John Kerry Was Right: Iraq in Civil War

[kerrygoddess]

John Kerry Was Right: Iraq in Civil War
July 16th, 2006 @ 9:05 pm

John Kerry was right in early April when he said in an OP/ED in the NY Times, “We are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years.”

The UK’s Daily Telegraph reports, “The battle lines of a full-scale civil war in Iraq have been drawn in Baghdad.”

Highway 60 has become one of the bloodiest fronts in the war between Sunni and Shia. Known to its frightened inhabitants as the “street of death”, the road in the south-east of the capital is a symbol of the sectarian violence that is pushing the country ever closer to the abyss…

{snip}
The worsening security crisis has left a growing sense of dread among the new Iraqi government and the American-led coalition forces, with the United States ambassador claiming last week that sectarian violence was now a greater threat to the country’s future than the three-year insurgency…

{snip}
As Iraqi security forces and the US military are accused of turning a blind eye to the slaughter, observers fear that the country has reached a third, even more intractable, phase in the recent conflict, beyond insurgency and beyond even combat between organised armed groups.

“What we’re now seeing has no shape whatever,” a Western diplomat said. “It’s just everyone fighting everyone. Anarchy.”

When we will put an end to the “stay the course” madness? We had the opportunity to set a timeline to withdraw from Iraq, instead of heeding Kerry’s warning months ago, Republican’s played politics with Iraq, and the lives of our our troops.

MORE & LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3615

[welshTerrier2]

1. thank goodness the Iraqis formed an "effective unity government"

otherwise, staying in Iraq another day would seem kind of, i don't know, crazy?

i had a conversation with Kerry's brother Cam back in April of 2004 ... i told him this was going to explode into a civil war and that continued US presence could do nothing to stop it ... i pleaded with him to take this message to his brother and asked him to ask John to take a strong anti-war stand in his campaign ... Cam clearly did not agree with my assessment of the situation in Iraq; and John did not make a strong anti-war position on Iraq a cornerstone of his campaign ...

oh well ... i suppose i could have been wrong ... i certainly didn't have access to the same information he did ... we can only speculate about what would have happened if Kerry had campaigned more forcefully for withdrawal ... that one's open for debate ...

Kerry finally got it right last April ... it's unfortunate he doesn't have it right anymore ... perhaps he will return to us yet again and we will welcome him back to the light when he does ... this running away from home stuff does get tiresome though; i must say ...

[kerrygoddess]

13. He's still got it right

Don't blame him for the other Dems not listening.

[welshTerrier2]

16. no ... i'm afraid i disagree ...

i'm not blaming him for the sad non-position most of the Senate Dems are taking on Iraq ... as you pointed out, that's certainly not Kerry's fault ...

Kerry had it right when he called for immediate withdrawal on May 22 ... and i even would have cut him some slack with his extension to 12/31/06 ... this latest DOA compromise, however, was garbage ... it had ZERO chance of getting a buy in and all it did was call for a horrible policy that makes absolutely no sense ...

if someone wants to stand up and explain to me why bush should be given another day in Iraq let alone another year, i'm all ears ... this is not "right" ... the majority or near majority of us who want immediate withdrawal from Iraq because we know that bush's objectives are evil and not as advertised need to find some representation in the Senate ... for an all-too-brief moment, i thought Kerry had finally decided to champion our cause ... but no ... benchmarks with no timetable became immediate withdrawal became 12/31/06 became 7/01/07 ... at this pace you have to wonder whether bush will withdraw most of the troops before the Democrats put any real pressure on him ...

Kerry played his little political game with the Senate and it never had a chance ... even if it had passed, it was insane policy ... the time to leverage the electorate into the November elections is now ... instead, the Democrats will have no pre-election Plