodia or that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accused him of making it all up, saying he was dishonest and lacked patriotism.

But among those who were on the front lines of the 2004 campaign, the battle over Mr. Kerry's wartime service continues, out of the limelight but in some ways more heatedly — because unlike then, Mr. Kerry has fully engaged in the fight. Only those on Mr. Kerry's side, however, have gathered new evidence to support their case.

The Swift boat group continues to spend money on Washington consultants, according to public records, and last fall it gave $100,000 to a group that promptly sued Mr. Kerry, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, for allegedly interfering with the release of a film that was critical of him.

<<snip>>

His supporters are compiling a dossier that they say will expose every one of the Swift boat group's charges as a lie and put to rest any question about Mr. Kerry's valor in combat. While it would be easy to see this as part of Mr. Kerry's exploration of another presidential run, his friends say the Swift boat charges struck at an experience so central to his identity that he would want to correct the record even if he were retiring from public life.

Mr. Kerry portrays himself as a wary participant in his own defense, insisting in the two-hour interview that he does not want to dwell on the accusations or the mistakes of his 2004 campaign. "I'm moving on," he says several times.

But he can also barely resist prosecuting a case against the group that his friends now refer to as "the bad guys." "Bill Schachte was not on that skimmer," Mr. Kerry says firmly. "He was not on that skimmer. It is a lie to suggest that he was out there on that skimmer."

He shows a photograph of the skimmer being towed behind his Swift boat, insisting that it could barely fit three people, himself and two others. "The three guys who in fact were in the boat all say he wasn't there and will tell you he wasn't there," he said. "We know he wasn't there, and we have all kinds of ways of proving it."

[Brigid]

1. I want to cry.

Where was this in 2004? :banghead:

[still_one]

6. he listened to the same advisors that told the democrats

not to censor, not to oppose the war, not to oppose radical justices to the appeals or supreme cour, not to oppose the IWR, not to oppose the patriot act, not to oppose the head of the CIA who is against the fourth ammendment to the Constitution. In fact do an opinion poll first, it doesn't matter what is right and what is wrong...

and the funny thing about it is, the democrats in congress are mostly still listening to these same people

[_dynamicdems]

88. You are incorrect on many counts IF you are implying that John Kerry

1. Opposed censure of President Bush. He actually co-signed Sen. Feingold's bill.
2. Didn't oppose radical judges. Kerry, in fact, has strongly opposed Bush's nominations. He opposed Judge Roberts, tried to convince Democrats to filibuster the Alito confirmation and recently Kerry strongly opposed Kavanaugh's appointment.

Statement by John Kerry on the Confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

“If there’s anything the last five years have proven – from Iraq to Katrina – it’s that competence matters. Federal judgeships cannot be political gifts to political cronies. Mr. Kavanaugh’s legal experience consists largely of three years with Ken Starr and responsibility in the White House Counsel’s Office for selecting right-wing judicial nominees.

“Mr. Kavanaugh has been nominated to one of the most important federal courts with huge impacts on worker rights and employee safety, clean air, and clean water. But not once in his hearings did Mr. Kavanaugh point to any experience in these areas of the law.

“Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t have the experience for this job. An attorney who has played a central role in only five court cases isn’t ready to manage one.”

3. Did not oppose head of CIA appointment. He certainly did.

Statement by John Kerry on the Confirmation of General Michael Hayden as CIA Director

“I opposed the nomination of General Michael Hayden to serve as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Circumstances make him the wrong nominee in the wrong place for the wrong job.

“The abuse of the CIA by the Rumsfeld Pentagon and the Cheney White House has hurt our credibility with unfounded claims of ‘slam dunk’ evidence of mythical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I don’t think General Hayden is the person best equipped to restore the CIA’s independence and credibility. It’s not just that he comes from Secretary Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, but because he was the Administration’s principal spokesperson and defender of an illegal domestic spying program.

“We are all committed to destroying terrorists and preventing terrorist attacks before they happen. But this vote was a test of this Congress’s willingness to restore the Founding Fathers’ checks and balances and stand up to a government run by people who hold themselves above the law. How many times will government secrecy shield decision-makers from any kind of accountability? It was a mistake to confirm General Hayden.”

4. John Kerry gears his actions to the results of polls. Total bullshit. Senator Kerry has said over and over and over again that he doesn't believe in polls. In fact, whenever the polls say one thing, Kerry is quick to point out that the polls wrote him off as the Democratic nominee before the Iowa caucus.

5. Didn't oppose the war. Which war? He opposed Vietnam after he learned it that it was a bogus war. He didn't vote for the Gulf War. He voted for the IWR only because it was to result in a war as a LAST RESORT. He's said it was the "wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time" has stated numerous times that he would not make the same vote knowing what he did today. And now he's one of the first high profile Democrats to call for us to bring the troops home.

==================================================================

However, if you are saying he listened to advisors who did not have his best interest at heart and who would have been guilty of all the above, you could be right. Some of his advisors were about as loyal as...well, as some of the other Democrats who are now bashing Senator Kerry for political reasons. (ie: they want him to step aside so their favorite candidate can have a better shot at the nomination, they personally want the nomination, etc.)

Pretty disgusting, all this back stabbing and gutlessness on the part of Dems, if you want to know the truth.

[still_one]

109. no, I AM TALKING ABOUT DURING THE 2000 campaign

IN THE GRAND CANYON HE WAS ASKED IF HE WOULD HAVE AUTHORIZED bush to go into IRAQ KNOWING WHAT HE KNOW NOW, AND HE SAID YES

That is on the record

That is NOT back stabbing that is WHAT HAPPENED IN the 2000 campaign.

and I am also saying that his advisors, just as Al Gore's advisors were lousy

and yes, the media DID NOT HELP

[_dynamicdems]

113. Uh, John Kerry wasn't running in 2000. THAT was Al Gore.

And as far as the statment goes, it was later retracted because Kerry (due to hearing loss from being on a gun boat in Vietnam) didn't hear the question correctly. It was windy that day and he didn't hear the question correctly. When he saw the quotation in print, he immediately retracted. The retraction has been repeated dozens and dozens of times. I'm surprised you didn't know this.

Agreed on the advisors. I think JK should hire supporters to advise him. At least we'd be loyal. :)

The media sucked.

[still_one]

126. you are right, I meant 2004, my mistake. As far as the swift pukes go

though he delayed too long before coming out. I blame his advisors more than him for that.

That day there was a reason why Teresa Kerry left Arizonia quite pissed, it was because of that. I do not buy your assertion that he didn't hear the question correctly, and no I did NOT hear him retract it until after the election. Even during the debates he was ambiguous at best. When they asked him about the 87 million why he first voted against it then for it, he could have answered that question the way he did before he decided to run for president in 2004, but instead left a very vauge reason.

Actually, the only thing I really want is for the Democrats to learn from the mistakes of 2000 and 2004, but I am not so confident

For one thing, very little is being done about the voting machines, and the most important issue is that they have to get their message out, and they haven't figured out a way to circumvent the MSM. That is a major issue

We better win at least one house in 2006, or we may lose the republic

[Mass]

127. A mind reader are you?

This said, this thread is one of the most intelligent in this thread because it focuses on some of the pbs that ACTUALLY happened.

May be you can add that something MUST BE DONE for the media or we will never win. This is A MUCH BIGGER problem than a couple of mistated statements by a nominee. Of course, that would be if you did not like so much to attack Kerry.

[MH1]

128. Wow, a lot of false talking points there

1) Swift Liars response:

a) He DID respond, and immediately: see Research Forum
b) The media buried it: see Boehlert excerpt

You say: "the most important issue is that they have to get their message out, and they haven't figured out a way to circumvent the MSM." Well, we'd better understand what REALLY happened that allowed the incredible, specious, and veteran-insulting lies of the Swift Liars to gain traction. You can keep blaming it on the Kerry campaign, or you can look at the obstacles they faced and work on how to help future campaigns overcome those obstacles.

2) Kerry's response at the Grand Canyon - let's see the actual quote:

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority; I believe it's the right authority for a president to have."

That's the SAME ANSWER he gave throughout the campaign when asked if he stood by his vote on IWR. Clearly he's not answering the actual question asked - whether he would have invaded Iraq knowing there were no WMD.

The Boston Globe reported:

The senator explained to aides that part of the question had been lost in the wind; he thought he was answering a variation on the same basic query he'd been asked countless times: Was it right to give Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq? Kerry had simply given his standard "yes," with the proviso that he would have "done this very differently from the way President Bush has" -- yet the misunderstanding now muddied Kerry's message.

Worried advisers briefly considered issuing a clarification, but feared it might further feed Republican efforts to portray Kerry as a "flip-flopper."

But in subsequent appearances, Kerry made clarifying statements, such as at NYU on Sep. 20

[still_one]

135. I agree it is not productive to continue to bash kerry

just as these threads our not particularly productive

[rhett o rick]

148. You call it back stabbing, but I think it is important to let Kerry and

other Demo leaders know what we want. And it sure the hell isn't someone that capitulated and voted for the Iraq War. You state that he only did so "because it was to result in a war as a LAST RESORT". In other words Kerry trusted the neocons to only use war as a last resort. Do you really believe that he trusted them? If he did, he was a fool. What democratic principle was he following when he supported the neocons and the war? This war has changed the Country forever. Those that promoted the war and those that went along are to be held accountable. We need Democratic leaders that will lead us out of tyranny. If I sound bitter, I am.

[dajoki]

153. someone making sense, thank you n/t

[blm]

180. Name ONE who has done more REAL ACTIONS that helped to END

three wars and to investigate and EXPOSE BushInc than John Kerry has.

And if you can't name that lawmaker who has done more than Kerry, then you should get off his back and let him be the anti-corruption, open government lawmaker that we all need more than ever.

Who the hell is anyone here to judge Kerry - Have you been sacrificing YOURself 1% of the way he sacrificed for this country?

[rhett o rick]

234. The question remains, Why the f**** did he support GWB and the War? nm

[blm]

245. Why is that your question? He didn't. He supported a resolution that would

have prevented war if administered according to its guidelines.

When you and others blame the IWR as the reason Bush went to war, you let Bush off the hook for violating its guidelines.

IWR said weapons inspections and diplomacy FIRST and THEN Bush is to make his determination if national security was at stake. The info being supllied by the weapons inspectors for te two months prior was really the only intel operable at the time and Bush had to lie his way into war.

Think about that the next time you claim the IWR was a vote for war - because every time it's said, Bush is being let off the hook.

Would any Democrat left of Zell Miller have used that IWR to go to war? I don't even think GOPs like Lugar or Hagel would have violated the guidelines of IWR if they were president.

[Montauk6]

136. I'm just wondering how many of these advisors will show up in 2008

to sabotage another hopeful's strategy. They're like fired NBA coaches: somehow, despite their losing records, they schmooze their way into another head coach job somewhere else.

[dajoki]

7. Tell me about it n/t

[Oversea Visitor]

35. Sun Tzu Art of War

Chose time and place of attack.
Now best time to attack
Prevent Swiftboating in 2006.

Frankly 2004 can only defend can not counter attack. Now can :)

[_dynamicdems]

84. He said the EXACT same things in 2004 but they weren't reported. n/t

[JI7]

2. he proved these things back then also

and just like then, right now some jackasses will complain no matter what.

check out the freeper sites, they are still attacking him and they wont stop just like O'Neilll and the rest of the asses. do you think these things itself will stop the attacks ?

when are people going to be angry at those who attacked his service in itself rather than demanding Kerry answer their fucking charges as if HE is the one who has something to prove.


none of this will matter if people continue thinking Kerry deserved the attacks on his service because he mentioned serving in the first place. and analyzing how Kerry deals with it rather than calling out the liars in the first place.

[dajoki]

5. Kerry did not deserve...

those attacks, but there should have been a quicker and better response!!

[Mass]

11. He did - It was not reported. Sadly, we give a pass to the media.

and continue to believe them as long as they dont attack the people we like.

[dajoki]

27. Not reported?

Why no ads? He just let it go unanswered way too long.

[Mass]

33. I explained why in another post. Not the first time it has been explained

But of course, if you think attacking Kerry will help somewhere, feel free.

[dajoki]

46. I'm not attacking Kerry...

I voted for him for Christ's sake and I would again. But either he or his team screwed up on this issue.

[Mass]

48. So, you found necessary to create a 4th thread on this article ...

that is a prototype of the NYTimes reporting because you did not want to attack Kerry.

Please...

[dajoki]

53. I give up on you!!

I'm trying to be civil but you won't take it.

[_dynamicdems]

95. I'm sorry but your motivation is highly suspicious.

What possible motivation could you possibly have for this thread other than to either a)Undermine Senator Kerry's current activities on behalf of Democrats who might be swiftboated in this election year or b)Attack Senator Kerry personally?

I'm afraid the motivation for this post stinks like a dead rat lying in the hot sun.

You give me one reason why there is any reason to waste time with such a non-productive post when we have Republicans to defeat THIS YEAR, and I'll take back that statement. But it better be damn convincing a reason.

[dajoki]

154. so we don't make the same mistakes in the future n/t

[blm]

190. But you don't mind if media keeps LYING in the future, so you support and

spread the media lies by repeating them at every opportunity.

[MH1]

130. You wrote the thread title, no?

It sure reads like an attack to me.

Especially considering that your premise is false.

Did you even READ the other two threads on this topic, that were on the GREATEST page all day yesterday? The subject of the campaign response to the Liars has been addressed - with links and excerpts posted - OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

In case you somehow honestly missed it, please read the first part of the following post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2651541&mesg_id=2651877

Follow the two links and read them. Realize that these have been posted OVER AND OVER again at DU. Then maybe you'll understand why some folks are a little exasperated, and questioning your motives.

Of course I realize that if your motives warrant the suspicion, then you won't bother to read the links. But you can't say they weren't presented to you.

[dajoki]

155. i did miss it...

I've been away a few days., didn't mean to rehash old issues, but saw story and felt we should learn from it. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm bashing Kerry, I don't mean to, just think he screwed up with swiftboaters.

[_dynamicdems]

92. I saw ads and there were also many screenings across the country

of "Going Upriver" and "Band of Brothers" but you probably don't want to remember that because it contradicts the premise of your complaint.

[blm]

151. The ads played in swing states because of $$, while NATIONAL MEDIA refused

to report on any defense made bu Kerry's actual crew and even the attack Kerry personally made on the swifts and their WH connections in a speech to the Firefighters COnvention on Aug 19, 2004.

Where's your energy pointing out that the media was COMPLICIT with the WH and the swifts?

[dajoki]

162. I live in PA...

a swing state, and did not see many.

[MH1]

177. I live in PA, and I saw quite a few. nt

[othermeans]

61. I actually saw a special report done by Koppel that was done in

Vietnam. It verified everything that Senator Kerry said by interviewing villagers who corrobated his version of events.

[blm]

178. And the next day the rest of the media refused to discuss Koppel's find,

yet it should have been the BIG NEWS for discussion the rest of that week. Hardball and all the other political discussion shows said NOTHING about it. And THAT is how it's done. Even ABC didn't report the news repeatedly in their own shows - just that onetime Nightline report.

[still_one]

14. no kidding

[JI7]

15. there was. his own crew got out there defending him, Max Cleland

along with a bunch of other vets went to Crawford to confront the fucking monkey themselves. many things happened and were done. the media didn't report it.

one thing that didn't happen was people getting upset at the attacks in itself rather than debating how Kerry will deal with it.

it seems more people including some Dems were outraged at the attacks McCain got on his service. they repeatedly bring it up about how he was wronged. but when it comes to ?KErry, it's his fault for bringing it up or it's all about debating how he responded to it rather than calling out those attacking him.

[dajoki]

21. Well, we all know how that came out, don't we?

[JI7]

25. exactly , and the same thing is happening now

even while Cleland was doing those things and Kerry's crew was out defending him, people on here and elsewhere were criticizing KErry for the way he was dealing with things rather than defend him. many on DU posted the lies and wanted Kerry to answer them. many asked about whether there is truth to them.

DU is more strict about these things now and probably wouldn't allow it to happen. but there were many threads back then by DUers asking whether there was truth to the swiftboat liars.

[blm]

184. Yeah - and YOU ARE CHOOSING to smear with media lies instead of FACTS.

So we DO know how it will continue to be spun until more of YOU decide to counter lies with FACTS.

[dajoki]

193. Forget media lies for a second...

Do you think Sen. Kerry's campaign was run completely properly, no mistakes?

[ProSense]

197. Are you still advocating that the response was not immediate? n/t

[dajoki]

216. At least not effectively n/t

[blm]

203. No - and neither was Bush's. What Bush HAD was media MINIMIZING his

campaign's mistakes and EXAGGERATING and in some cases MANUFACTURING mistakes for Kerry.

Kerry DID respond to the swifts and there is ample proof that the media CHOSE to disregard those efforts, even when Kerry PERSONALLY answered the attacks.

Did you ever hear Bush ONCE defend himself? Nope. He had a MACHINE doing it for him. Kerry had a weakass DNC, weakass Dem spokepeople who only knew how to defend Clinton, a weakass LEFT MEDIA who barely even knew Kerry and covered up their own ignorance by piling on what they THOUGHT they learned from mainstream media, and a mainstream media complicit with BushInc.

And STILL Kerry won - BushInc had to have 24/7 media protection, suppress the vote, purge voter rolls, and rig machines all over the country to stay in power.

[dajoki]

217. Kerry had to overcome...

many obstacles trying to beat King *. He had to work that much harder.

[NanceGreggs]

30. Agreed.

IMHO, his IMMEDIATE response to the first Swiftboat ad should have been:

"If President Bush wants to come out from hiding behind his 'Swiftboat' buddies and debate me, one on one, with regard to our respective military service, I'm happy to do it. Name the time and place, President Bush. You bring your records, and I'll bring mine."

What possible response could Bush have made? When someone throws a live grenade in your tent, you LOB IT BACK - and let the scrapnel land where it may.

[dajoki]

39. Exactly!!

[JI7]

41. Kerry did do that

Kerry meanwhile, challenged Bush in a letter to a debate after accusing the president's re-election campaign of attacking his Vietnam-era military service and his Senate voting record on military and security issues.

"Over the last week, you and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam, my decision to speak out to end that war, and my commitment to the defence of this nation," Kerry wrote.

"As you well know, Vietnam was a very difficult and painful period in our nation's history, and the struggle for our veterans continues. So it has been hard to believe that you would choose to re-open these wounds for your personal political gain. But, that is what you have chosen to do.

"I will not sit back and allow my patriotism to be challenged.

"America deserves a better debate. If you want to debate the Vietnam era, and the impact of our experiences on our approaches to presidential leadership, I am prepared to do so."






http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/22/1077384640516.html?oneclick=true

[NanceGreggs]

58. Challenging Bush in a letter ...

... does not have (and obviously DID not have) the same impact as stating it in a public forum.

Kerry had LOTS of air-time in those days - he could have stated his challenge flatly and in no uncertain terms. And there's a difference between debating "the impact of the Viet Nam era on our approaches to leadership" and saying, "Fuck you, deserter-boy, I am PUBLICLY calling you out. You show the country yours, and I'll show 'em mine."

But don't get me wrong -- I don't blame Kerry on this. I blame his idiot 'advisors', who apparently persuaded him to 'temper' what must have been raging anger at what was being said about his service.

Kerry, in that situation and many others, should have told his 'consultants' to stand down, and gone with what I'm sure was his gut instinct - call the little coward out, PUBLICLY, and let him squirm.

No matter WHAT response Bush's advisors could have spun, the Idiot would have come out looking like he was runnin' away from a fight. That may have caused a lot of Bush supporters at the time to see him for what he really is then -- instead of now, when it's too late.

[ProSense]

62. No, he challenged him on television too. See post 45 for the clip! n/t

[ProSense]

45. He did that!

Check out the responses to the Swift Liars and watch the video at the first link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1300211&mesg_id=1300211

[Mass]

47. How do you dare talk about facts!

You are ruining their little game.

[NanceGreggs]

71. Sorry ...

I've followed your instructions, but I can't download the video - you are taking about a video clip, or have I misunderstood?

[ProSense]

74. It is a video clip!

Windows media, I think it requires version 10, which is available for free download at the link.

[NanceGreggs]

87. Still not able to download ...

... my ancient computer, not your instructions!

Can you give me the gist of what was said, and when?

Don't get me wrong here. I voted for Kerry, gladly, and I think he would have made a GREAT president (and no, not just in comparison to *, but in comparison to other great presidents).

But I can tell you I am a political junkie, and was clued to the TV during the entire campaign. And I never once saw him as feisty (if I can use that word) on this issue as he could have been -- indeed, as he probably WANTED to be.

Again, I blame the so-called 'consultants' who advised his campaign. If left to his own devices, I think we all would have seen a very different John Kerry than we actually did - not only on this issue, but on many others.

And I also still believe that more Americans voted for him than for the Idiot -- but that, as they say, is a whole 'nother discussion thread!

[ProSense]

91. Here is the text:

This is from a link in the Research Forum:

...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...

The campaign also ran an ad the same day and another three days later, each quoting Kerry!

[NanceGreggs]

96. Thanks!

I remember this now. But my point still stands.

Instead of aiming his anger at the Swiftboaters and repeating their charges, I still think he should have turned on Bush, directly, and said: "Name the time and place, and I'll be there. Bring your military records, and I'll bring mine."

I think his point was LOST here, IMHO, with things like "their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people..."

THE issue at hand got buried in talking about OTHER issues at the same time. It should have been said, over and over: "I want to meet Bush, one-on-one, man to man, on THIS one issue."

In other words, "Put up or shut up." And again I reiterate, if THAT had been articulated in no uncertain terms, Bush would have had two choices: Meet with him and discuss that ONE topic, or walk away with his tail between his legs.

And I still believe that if Kerry had been left to his own devices, THAT is exactly how this would have gone down.

[ProSense]

97. The challenge was issued to Bush not the Swift Liars!

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

[NanceGreggs]

100. Look at the paragraphs above that ...

... aimed at the Swiftboaters, what they've said, who they are, etc.

I think we're on the same side here. I just think this could have (and should have) been handled MUCH more aggressively and pointedly.

An analogy, if I may?

If someone publicly calls your mother a whore, you don't address the attack along with mentioning what you think is wrong with their ideas on health care, et cetera.

By 'grouping' his response to THIS particular insult along with other issues, his response was ineffective, IMHO, because it was diluted.

[ProSense]

102. I don't think that's a valid point!

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...

It was a powerful statement!

[NanceGreggs]

I don't disagree ...

... it WAS a powerful statement. But it was still part of a larger statement about WHO the Swiftboat guys were, what THEY were saying, what THEY were doing, etc., and ended with a reference to health care.

As I stated above, if you have a STRONG message to send, DON'T DILUTE it as part of other things.

[MH1]

131. Wow. Just wow.

Holy mother of crapitude!

You have been presented with DOCUMENTED FACTS and yet you still cling to blaming Kerry? Instead of looking at what we have to do to fix the media the gave 300 times the visibility to the Swift Liars than to Kerry's response?

Wow. Just wow.

I guess this phenomenon explains why Bush still has a 30% approval rating.

[NanceGreggs]

142. I haven't blamed Kerry once.

Not once. But I have blamed his campaign consultants, and will continue to do so. The fact that he is STILL raging about this issue two years later highlights how PISSED-OFF he must have been AT THE TIME. I believe he was counseled to tone down his anger -- and I think he should have let his anger out and directed it not at the paid Swiftie lackeys, but at the source -- G.W. Bush.

And this discussion was never about the media - or all of the other crap going on at the time.

We were discussing a very narrow issue when I put in my two cents: The Swifties and how they could have been handled.

I am completely familiar with the "documented facts" you're talking about, and am not disputing what happened. I'm disputing the wisdom of what happened.

"Clinging to blaming Kerry"? Again, I haven't blamed him once. And I'm not going to argue with someone who insists that I said something I never did.

[NanceGreggs]

106. I don't disagree ...

... it WAS a powerful statement. But it was still part of a larger statement about WHO the Swiftboat guys were, what THEY were saying, what THEY were doing, etc., and ended with a reference to health care.

As I stated above, if you have a STRONG message to send, DON'T DILUTE it as part of other things.

[ProSense]

111. You're saying that the text not in bold diluted the statement?

That last line couldn't possibly be construed as having diluted the statement. The Swift Liars was the topic. They had to be mentioned. The text is solid and the clip was played, as were the ads, which amplified key qoutes in the statement!

[NanceGreggs]

140. We're speaking at cross-purposes.

IMHO, allowing the Swifties to BE the topic was the mistake. The Kerry campaign should have dismissed them out-of-hand and said, "We know where this shit is coming from, and THAT'S who we're talking to."

Don't debate a lie with the paid messengers; marginalize them and go to the SOURCE.

[ProSense]

144. He did dismiss them! Kerry did not allow the Swift Liars.

In fact, he dismissed them in the spring when the first appeared as an organized group. The MSM latched on to them after the convention and promoted them.

By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth–hereafter, Swifties–in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more than one hundred New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page-one stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. It was a media monsoon that washed away Kerry’s momentum coming out of the Democratic convention.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2880

This was MSM onslaught!

[NanceGreggs]

146. It was an onslaught alright!

Look, I'm not saying that handling them differently would have won him the election in a landslide. There were a MILLION factors at play here.

My original post was simply this: Had I been his campaign advisor, I would have handled it differently. That's all.

As a result of weighing-in with my two cents on a VERY narrow issue on this thread, I have been accused of "blaming Kerry" (which I haven't) and of "ignoring documented facts" (which I haven't) - not specifically by you, but by others here.

[ProSense]

150. The onslaught

was also deliberately timed. In August, as opposed to spring, Kerry was hamstrung by campaign-spending laws. Members of his crew and veterans like Max Cleland made highly-visible public appearances during that period, even as other groups spent tens of millions of dollars to fill in the gap.

How much money in ads would it have taken to counter a determined MSM?

I've seen post stating that it's not the MSM's job to protect Kerry. Well, it's not the MSM's job to attack a candidate. The coverage they gave to lies was basically an extension of the smears. Had the media not promoted the group and instead reported the facts on record (that part is the media's job) that would have been the end of the story.

In essence, Kerry was responding to the Swift Liars because of MSM reports, not the paltry ads the group ran.

[NanceGreggs]

152. Absolutely agreed.

All I've been saying is that had I been running Kerry's campaign, I would have advised him to:

NEVER speak out on the Swiftboat issue in conjunction with ANY OTHER ISSUE. This is a PERSONAL attack, so counter-attack on a personal level. Don't talk about a PERSONAL smear in the same soundbyte as health care coverage, the economy, gun control, or any other PUBLIC policy issue. Remind the public that attacking an opponent on his policy positions and attacking him as a MAN are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

NEVER acknowledge the Swiftboaters as an "organization" -- always refer to them as what they are - paid messengers sent by someone WHO IS TOO COWARDLY to say something directly to your face. NEVER comment on them or what they're saying WITHOUT linking them to BUSH in the same breath. If you keep referring to them with words like PAID LACKEYS, or BUSH'S HIRED HANDS, the public will start to perceive them in those terms as well.

Bush was the cowardly bully in the schoolyard, sending his buddies over to provoke Kerry into a fight with THEM, while he stood back and watched. I would have advised Kerry to push them out of his way every time and demand a fight with the guy who was REALLY the source of the personal smears.

That's all. Would I have been right in giving that advice? Maybe. Maybe not.

That's just the way I would have handled the situation.

[_dynamicdems]

101. Are you KIDDING about debates? Bush didn't even want the 3 they did

have. It is so easy to sit here and second guess someone else. You say you have all this respect for Senator Kerry but there you are safe behind your computer taking pot shots at him. He didn't do this. He should have done that.

What, may I ask, is the purpose of this?

What do you hope to accomplish by these pot shots?

Don't you think we would all be better served by spending our time supporting Democrats?

There are Democratic veterans running against Repugs this year (THIS VERY YEAR, NOT 2004, NOT 2008) who might be swiftboated by these very same slimeballs.

[NanceGreggs]

105. Good God, I'm not talking about 'debates' in the formal sense ...

... I'm talking about calling the little fucker out, in front of the world.

And I'm not taking potshots at Kerry -- but I AM taking potshots at so-called campaign advisors who tell Dems, "No, keep it down. Don't act like you're angry. Don't say you're against the war, and don't say you're for it either. Don't do this, don't do that."

What happened with this whole Swiftboat thing was that it became ALL ABOUT the Swiftboaters and not about BUSH'S military record (or lack thereof), which should have been the REAL issue here. Endless MSM coverage of 'the guys in the Swiftboat ads said this, and then Kerry said that'. Kerry wound up countering the ads, and not the man behind them. It played into the hands of the Republicans over and over -- it was ALL ABOUT who SAID what, and NEVER about Bush's own service record.

I think the Dems should take off the gloves and fight Brooklyn rules. If whoever the lame-ass is that the GOP run in '08 pulls this "Swiftboat" crap again, the Democrat (whoever he/she is) should meet it head-on: "Step out from behind your lackeys and say it to my face."

I do spend my time supporting Democrats.

Have you seen Al Gore lately? Fire and passion. Have you ever seen "The War Room" (documentary about the first Clinton/Gore campaign). Gore back then? Fire and passion.

He was perceived as being 'a remote, lifeless robot' during his own 2000 bid. The difference between 'then' and 'now'? Fuckin' campaign advisors who drown the life out of everyone so that no one anywhere could possibly be 'offended'.

And you accuse ME of second-guessing? Hey, these idiots are PROFESSIONAL second-guessers and, IMHO, they have consistently guessed wrong.

[_dynamicdems]

112. We are in agreement on the advisor's. Many of them weren't worth a

bucket of spit, if you will excuse the crude expression. It is their job to reign in the candidate and muzzle him to a certain extent. Kerry had some bad advisers and I honestly think he had some backstabbers among his advisers too. But he also had some good advisers and his campaign had a lot of successes that people don't want to talk about because Kerry isn't sitting in the White House now.

Listen to John Kerry talk on the radio and you hear John Kerry. Listen to his recent speeches and you hear John Kerry. Is this a new John Kerry that advisers wouldn't let out of the box during the campaign? Not really. His words going back 35 years tell the same story. John Kerry is his own man. He does better when he's in total control, but in a presidential campaign it simply isn't possible for the candidate to micromanage. The pace is too fast. Kerry's learned who he can trust and who has good judgment. He's also learned who he cannot and who does not.

John Kerry has never worn gloves. Every time he smacks down some jerk lately, somebody jumps up and says "the gloves are off." They were never on in the first place. I can quote you statement after statement from during the election where he called Bush out (he didn't say "little fucker" in those exact words) and reamed him a new one on everything from the environment to Enron. Nobody listened. I have posted these words and their dates ad nauseum and people say, "He said that?" like it is some big surprise. He just didn't get equal time in any of the media. And it wasn't just the media. Wal-Mart loaded (and I mean loaded) the shelves with "Unfit for Command" and they wouldn't even carry the Kitty Kelly book. There are dozens more examples that make me so mad I want to scream.

It made me furious during the campaign because I followed what was happening and it makes me furious that there are so many backstabbing Dems now who think it is their sacred duty to create threads like this to whine, complain, piss, moan and bash. Not productive! What do people have in mind when they start a thread like this? What possible good can come of it? They are selfish little toadies who are only concerned about themselves.

That's how I feel about the thread. Maybe you personally aren't bashing John Kerry, but you are still complaining about the past. Kerry's admitted mistakes and he's learned. He's taking a pro-active stance in defense of other Dems now. Personally, I think the Swifties were a diversion to keep JK away from Bush and I think his instincts were to keep on the issues no matter how heavy the sniper fire. That said, I don't think he had enough backup either from his campaign or from other Democrats who snickered and said stupid things like "well he's not really the most personable candidate but he's a good man". Idiots like Joe Biden got more coverage than Kerry's rebuttals of the allegations.

It makes me angry to see three threads criticizing Senator Kerry. Three goddamn threads. A Freeper's wet dream.

[NanceGreggs]

138. If you've read my posts above ...

... I have't bashed Kerry once. And I think people WERE listening, and I think he DID win that election, and it was stolen in the same way 2000 was from Gore. We're years later, and there are STILL stories coming out about what really went on in Florida and Ohio (as well as other states).

And I'm not complaining about the past. Someone posted about how he should have reacted to the Swiftboaters at the time, and I put in my two cents. That's NOT bashing him; that's looking back at something in retrospect and commenting on it.

But I DO blame the campaign consultants who are given too much credit for PAST successes, without taking into consideration that you have to change your tack with changes in the political landscape.

If you look back on what Paul Begala and James Carville did with the first Clinton campaign, it was genius. Would I rely on either one of them to run a campaign now? Never. They've both changed as people, the political climate has changed, and what was right for Clinton isn't necessarily right for a different candidate, with a different persona and different issues to speak to than the issues prevelant in the early 'nineties.

[dajoki]

195. you're someone who gets it...

maybe this investigation can stop it from happening again, that is what I'm trying to get across, but right away you're accused of bashing Kerry.

[_dynamicdems]

99. That's almost verbatim of what he did say! IT WASN'T WIDELY

COVERED. BUSH ignored it. The MSM ignored it.

He said he'd be willing to debate Bush anytime on his service. He didn't use the words "hiding behind his Swift boat buddies" but he did throw down the challenge. The only way it would have gotten coverage for this during the election is if he made the statement stark naked on the floor of the Senate.

[blm]

183. He actually DID THAT. Media treated it like a stunt to ignore.

And gave more attention to Bush saying his campaign would NEVER smear Kerry's service record.

[_dynamicdems]

90. The MSM gave equal time (better than equal actually) to the liars.

And Republican stores like Wal-Mart promoted their lousy book.

I don't think he had enough people covering him when he was under their sniper fire. He was pretty much out there alone and during a presidential campaign.

I'd like to know one thing: I've asked this before but and nobody can answer this question. Did Congressman Murtha defend John Kerry during the Swiftie attacks on Senator Kerry? I hope he did because John Kerry has been one of Murtha's strongest defenders.

Who were John Kerry's defenders in 2004? I mean, the man was trying to keep the focus on the issues and on Bush. Let me put it this way: the Swifties has a win-win strategy:

1. Any focus that the Kerry campaign put on them took it off Bush. Result: they win.
2. If Kerry didn't take the bait like they hoped he would then discredit him: Result: they win.

The ONLY way this could have been turned around is if THERE WAS OUTRAGE ENOUGH AT THESE LIES FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR THE NAVY, IF THE MSM CARED SQUAT ABOUT THE TRUTH or if PEOPLE HAD KERRY'S BACK THE WAY HE AND OTHERS NOW HAVE MURTHA'S.

The lack of support for John Kerry during this episode sadly tells me something about many Democrats. They put ambition above loyalty. This is something John Kerry would never do.

[blm]

149. ALL of his responses were IGNORED by the media who REFUSED TO REPORT

them - from people who came forward to refute them with FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE - to Kerry's OWN ATTACK on the swifts and their WH connections at his speech to the FIrefighters Convention Aug 19, 2004.

[still_one]

not very strongly

In fact when asked during the campaign at the grand canyon if he would vote the same way for the IWR knowing what he knows now, he said YES

[Mass]

17. Again - for god's sake, if you have heard what he said, you know

it is not what he meant, but of course, it is so "in" to go after Kerry rather than after the media.

[dajoki]

24. Sen. Kerry had...

enough money to BUY media time and tell MSM to kiss his ass.

[JI7]

28. they bought the media time with those Rassman ads

even when Kerry responded the whore media started attacking him by saying he has mental problems and can't get over the the past or that he isn't speaking about current issues and he needs to get over the past.

[dajoki]

31. So did the scumboaters.

[Mass]

29. Actually, he did not.

From the Convention until the election. Kerry was on federal money and had to make this money last ONE MONTH LONGER than Bush who had the convention one month later.

This is largely the reason why they did not buy media time.

[dajoki]

32. He has MILLIONS left from then!!

[Mass]

34. HE COULD NOT USE THEM THEN.

As I said, after the convention, he could not use the money he raised before the convention.

[dajoki]

37. Why not?

[Mass]

38. Jeez. I explained it in the post you answered too.

Or do you think he should have broken the electoral law?

[dajoki]

40. I'm sorry...

maybe I don't know electoral law as well as you, but he had plenty of other ads running. All I'm saying is he let it go on too long.

[Mass]

44. He had basically NO ads running in August.

And of course, I understand your only goal is Kerry-bashing, so, so long.

[dajoki]

50. I voted for him...

I don't get where you see that I'm Kerry bashing. But I have a bug up my ass about this issue. But if that's the way you feel, bye- bye.:hi:

[globalvillage]

49. Even if he had the money.

It wouldn't have meant spit with what the republican media was spinning.
Read Lapdogs. We need to do something about the lying RW media, and we need ALL of our Dems to stand up for our candidates. In '04, it was Cleland, Clark and a few others. In '06, it had better be all of them. Looks like Sen Kerry has already started.


Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/#060518

Relatively early on in the August coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, ABC's Nightline devoted an entire episode to the allegations and reported, "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to Naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." (Emphasis added.) Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradicted the Swifty. In late August, CNN's scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Crewmembers have always backed Kerry's version of events." But that would have meant not only having to stand up a well-funded Republican campaign attack machine, but also casting doubt on television news' hottest political story of the summer.

When the discussion did occasionally turn to the facts behind the Swift Boat allegations, reporters and pundits seemed too spooked to address the obvious—that the charges made no sense and there was little credible evidence to support them.. Substituting as host of "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell on Aug. 15 pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale 's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The truth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question, that he came back from the war and then protested it. So, I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely re-elected that that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boast ads were clearly inaccurate.)

Hosting an Aug. 28 discussion on CNBC with Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Time's Jay Carney, NBC's Tim Russert finally, after weeks of overheated Swifty coverage, got around to asking the pertinent question: "Based on everything you have heard, seen, reported, in terms of the actual charges, the content of the book, is there any validity to any of it?" Carney conceded the charges did not have any validity, but did it oh, so gently: "I think it's hard to say that any one of them is by any standard that we measure these things has been substantiated." Apparently Carney forgot to pass the word along to editors at Time magazine, which is read by significantly more news consumers than Russert's weekly cable chat show on CNBC. Because it wasn't until its Sept. 20 2004 issue, well after the Swift Boat controversy had peaked, that the Time news team managed enough courage to tentatively announce the charges levied against Kerry and his combat service were "reckless and unfair." (Better late than never; Time's competitor Newsweek waited until after the election to report the Swift Boat charges were "misleading," but "very effective.") But even then, Time didn't hold the Swifties responsible for their "reckless and unfair" charges. Instead, Time celebrated them. Typing up an election postscript in November, Time toasted the Swift Boat's O'Neill as one of the campaign's "Winners," while remaining dutifully silent about the group's fraudulent charges.

That kind of Beltway media group self-censorship was evident throughout the Swift Boat story, as the perimeters of acceptable reporting were quickly established. Witness the MSM reaction to Wayne Langhofer, Jim Russell and Robert Lambert. All three men served with Kerry in Vietnam and all three men were witnesses to the disputed March 13, 1969 event in which Kerry rescued Green Beret Jim Rassmann, winning a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The Swifties, after 35 years of silence, insisted Kerry did nothing special that day, and that he certainly did not come under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann out of the drink. Therefore, Kerry did not deserve his honors.

It's true every person on Kerry's boat, along with the thankful Rassmann, insisted they were under fire, and so did the official Navy citation for Kerry's Bronze Star. Still, Swifties held to their unlikely story, and the press pretended to be confused about the stand-off. Then during the last week in August three more eyewitnesses, all backing the Navy's version of events that there had been hostile gun fire, stepped forward. They were Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

Russell wrote an indignant letter to his local Telluride Daily Planet to dispute the Swifties' claim: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

The number of times Russell was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 1. On Fox News: 1. MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1. On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Like Russell, Langhofer also remembered strong enemy gunfire that day. An Aug. 22 article in the Washington Post laid out the details: "Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. “There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river,” said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry’s. Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the “clack, clack, clack” of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks." (For some strange reason the Post buried its Langhofer scoop in the 50th paragraph of the story.)

The number of times Langhofer was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 0. On Fox News: 0. On MSNBC: 0. On ABC: 0. CBS: 0. NBC: 0.

As for Lambert, The Nation magazine uncovered the official citation for the Bronze Medal he won that same day and it too reported the flotilla of five U.S. boats "came under small-arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

The number of times Lambert was mentioned on. On Fox News: 1. On CNN: 0. On MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1 On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Additionally, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, who served as the paper's point person on the Swifty scandal, was asked during an Aug. 30, 2004, online chat with readers why the paper hadn't reported more aggressively on the public statements of Langhofer, Russell and Lambert. Dobbs insisted, "I hope to return to this subject at some point to update readers." But he never did. Post readers, who were deluged with Swifty reporting, received just the sketchiest of facts about Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

[fedupinBushcountry]

79. BECAUSE

those ads were paid for in advance. He didn't let it go on to long, he had his crew and Max Cleland out there. He didn't have the 30 million to compete with the lying scumbags ( as Mass told you he could not spend any money of his own and only had the federal 75 million avavilable to use and was disadvantaged due to the 5 weeks before Bush had to use only his federal funds.)He went with his advisors thought on what to do and that was his mistake and he admits that. To add to that the MSM ran those fucking lying scumbags ads for free over and over and over again on every news show they had.

As he stated in the article he was ready to go after them with his anti-war activities, which he did when sleazy O'Neal (Nixon's boy)started his little hate group back in the spring of 2004. He thought he nipped it in the bud. Do you remember that happening back then and the Swifties fizzled? I doubt it.

Why are you not questioning the actions of the MSM, the sleazy swiftboaters and the weasel Bush at the time?

Now tell me who won all 3 debates and was in the lead a few days before the election ? Now tell me what Bush and the corporate media let out in a form of a tape right before the election. One more thing when was the last time you saw the terror alert go up ? Not once since the election of 2004.

Do some research, and to bad you weren't paying attention and helping to debunk the lying fucking swifties in 2004.

[dajoki]

160. Your "lecture" is not needed...

I was all for Kerry.
Do some research, and to bad you weren't paying attention and helping to debunk the lying fucking swifties in 2004. I DID!!
Of course Kerry mopped the floor with * in the debates. And the MSM
sucks, but Kerry did have some bad advice in '04.

BTW: Don't assume things about someone you know nothing about!!

[ProSense]

169. You were for Kerry, but you didn't know he had reponded to the Swift Liars

The title of your thread, "two years too late: Kerry attacking swiftboaters," indicates you weren't paying attention. It's not like the responses were hidden, there were responses in all forms (ads, print and broadcast statements, and not just by Kerry). And still as that is being pointed out to you, you're continuing to maintain that the response was not immediate.

What's the problem?

[dajoki]

171. Again you are assuming...

the responses were neither quick enough nor strong enough. I've spoken with many ardent Dems who feel the same way. you have your opinion and I have mine. But I resent your assumptions. I'm trying to be civil, can't you?

[ProSense]

173. Quick enough to counter the MSM onslaught?

Again check the research forum where the activity was constant, but the MSM countered with more! Why should he have had to counter the MSM? Denouncing, not promoting the Swift Liars lies in the face of the existing facts was the MSM's job.

[dajoki]

198. " Why should he have had to counter the MSM?"

Because he was running for POTUS, and must do WHATEVER it takes to get his message out there, including answering the scumboat liars as forceful as possible. You know we can't count on MSM.

[ProSense]

202. Do you really believe candidates should be running against the MSM?

Ever heard of responsible journalism? Do you not see the complicity in 400 articles on the Swift liars being produced by CNN and the NYT alone after the facts were known?

[dajoki]

214. You brought up the MSM...

Yes, I have heard of responsible journalism, but it's hard to find. And, no candidates shouldn't have to run against the media, but it's the facts of politics.

[ProSense]

215. It's not a fact of politics. The media is not suppose to take sides! n/t

[dajoki]

219. C'mon, you know they do take sides...

And so do the politicians, it has been around a long time.

[ProSense]

221. Media complicity is not what journalism is about. It is not acceptable n/t

[dajoki]

223. I would like to here your suggestions on how to stop it n/t

[ProSense]

233. Start a thread about taking back the media, and I'll share my thoughts n/t

[dajoki]

242. That has been tried...

Tell me here or you start a thread.

[blm]

191. They may have been ardent but they're giving the media a PASS to pull the

same stunt with the next Democrat. Spend energy pointing out the FACTS about what Kerry did and how the MEDIA was complicit in working WITH the swifts and the WH to ignore or downplay any effort made to counter the swifts.

Because THAT is the truth. And TRUTH SHOULD MATTER.

[fedupinBushcountry]

186. These are your words

I was a Dean backer but Kerry got the nomination so I voted for him

I'm allowed to assume what I want and on this my assumption was right. So what else did you do?

[dajoki]

200. You may assume whatever you want...

that doesn't make it correct. BTW, my wife and I did plenty of campaigning for Kerry. emails, phone calls, door knocking, letters. Not that it's any of your business.
But I guess you are never wrong in your assumptions.

[ProSense]

205. Then why are you resistant to acknowledging that you were

wrong about the OP. The response was immediate, not two years too late as you stated. The facts have been presented to you, but you are for some reason hell-bent in denial!

[dajoki]

213. In my opinion...

the lies were not answered effectively. Don't forget we are entitled to our opinions.

[zalinda]

78. Actually, he didn't quite hear the question

He thought they were asking another question which he had been asked over and over. He has a hearing problem and the canyon distorted the sound. I can relate to that, as I also have some hearing problems and if I am not paying COMPLETE attention, I can misunderstand what has been said. By the time that the quote had been printed, it was too late to withdraw, the damage had been done.

zalinda

[_dynamicdems]

103. You know that he didn't hear that question correctly.

The man has hearing loss from the GUNS GOING OFF IN HIS EARS IN VIETNAM. He didn't hear the question correctly. He later corrected it. THIS HAS BEEN STATED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Guess not enought times for you to have heard it, huh?

[wtmusic]

3. Keerist, give it up

Who cares what "they" think.

[eleny]

4. Or...

With Dem veterans running for Congress, I think he's trying to help them in advance by reminding the public of what the other side did to discredit his own military service.

[dajoki]

13. That is what I'm thinking...

just hope it works.

[_dynamicdems]

104. Have you seen this site?

http://www.patriotproject.com/

"The Patriot Project is a non-profit organization of men and women, and the families of men and women, who served in the Armed Forces of the United States of America. The Patriot Project is dedicated to defending and supporting the right of these Americans to question the policies and actions of their government, particularly with regard to armed conflict."

This is a pro-active organization dedicated to stopping this kind of bullshit from happening to other vets. They are exposing the sources of funding for these liars. **Note the people who are on the board of directors. Check it out.

[dajoki]

156. Thank you...

hopefully they can put a stop to something like this before it happens again.

[Mass]

8. Interesting article - Only one pb, If the NYTimes had done its job,

there would have been no swiftboating.

[dajoki]

18. There would have...

been ATTEMPTED swiftboating.

[Botany]

9. i wonder if he will get onto the John Wilkes Booth shooting of Lincoln?

Go get em John!



Next year he will get after the phony al Qaeda ( terrorist ) warning in
Warren County, OH that let the republicans flip votes in private in 04.

[ray of light]

10. a direct quote from my nephew to your title...BOOOOOR--I N G

[StClone]

12. It's Pretty obvious

Kerry is going to run again and his two-year-too-late tableau is the opening salvo to attack the past and set up a pre-emptive defense for future Sift boat floating dung balls.

[_dynamicdems]

108. It's the same salvo he used before but it is getting coverage now because

it is after-the-fact. The MSM wouldn't give him the time of day during the election and they are still giving "equal" time to liars. Kerry isn't saying or doing anything that he didn't do before the election.

And John Kerry is speaking out now for the veterans who running this year. They need a pro-active defense because the slimeballs are in the wings warming up for the November election. 2006. This year.

We don't know what the senator's plans are for 2008. But suppose he doesn't plan on running, would he tell anyone that? No effing way! That would dilute his political capital and he wouldn't be as effective helping Dems across the country. No, as long as people think he's a candidate that gives him a platform.

That said, I sure hope he does run. I'm so ready for a total grudge match.

[ProSense]

16. Three threads on the Greatest page about this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1300211&mesg_id=1300211

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1297992&mesg_id=1297992

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1300051&mesg_id=1300051

[JI7]

19. this article is another example of the same shit that happened back then

their entire shit is about what KErry is doing. rather than do an article on how the fuckers lied even though all the fucking evidence shows it. instead they present it as just 2 equal points of view.

[Mass]

20. Best answer to this article - for those who are not here for mandatory

Kerry bashing:

http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/05/post_36.html

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. Oh my god, why is he even bothering with this NOW? It's so ridiculous. nt

[Mass]

23. I am happy he did, whether you like it or not.

[fedupinBushcountry]

43. Oh really

Maybe to set the record straight and the corporate media straight. Do you even know what the lying bastards are still up to ?

Grow up. :argh:

[karynnj]

55. He is a good honorable man who wants to assure that his

good name is defended.

[_dynamicdems]

114. Because they are going after OTHER vets now in 2006. n/t

[dajoki]

201. another one who gets it...

this must be stopped so it can't happen again.

[Oversea Visitor]

26. Good Move.... Excellent Strategy........ Go Kerry...... Not more

Swiftboating in 2006. Yeah step up the noise. Maybe throw them a few lawsuit.
Make them eat their ownshits....... Perfect timing for 2006

Nail them to wall and show all for what they are.

" It is reported that Kerry declare Operation Swiftboater Hunting. Charging out of his foxhole with his gun blasting Kerry routed the the entire Battalion of Swiftboater. Last report stated that they heading for the hills with tail between legs and leaking from a hose between their lack from fright.
Needlessly to say the smell of their leakage provide a nice trail to follow as the Kerry Squad start hunting them down. Meanwhile Swiftboat Commander in Chief the K.R ( King Rat ) was shouting to rally his troops " Fight or they impeach the whole lot of us" Taking a good look around the King Rat decide it everyman for himself. " Fight he shouted so I can get away " ...... "Hey where you think you going King Rat" ask Father Fitzmas. " Want to do D.C ?" asked King Rat. " Do I get to owned the Gas Bag too" asked Father Fitzmas.

[_dynamicdems]

116. Guess we now know who's been bogarting that joint. n/t

[ebayfool]

134. Engaging in a little friendly fire there?

OverSeas Visitor is a showing some enthusiasm in his support, I wouldn't be so quick to shoot him down.

And I'd fire one up w/him any day ... he's a DUer that alot of us very much enjoy!

I'm also pleased to see Kerry is methodically taking apart the swiftboat liars - from the foundation up! OverSeas is right, I'd love to see me some Fitz on these guys.

[_dynamicdems]

179. Aw, I wasn't shooting just having a little fun. Humor is a good thing.

You haven't read many of my posts of you would know this one was the friendly sort...more in the line of I'd like a little of what OSV's smoking.

Fitz is a total hero! He's inscrutible and dogged. He should be Atty. General instead of Alberto. I'd love to see the Swifties taken apart. They aren't just a bunch of guys who had it in for John Kerry and damaged him in the campaign in 2004. That was just the story for that particular assignment. The people behind the attacks are still hard at their dirty work. They are part of a vast network of smear merchants and they have a lot of money behind them.

Check out the "Anatomy of a Smear" where you can see the dots connected in the Murtha smear:

http://www.patriotproject.com

[Oversea Visitor]

188. Hey you want one

Make you feel nice
Like knowing that you will win in the end
That looking at end result of action instead of judging the person and ignoring why action needed

Me not political just neutral .... except where bush concern
Me not into Culture of personality .... hmm maybe think Boxer good public servant
Me just see BIG Kaboom ahead for US

WANT A JOINT it is fun. :hug:

[ebayfool]

137. You're right OV ... I'd love to see some Fitz on their butts!

Nail them to wall and show all for what they are.
Not more Swiftboating in 2006.

Sums it up real nice!

This is perfect to head them off/make 'em think twice @ swiftboating our candidates in the 2006 elections.

[Oversea Visitor]

192. I am a dreamer haha

But yes timing just right. Repub will be running on lies and spin

Right time for Kerry to go

" Kerry, Kerry put on your glove..
Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee
Kerry, Kerry put on your glove
See how they run, See how they run"

They all run with the bushes brain
Three blind man, Three blind man
Running USA, Ruining USA
Someone got to sock it to them

[EST]

36. As a reluctant starter but enthusiastic supporter of John

Kerry, I must conclude that, no matter what his other qualifications, he simply does not understand people, or at least normal, middle of the bell curve, humans.
One of the reasons, and the very heart of the "closure" notions, that we have trials and punishments, is vengeance.
It may be cloaked in all sorts of reasoned arguments, but a big part of crime and punishment is the punishment and people need that part. It reaffirms at least a little of their faith in a fair universe.
In this particular universe, there can be no "moving on" until the wrongs are addressed and the truth brought to light. Anyone who fails to defend himself, his family, and the truth is not deserving of support.
It did not and does not work for McCain and it will not work for Kerry. This attempt at being "forward-looking" will excite same, impress others, but will confirm the ideas of many that he is unwilling to stand up for himself, his family or the truth: a bad combination for anyone seeking the top executive office in the country.

[Mass]

42. What the F*ck are you talking about? He is fighting back.

[_dynamicdems]

120. Oh for God's sake! What absolute bullshit!

John Kerry understands people just fine, although he doesn't quite understand the bottom of the barrel holier-than-thou scumbags who participate in circular firing squads. But what the fuck, neither do

[politicasista]

51. Wow, another Dem bashing thread!

As a common sense poster once said. It's Trash Democrats Underground.:sarcasm: Go figure. :-(

[dajoki]

68. I think it's more about learning from mistakes n/t

[Clarkie1]

52. It's not about Vietnam anymore, and it's not about Kerry. nt

[Mass]

54. It matters to some. Too bad you do not like it\nt

[Clarkie1]

Get over Vietnam. n/t

[Mass]

57. Not about VietNam. It is about lies. Get over it

I know you dont like to see a thread about Kerry, but it is too bad.\nt

[Clarkie1]

64. It's not I don't like to see a thread about Kerry.

It's just that this reminds me of all the reasons why Kerry lost, and he's still doing it.

[_dynamicdems]

118. You come to every thread about Kerry like a fly to ...

And of course it isn't that you want to see anything positive about Kerry or that you want to say anything negative about him. Oh no. It couldn't be that. It must be something else.

Somebody is making you jump into every Kerry thread with something negative to say. What is it? Are militant Freepers holding your puppy threatening to kill it if you don't do exactly as you are told.

[Clarkie1]

225. I don't know about you, but I speak for myself.

The truth is Kerry lost the campaign himself by choosing to focus on the Vietnam war instead of the war that mattered, and it is right that he be called on it.

[karynnj]

247. Kerry did NOT focus on the Vietnam war

In his hour acceptance speech there was less than about 4 minutes that can even remotely be called "Vietnam", and that included the war, the protesting and his chairmanship of the POW/MIA committee, a major Senate accomplishment. (All together, these represent at least 7 years of his adult life and he did an extraordinary job in all 3. It would be like me saying that in 2008, Clark shouldn't mention Kosovo because it upsets some of the Eastern Orthodox Christians. It is a signature Clark accomplishment.)

In his campaign speeches - the most he said about Vietnam is that "he would defend the country as President as he did as a young man." He was a highly decorated veteran - I suppose you, like Bush, want to take that away.

He spoke about Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, the environment, the economy, healthcare.

You my think that Clark could have run a better campaign in 2004, but the evidence in the primaries doesn't support that. He has learned and may be a substantially better candidate in 2008.

[ProSense]

59. Why? Is Vietnam irrelevant because you say so?

During the Vietnam war 3,100,000 served Southeast Asia, more than 58,410 died and 153,000 plus were wounded. Currently more than 8 million Vietnam era veterans are still living. That translates to a lot of people connected to a lot of other people.

Vietnam vets can be as young as their early 50s. They are parents and grandparents, friends and spouses. On the families’ side, there are many who losts parents, spouses and loved ones in Vietnam. I guess the assumption is that every Vietnam vet is in full health, with full benefits and families and veterans aren’t having to cope (still) with the aftermath of Vietnam.

Beyond the age of veterans, the longest war in U.S. history is pretty relevant for a host of other reasons only 32 years after it ended. Or is it the only war (tragic as they all are) that deserves the distinction of being irrelevant?

We’re 61 years removed from World War II and George Bush draws parallels to that war and Iraq every opportunity he gets. Strange how he skips over the obvious parallels between Iraq and Vietnam (lies).

[Clarkie1]

65. Iraq is not the new Vietnam. Never has been , never will be. nt

[ProSense]

67. Does the post say that it's Vietnam? n/t

[Clarkie1]

229. With Kerry, it's always been about Vietnam.

That's why he lost the election, and it was his own doing.

[ProSense]

238. Guess who else thinks Vietman is relevant?

Before It's Too Late in Iraq
By Wesley K. Clark
Friday, August 26, 2005; Page A21

Meanwhile, on the military track, security on the ground remains poor at best. U.S. armed forces still haven't received resources, restructuring and guidance adequate for the magnitude of the task. Only in June, over two years into the mission of training Iraqi forces, did the president announce such "new steps" as partnering with Iraqi units, establishing "transition teams" to work with Iraqi units and training Iraqi ministries to conduct antiterrorist operations. But there is nothing new about any of this; it is the same nation-building doctrine that we used in Vietnam. Where are the thousands of trained linguists? Where are the flexible, well-resourced, military-led infrastructure development programs to win "hearts and minds?" Where are the smart operations and adequate numbers of forces -- U.S., coalition or Iraqi -- to strengthen control over the borders?

Did Gen. Clark just come to this opinion in August 2005?

[janx]

73. That is a very ignorant thing to say. n/t

[ProSense]

56. It does! It is about Kerry or you wouldn't post this in every thread n/t

[dajoki]

63. I'ts about the friggin'RW liers...

Maybe Kerry could stop this from happening again, to him or someone else.

[Clarkie1]

66. He had his chance to do that in 04'. By making this an issue

he is playing right into their hands.

[ProSense]

69. How did he make this the issue? Did he spawn the Swift Liars! n/t

[dajoki]

72. Yes he did...

Better late than never?

[Clarkie1]

107. No, not better late than never in this case.

What happened 35 years ago to John Kerry is no longer relevant to the American people.

[ProSense]

110. There are American people in this thread who don't agree with you! n/t

[Clarkie1]

117. Yep, there are.

But it's a big country.

:-)

[ProSense]

119. True!

But you're still only one person!

[_dynamicdems]

123. One person with a lot of attitude...and all of it bad. n/t

[MH1]

132. Oh BULLSHIT!!! "What happened in Vietnam is no longer relevant"?

Is that what Wes Clark thinks???

Holy Shit. I would NEVER vote for someone who would say that. (okay, in the primary. I have clothespins in my laundry room that I can break out if necessary.)

There's a whole lot of people in this country who were DEEPLY - PERSONALLY - affected by Vietnam. There are a bunch of them on this board and I know THIS one is insulted by your statement.

Never mind that ignoring the huge impact that the Vietnam experience has had on politics in the last 40 years - and the impacts still affecting us today - demonstrates total cluelessness about not only national politics but also international policy.

Wow, you'd better check your talking points with Wes. For now I'm taking your statement as representative of his view. Especially considering one of his primary-race endorsements.

[CarolNYC]

249. Wow, that is one of the most bizarre statements I've ever read here...

Do all of you guys who identify yourselves as Kerry supporters have to check with Kerry's people to make sure that your opinions match his before you post....you know, check the talking points?? Wow! And what happens if you do post something that doesn't represent exactly what the Senator thinks? Are you then not allowed to identify yourself as a Kerry supporter?

General Clark would never try to censor the opinions of those of his supporters who are posting in their own name to match his. Very sad, disappointing and surprising if Kerry does.

[dajoki]

157. I agree with that...

but I was talking about '04 campaign.

[ProSense]

166. What exactly are you agreeing with? Is it that Vietnam is irrelevant?

Do you really believe such a ridiculous statement?

[dajoki]

170. Hell No, I don't feel...

that way for a second. where the hell did that come from. I lived through Viet-nam and I will never call it irrelevant. I was referring to the '04 selection.

[ProSense]

174. So the 2004 election was irrelevant? What are you agreeing with?

Not better late than never in this case? What?

[dajoki]

204. I don't mean to be rude...

But what the fuck are you talking about? Yes Viet-Nam is relevant and yes the 2004 election is relevent. I'm trying to say that this kind of behavior by the scumboaters and their minions must be stopped so they can't ruin someone else's good name and the Nation in the process. GET IT?

[ProSense]

208. Did you forget

your fucking OP (don't mean to be rude): "Two years late..."? Facts have been posted to counter that charge, now you say your point was to say these liars have to be stopped! You need to stop being disingenuous!

[dajoki]

212. Well, they must be stopped...

and it is two years too late. Kerry did not answer lies EFFECTIVELY during campaign. IMHO

[karynnj]

194. This thread is about what happened in 2004, not 1968-1969

Kerry's service record is 100% in support of what Kerry said - This article was Kerry's effort to totally refute the attacks and lies that the SBVT used in 2004.

You are absolutely not paying attention if you don't think they would have done the same to Clark. Clark's entire military record could also have been LIED about - as it was his strength they would have gone after it. Oddly, if Clark gets the nomination in 2008, it may well be the effort of Kerry and his friends that will make it harder for this to happen.

What I don't get is why you have a problem with friends of Kerry hiring people to bring as much of this to light as possible. It does show that Kerry is not hiding anything - or the last thing he would want is more light on this. Did you read the comment attributed to a friend that Kerry would do this even if he was retiring from public life? Kerry has lived a public life that is basicly scandal free. He has held himself to high standards and is proud of the integrity which he has always shown.

How does Kerry doing this for himself hurt you in any way?

[politicasista]

75. Which is what YOU want

cause you are afraid he'll beat your person. Admit it.

Are you afraid of Kerry? I admire the General. Cause he has been a much better defender of Kerry than yourself. I agree with the poster above. Your comments are extremely ignorant and insulting to millitary families and those men/women that have served their country honorably.

[dajoki]

76. Now wait, we're...

supposed to be on the same side. I was a Dean backer but Kerry got the nomination so I voted for him, and will vote for the party nominee again!! But first we have '06 comming up.

[politicasista]

89. No, not you

The post was directed at the person who said that Kerry should shut up about Vietnam.

[karynnj]

196. This has nothing to do with 2006

Kerry has been working as hard as anyone else on 2006. He has raised more money for others than anyone and has appeared to support people in at least 33 states - while doing his job as Senator.

This effort is part of a larger effort by Kerry allies to work against the RW slime machine - that will also be going after 2006 candidates. Judging by the people involved, I appreciate the meticulous approach they are taking. (They are Kerry allies so, of course, in addition to showing what happened against Murtha, they are defending a man who they've loved and respected for decades.)

[dajoki]

206. I agree totaly with that n/t

[karynnj]

98. That makes no sense

If this were 2008 and he were the candidate, I would agree with you that pre-emptively bringing up old charges would be mistifying.
But it's not 2008, it's 2006.

Kerry is clearly bringing this up for a reason - it would seem like he wants people (all of us or the SBVT) to know that they are going through charge by charge and are talking to every one in the vicinity whether Kerry supporter, neutral or now remorseful SBVT. Kerry told the NYT some of the things they've been able to get from what other people had. That he told the reporter about the guy near the center who left and slipped in the comment that they have a long interview with him is interesting. It seems that Kerry has to know that he needs to blow them out of the water - or not run.

He also likely wants to protect his reputation. I assume Clark would do the same if he were the one in this situation - which he likely would have been if he were the candidate.

[_dynamicdems]

115. And here you are again. Can't miss a chance can you? n/t

[MH1]

141. How?

It is really interesting how you throw one-liners out that are either irrelevant or make absolutely no sense, without any explanation to prevent readers from getting those impressions.

Surely you realize that you are creating an identity for yourself by doing this, and it isn't flattering?

[ProSense]

70. It about people giving credence to these jerks! They are liars! n/t

[MH1]

133. And your point is?

As I said in another post, if Wes Clark's attitude is that "Vietnam is irrelevant", than he has zero chance of getting my vote in the primary.

If Kerry didn't run, based on that statement I might make it my priority to DEFEAT Wes Clark - who up til now I have not had a strong opinion of either way.

Your work for the day is done. You have convinced yet another person that your guy would be a lousy candidate.

[monarch]

143. Interesting way to support your candidate--

find something by an anonymous poster that annoys you about another candidate.

[MH1]

145. No, I said: "if Wes Clark's attitude is that "Vietnam is irrelevant" -

then I would not support him, I would actively work to defeat him.

Because that is an ASININE statement. If Clark actually believes that - and please note, he has made one endorsement that suggests he might believe that, so it is not totally impossible - then he would make a LOUSY candidate and not a very good president at all, imo.

And where are all the Clark supporters calling out this person who poses as one of theirs? If that's not Clark's attitude, then let's hear it. And let's remind the so-called supporter.

Because face it, the behavior of a candidate's supporters affects how the candidate is perceived. If this person loves Clark as much as they seem to, then why would they be promoting a position so far different from his?

Something you might have missed: this poster has jumped on THREE threads (at least) with the same claim that "It's not about Kerry or Vietnam". When of course, the original post of each thread is exactly about that. It is simply a spit in the face to Kerry supporters - AND people who were touched by the Vietnam War. And anyone else who gives a damn about the topic.

I stand by what I said. If the poster's attitude reflects their candidate, then he's a lousy candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

248. Clark supporters are not a "Unit"...and they do not represent

Wes Clark, they only support him.

If you choose to base your support for a candidate based on what one of his supporter has to say, than so be it...but just keep in mind that Wes Clark does not "control" what we say...and that Wes Clark was one of Kerry's biggest defender when it counted.....

And furthermore, for Kerry supporters' information, Wes Clark certainly doesn't pay posters to post on websites....as was insinuated in a "rumor like way" over in the Kerry forum...in a thread discussing this here thread.

[Coastie for Truth]

60. Skeletons in the closet

A lot of the SWiftie Organizers have rumors of serious improprieties - some of those swifties have been "investigated" very carefully -- and when the blast comes they will be destroyed.

Major rumor - one of the "names" was implicated in both a double friendly fire death (two deaths) and the subsequent cover up. But you have to verify it -- without subpoenas.

[_dynamicdems]

125. Interesting. You are right about the investigation, I suspect.

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing a lot of black hats get their just desserts over the next few years.

[MH1]

129. And marshalling evidence takes time

For the blast to be lethal, it must be perfectly on target, with no opportunity for deflection. Because we know how the media will amplify any imperfection in the case to help the liars and derail the case.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

77. Kerry is too low key to ever be a good president.

I don't want him to ever run again. If that's the reason he's taking these steps now, too little too late.

[Mass]

80. Thanks for your opinion. I want him to run again.

[politicasista]

81. I want a president who will cuss out Congress and World Leaders

and get crunk and playa hate. :sarcasm:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

82. Why must we either have a mummy, or an illiterate buffoon?

Why not someone else? Gore comes to mind.

[Mass]

83. a mummy? LOL. I hope you dont hope convert anybody to support

Gore with this argument. If you dont have anything better than to swift-boat good democrats to sell other good democrats, it is pathetic.

[karynnj]

94. Mummy - Kerry has spoken out clearly and beautifully

on every important issue over the last year and a half. His comments have been clear and incisive. Kerry is very skilled at making very strong indictments of Bush errors and misdeeds in a rational, dignified way.

I have no problem with Gore - but I have yet to hear him when he didn't sound either angry or like he was talking down to the audiance.

[_dynamicdems]

122. If you are calling Senator Kerry a mummy, you are out of line. And

you are wrong. He's actually very nice and extremely charming! He's got a tough guy side, but he's also wicked funny. And did I say charming? VERY.

You really shouldn't watch so much television if this is what it does to your perceptions.

[quiller4]

85. Too low key to be a good candidate maybe

but after 8 years of Cowboy Bush, soft spoken intelligent dialogue sounds better than ever. Perhaps we might even be able to mend relations with a nation or two.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

86. I agree with you that after GW Bush, ANYTHING sounds better. nt

[ProSense]

93. The poster said "intelligent dialogue," not anything! Why settle? n/t

[_dynamicdems]

124. LMAO! John Kerry is anything but low key. WRONG! n/t

[dajoki]

158. I think he is pretty even keel n/t

[karynnj]

199. Which as a leader is a VERY GOOD charcteristic

The fact that he can control his temper, seems not to hold grudges and is very good at calming others down sounds exactly what we need.

[dajoki]

207. I know...

yet I am getting accused for bashing him, 'cause I posted this thread. Just trying to bring some things to light. Oh, and I'd vote for Kerry again.

[karynnj]

240. Sorry, I should have indicated I was simply

reinforcing your point - which transitioned the odd "too low key" to the positive "even keeled" which is the positive word for what the other poster was critisizing - sorry I wasn't clearer. It wasn't meant to bash.

[dajoki]

246. I understood your point...

No need for apology.:hi:

[saltpoint]

121. For me the issue of timing is beyond my reach, always was, and

instead I concentrate in politics more on temperament and training.

In those two respects alone, I would rather be defending John Kerry's position on his military record and not defending a) George Bush's stint with the Guard in 'Bama or 2) the Swiftboat Liars' position against Kerry.

Some much more capable soul than I might want those two positions, but I'd far prefer to defend Kerry's record.

A question remains: is the Republic best served by having the Swiftboat Liars group trash a medaled veteran or, instead, by retired Generals openly questioning the current Secretary-of-Defense, who presides over torture camps on at least three continents?

If the Swiftboat liars are so concerned about patriotism, they might ask themselves whether they feel Madison and Paine would have stood by Rumsfeld's dark power or the service profile of John Kerry.

[zann725]

139. For the 100th time, JK had NO "failed Presidential bid." Diebold Machines

and voter tampering, and "controlled, non-logical MSM presentation" of the "complete, statistically improbable (by the billions odds) reversal" of Exit Polls chose our Presidents in AT LEAST '00 and '04.

Re:the "Swiftboat" matter, JK has finally begun addressing it DIRECTLY...since he obviously is RE-considering a "run" in '08. And of course because his Valor in War WAS true, the STRENGTH of that Truth, is obviously why the Repug's are going to try even HARDER this time to smear his "Service," and re-write history...in order to lose some support for him.

BUT the JK I see speaking publicly lately is a FAR STRONGER, not willing to 'take it' candidate, than he was in the last campaign. With the 'right" (no-back-down VP candidate...Feingold perhaps...JK stands a VERY strong chance of winning in '08...EVEN WITH 'fixed' voting machines. For this IS a resolve NOW so strong in his eyes and voice when he speaks. (Look at some recent JK speeches on "johnkerry.com"). It IS his "destiny"...and he's ALWAYS known it.

As in other professions, there are "wanna-be's" and "destined." And at the "finish line," the "wanna-be's" never stand a chance. Unfortunately JK was delayed (and perhaps stunned, caught off-guard) at the sudden "reversal" in vote numbers in the middle of Election Night. But IF he runs this time, JK WILL be ready, and will NOT be caught off-guard. Plus the American people (mid-America) has seen the mass-destruction the Repug party AND Chimp's false victory wrought on our economy, environment, etc., etc.

JK WILL win this time. TRUTH will prevail in '08.

[janx]

147. This thread is irrelevant.

Why are people still referencing a general election that was held a year and a half ago? Let Senator Kerry do what he wants to do.

[dajoki]

159. He can do what he wants...

but to me this is about not making the same mistakes over and over. When attacked, especially by liars, we must fight back IMMEDIATELY!!

[janx]

161. True, but now is not immediately.

Still, if it makes Kerry feel better to do something now, so be it. :shrug:

[dajoki]

163. That is exactly my point...

for posting this thread. I've been attacked here for doing it, being accused of bashing Kerry, but that is not my point. you hit it, "now is not immediately."

[janx]

164. We might be cautiously optimistic that before the November

elections, there will be a coordinated effort on the part of Dems to respond to things like this right away, sort of like the rapid response effort that the Dean campaign came up with in the 2004 primaries and that the other campaigns adopted as well.

As for the "Swift Boat" guys, better late than never. They do need to be exposed. I don't know how anyone who had seen them on the tube could possibly have believed them in the first place.

[dajoki]

167. Agreed on all points n/t

[ProSense]

165. And the point was inaccurate! He did respond immediately!

See all the postd in your thread that point that out and you'll also find more information here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2651634&mesg_id=2651634

[dajoki]

168. I've seen...

I'm not bashing Kerry, but his responses were ineffective, blame his advisors or MSM or ignorant people, but they were not strong enough.

[ProSense]

172. The statements and ads were powerful enough

It's the MSM drowning them out that was the problem! Kerry even issued a direct challenge to Bush (the video is in the Research forum):

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

175. Admitting that Kerry made huge mistakes in the campaign does not mean

that we hate Kerry, that we didn't vote for Kerry, that we don't think he's a wonderful man. We love Kerry as a person, we voted for Kerry, we think he's a wonderful human being.

However, he made huge mistakes in the campaign. Mistakes that were avoidable. They cost us the presidency. We must learn from what mistakes were made, so these never happen again.

[ProSense]

176. What were the huge mistakes? n/t

[mtnsnake]

181. Here ya go

First let me say that I think Kerry would've trounced Bush had he run a better campaign. My family worked our asses off for him in my local area, and I don't think we were ever more frustrated by the lack of foresight and action by his campaign managers, image makers, advisers, and in some cases John Kerry himself.

These are just a few of the campaign mistakes that I can think of off the top of my head:

1) His choice of poor campaign advisers to begin with, and then sticking with them throughout the entire campaign, when so many people were calling for him to replace them.

2) Not dwelling on the environment which was such a strong area for him and one in which he could've exposed Bush for being clearly incapable. He hardly flaunted his fine environmental track record.

3) Making practically the entire theme of his campaign a war theme. Bad idea with an incumbent wartime president.

4) Not fighting back EFFECTIVELY vs the swift boat liars. That was probably the most frustrating thing going, and it clearly showed a lack of leadership, IMO. By taking the high road....and John Kerry himself admitted in retrospect that it was a mistake to do so...he caused the charges to stick among so many of the people who didn't know him as well as we do.

5) His constant overuse of the word "kill" when talking about the terrorists. "I will seek them out and KILL them." We already have one "killing" president; we didn't need two. It was a clear attempt of oneupmanship on Kerry's part at who could be the more efficient killer. I can only imagine how many fence sitting voters he turned off with that style.

6) Goose hunting during the campaign. No matter how it was intended, it came off as as a stunt that was intended to impress gun rights people, people who for all intents and purposes had already made up their minds. He really looked silly, all dressed up in camouflage during the heart of the campaign to go out and shoot a few geese. John Kerry is a real man, and there was no reason for him to prove it by looking like some gun-toting rifleman during the heart of the campaign. Instead of going after the Swift Boat Liars, he goes for the geese. What the hell were his advisers thinking of?

7) The lesbian gaff. That one was really embarrassing because it was so obvious that it was nothing more than a reminder to anyone out there that Cheney's daughter was a lesbian....just in case some voters weren't already aware that she was. The place and the timing of that remark were ill advised, as was the extra accent he placed on the word "lesbian" itself.

8) His inability to connect with average American voters. If so many of us didn't know what vision he had for the country, how on earth would so many dummies out there figure it out?

I don't think Kerry will get the chance to run again, based on how poorly a campaign he ran the first time, but if by some miracle he does, I just hope to heck he hires some advisers with brains in their heads. The next time we might not be going up against a moron, and we're going to have to run a near perfect campaign in order to win.

[ProSense]

185. Well a lot of that is your opinion!

1) His choice of poor campaign advisers to begin with, and then sticking with them throughout the entire campaign, when so many people were calling for him to replace them.

I agree with that!

2) Not dwelling on the environment which was such a strong area for him and one in which he could've exposed Bush for being clearly incapable. He hardly flaunted his fine environmental track record.

He did focus on the environment:

Kerry Says Bush Undercuts Environment
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER

Published: April 21, 2004

BAL HARBOUR, Fla., April 20 — Senator John Kerry accused the Bush administration Tuesday of "playing dirty" in what he described as its undoing of 30 years of environmental regulation, and declared that ocean pollution was jeopardizing Florida's vital tourism industry.

As Mr. Kerry opened a three-day push on the environment timed to the observance of Earth Day, this Thursday, his campaign also worked to play down two new polls that showed President Bush's standing with voters improving relative to the senator's, even after a month of damaging news for the White House.

Across the state from here, with dolphins surfacing in the waters of Tampa Bay behind him and a seagull shrieking overhead, Mr. Kerry gave a spirited defense of environmental advocacy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/politics/campaign/21KERR.html?ex=1397966400&en=fe7d4b2e6d615d2b&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Frank Luntz Republican Playbook -- Searchable Text-Version:
PART IX "AN ENERGY POLICY FOR THE 2lst CENTURY"
By Tom Ball
03/06/05

1) Make it about Energy Self-Sufficiency and Independence. The energy debate is ripe for partisan picking and the Democrats were smart to use it during their convention. Americans want to hear about solutions to foreign energy dependency and are desperate for big ideas and bold solutions. Energy policy is now a public priority and Democrats put themselves on the side of the future. Americans loathe the idea of being reliant on the Middle East for our energy needs and they were waiting for someone to tell them so. This was John Kerry’s single best line at the convention, and it continues to resonate even today:

PAGE 133 ---

DEMOCRAT WORDS THAT WORK

I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation -- not the Saudi royal family. Our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future -- so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Americans are evenly and bitterly divided about an assortment of political issues, but nearly all of them agree that our nation s’ current energy policy is behind-the-times and needs a new, 21st Century approach. Right now, the Democrats are exhibiting perfect pitch when it comes to their energy message. They understand that if you play on American fears towards OPEC, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, while also appealing to American ideals of invention and innovation, they will have a compelling message. But fortunately for Republicans, the Democratic message does not match their policy. If the GOP wants to gain the advantage you need to match the optimism of the Democrats message -- and that begins with a clear statement that the status quo is unacceptable.

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001207.php#1207

3) Making practically the entire theme of his campaign a war theme. Bad idea with an incumbent wartime president.

The environment, among other issues, prove that this is not true. The war was an important an media driven issue because, well, there was a war and people were concerned and protesting.

4) Not fighting back EFFECTIVELY vs the swift boat liars. That was probably the most frustrating thing going, and it clearly showed a lack of leadership, IMO. By taking the high road....and John Kerry himself admitted in retrospect that it was a mistake to do so...he caused the charges to stick among so many of the people who didn't know him as well as we do.

That’s not the case, just your opinion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2651634&mesg_id=2651634

5) His constant overuse of the word "kill" when talking about the terrorists. "I will seek them out and KILL them." We already have one "killing" president; we didn't need two. It was a clear attempt of oneupmanship on Kerry's part at who could be the more efficient killer. I can only imagine how many fence sitting voters he turned off with that style.

Again, your opinion, unless you can show that had an impact on the campaign.

6) Goose hunting during the campaign. No matter how it was intended, it came off as as a stunt that was intended to impress gun rights people, people who for all intents and purposes had already made up their minds. He really looked silly, all dressed up in camouflage during the heart of the campaign to go out and shoot a few geese. John Kerry is a real man, and there was no reason for him to prove it by looking like some gun-toting rifleman during the heart of the campaign. Instead of going after the Swift Boat Liars, he goes for the geese. What the hell were his advisers thinking of?

Again, your opinion, unless you can show that had an impact on the campaign.

7) The lesbian gaff. That one was really embarrassing because it was so obvious that it was nothing more than a reminder to anyone out there that Cheney's daughter was a lesbian....just in case some voters weren't already aware that she was. The place and the timing of that remark were ill advised, as was the extra accent he placed on the word "lesbian" itself.

That is nonsense unless it had a demonstrable effect on the campaign.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410150004

8) His inability to connect with average American voters. If so many of us didn't know what vision he had for the country, how on earth would so many dummies out there figure it out?

I don't think Kerry will get the chance to run again, based on how poorly a campaign he ran the first time, but if by some miracle he does, I just hope to heck he hires some advisers with brains in their heads. The next time we might not be going up against a moron, and we're going to have to run a near perfect campaign in order to win.

Another fallacy.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E10FC39580C758CDDA80994DC404482

Mr. Kerry's confidants pointed to his e-mail list of 2.6 million supporters - which helped him raise more than $249 million, a record for a presidential challenger - as a major asset that Mr. Kerry could harness to project his influence well beyond the Senate chamber, and not just in financial terms. They said one option would be to set up a new organization the way Howard Dean did with his political action group, Democracy for America, after his defeat in the Democratic primaries.

07/31/2004
Crowd hot for Kerry, disillusioned with Bush
BY CHRISTOPHER J. KELLY / STAFF WRITER

It was a day for diehards.

Whether they were dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, determined protesters or curiosity seekers who simply wanted to witness history, the estimated 17,000 people who turned out to see presidential nominee John Kerry in Scranton on Friday all shared one common trait.
Stamina.

Brutal humidity, a savage sun and scarce water ended the day early for some. Those who managed to stick around until the end, however, said it was worth every sweaty, sticky second.

The crowd was thick with veterans, a sign of the rich history of military service in the region and the strong connection Mr. Kerry has established with veterans. Many had high praise for the candidate's service in Vietnam. Most offered harsh criticism of President Bush, who faces lingering questions about his National Guard service.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12558035&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6

Kerry in fact did connect to voters and even the polls after the debates online and offline indicated that Kerry’s message resonated with many. He did get a record 59 million votes!

[mtnsnake]

187. That's correct. I thought that was clear

When I started out by saying, "These are just a few of the campaign mistakes that I can think of off the top of my head", I thought it was clear that the mistakes I listed were all of my own opinion.

I think that more people will disagree than agree with you when it comes to whether or not Kerry made the mistakes you're saying he didn't make. That, too, is just my opinion, though :)

[blm]

189. Everything you said was MEDIA PERCEPTION. They lie and you reinforce it as

if it were true. Try spending some of that energy ATTACKING MEDIA LIES so it will better serve the next nominee.

[mtnsnake]

226. Not true. It was the perception that I got, period.

I ought to know my own perception. Geesh!

[dajoki]

210. It's not only your opinion...

many feel the same. Great Post, clear and concise.

[ProSense]

218. You want people to accept your opinion despite the facts?

Why should people "get it" if it's your opinion and not supported by the facts?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2651541&mesg_id=2652396

[dajoki]

220. It's my opinion...

Unlike you I may sometimes be wrong, besides I was just answering someone who seemed to have the same opinion I do. I guess everyone on here who doesn't agree with you is a dummy, huh?

[ProSense]

222. You said people don't "get it." Based on the facts, the OP is wrong n/t

[dajoki]

224. Not exactly...

Many if not most people don't get it. Many people watch Faux News and take it for the Gospel truth.

[ProSense]

231. Get what? Your OP? n/t

[dajoki]

235. Oh, give it up already...

How many times do I have to tell you I'm entitled to my own opinion. Once and for all, I believe Kerry and his advisors fucked up the swift liars issue. That is MY OPINION!! but of course it doesn't matter how many opinions are out there, you are the only one who is correct. OK. HA HA!!

[ProSense]

237. At least you admit your intention,

which is to bash Kerry despite the facts!

[dajoki]

241. I admit nothing of the sort...

I do not mean to bash Kerry, you can take it however you want.

[mtnsnake]

228. Thanks. nt

[dajoki]

209. Thank You...

That is exactly what I've been TRYING to get across, but many do not get it.

[blm]

182. Why do YOU CHOOSE to spread RW media lies instead of re-inforcing FACTS

and truth about the media's complicity with the Swiftliars and the WH?

The facts are in the research forum if you actually gave a crap about spreading FACTS instead of RW media fiction.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

[dajoki]

211. Yes the MSM was complicit...

But when you're running for POTUS you must get your message across no matter what it takes. And I don't believe Kerry did that with all the odds stacked against him.

[Clarkie1]

227. Kerry lost because he was living in the past, not the present.

"And nobody - absolutely nobody - at the convention wanted to talk about Iraq. Vietnam, sure, but not Iraq. We actually heard from an insider that several of the delegations had uninvited us from our speaking engagements because of a secret pact among DNC higher-ups in those states not to talk about "the war."

"Kerry focused on the Vietnam war instead. This was clearly a strategic move more than a moral one. Since Kerry had served in combat in Vietnam and Bush had not, some overpriced poitical operative must have convinced the candidate that his military service was a winning issue."

"Blinded to the issues that mattered, focused on a war that happened 30 years ago, he sealed his own fate. The Bush administration may have failed to understand the Iraqi people, but the Kerry campaign failed to understand the American people."

From "Chasing Ghosts," Paul Rieckhoff (Founder of Operation Truth).

It's not about Vietnam, Mr. Kerry, and it's not about you. Have you learned that lesson yet?

[ProSense]

230. You're back! This Paul Rieckhoff?

John Kerry continues to help veterans of the Iraq war and of Vietnam. You really should get over this obsession to try to bash Kerry!

Snip...

"Mission Accomplished" Democratic Radio Address, May 1, 2004

Snip...

"Rieckhoff said he is not working for the Kerry campaign or for the Democratic Party. He contacted Kerry staffers who deal with veterans issues when he returned from Iraq three months ago, and they 'provided me with the forum. I wrote every word.'" (16) (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001917901_radio02.html)

On May 1, 2004, Stephanie Cutter of John Kerry for President issued a press release about Rieckhoff's address. Press Release (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=29723).

In the May 7, 2004, New York Times, the paper printed a correction to a previous article about Rieckhoff, in which it "misstated his political affiliation. He says that although he indeed once registered as a Democrat, he is now unaffiliated." (17) (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B14FA39590C718CDDAC0894DC404482 )

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Rieckhoff

Sunday, May 02, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.

War vet criticizes Bush during radio address

By Pete Yost
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — An Iraq war veteran expressed disappointment with President Bush yesterday, saying the nation's leaders refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of continuing violence in Iraq.

"I don't expect our leaders to be free of mistakes. I expect our leaders to own up to them," said Army National Guard 1st Lt. Paul Rieckhoff, 29, who was a platoon leader.

Rieckhoff's comments, distributed by Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, represented the Democratic response to the president's weekly radio address. A public official usually gives the response.

"Our troops are still waiting for more body armor. They are still waiting for better equipment. They are still waiting for a policy that brings in the rest of the world and relieves their burden," Rieckhoff said.

more...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001917901_radio02.html

Iraq Veteran Delivers Democratic Radio Address Reflecting on the President's 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq

5/1/2004 12:11:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk, Politics Reporter

Contact: Stephanie Cutter of John Kerry for President, 202-712-3000, Web: http://www.johnkerry.com

WASHINGTON, May 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Saturday, May 1, 2004, one year following George Bush's declaration of "mission accomplished" -- major combat operations over in Iraq, Paul Reickhoff, a veteran of the Iraq war, shared his reflections on the war during the Democratic Radio address to the nation.

Reickhoff, who served in the rescue operations after 9/11 and in the Reserves in Baghdad, opened his address stating, "I want my fellow soldiers to come home safely, and I want a better future for the people of Iraq. I also want people to know the truth."

Rieckhoff described the lack of supplies he found when he landed in Baghdad with his 39-membered platoon, part the first wave of soldiers in Iraq in April 2003.

"But when we got to Baghdad, we soon found out that the people who planned this war were not ready for us. There were not enough vehicles, not enough ammunition, not enough medical supplies, not enough water. Many days, we patrolled the streets of Baghdad in 120 degree heat with only one bottle of water per soldier. There was not enough body armor, leaving my men to dodge bullets with Vietnam-era flak vests. We had to write home and ask for batteries to be included in our care packages. Our soldiers deserved better."

Following the fall of Baghdad, there was no plan to move forward. Reickhoff spoke about the difficulties his men had securing the country.

"With too little support and too little planning, Iraq had become our problem to fix. We had nineteen-year-old kids from the heartland interpreting foreign policy, in Arabic. This is not what we were designed to do. Infantrymen are designed to close with and kill the enemy."

"Mr. President," Reickhoff went on to say, "Our mission is not accomplished."

Reflecting on the strength of America's military families, Reickhoff closed the address by saying the commitment of American soldiers gives him hope for Iraq, but it is time for a leadership change.

"Our troops can accomplish it. We can build a stable Iraq, but we need some help. The soldiers I served with are men and women of extraordinary courage and incredible capability. But it's time we had leadership in Washington to match that courage and match that capability."

Since May 1, when President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 594 U.S. soldiers have died - 421 as a result of hostile action and 173 of non-hostile causes, according to the military's numbers.

Reickhoff's remarks, as delivered, are below.

more...

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=29723

When Kerry gave his dissent speech there were many posters here claiming thathe should have focused on Vietnam in his convention speech. He touch on it he mentioned it in two short paragraphs in his speech, but he talked about Iraq, and also about the issues.

[Clarkie1]

232. Just finished reading his book.

It was great, and I agree with his assesment of Kerry and why he lost in 04'. It doesn't bother me that he's an a registered independent, a lot of good Americans are. They are the people we need to win over in order to win, and clearly Kerry didn't win him over even though he won his vote.

And, I applaud the work that Kerry continues to do for veterans. He's a good man. That said, we need to understand the mistakes that were made in 04' in our choice of candidate and the focus of the campaign so that similar mistakes are never made again. The problem with Kerry is that he made the election about himself and his service in Vietnam, and that left him open to attack. It was a strategic and cynical mistake, and we should learn from it. If you interpret that as "bashing," so be it.

In 04' I remember Clark saying, "It's really not about me, it's about all of you." Somewhere along the way, Kerry seemed to have forgotten that important truth and allowed the other side to help him make the election all about himself and Vietnam, when it should have been about Iraq and the soldiers serving there. From the looks of it, he seems to be continuing too much in the same vein for my taste.

[ProSense]

236. Remember what Clark said when he endorsed Kerry?

"John Kerry has been the kind of leader America needs," said Clark, a former NATO supreme commander.

[skeeters2525]

239. Kerry's Biggest Mistake

Thinking America had a brain. Hope the next candidate figures correctly America is full of brain dead moron's.

Happy Memorial Day.

[LittleClarkie]

243. It's his record. He can defend it when he likes

I'm not convinced this would have made a difference then, as the truth never seemed to matter to these people anyway. The truth was never the point.

But I'm glad he's doing this just the same, if only for himself.

[wisteria]

244. IMO, Senator Kerry wants people to know the truth not the lies.

He wants to put an end to these jerks once and for all. This is not just for himself,but for all the other soldiers who speak up and say something contrary to what those in power want to hear only to have their reputations smeared with made-up accusations and out and out lies. Senator Kerry has always st rived to get at the truth. I see this move as a natural course for him.
Oh, and if he does decide to run in 2008, I would support him again. Senator Kerry would be great for this country.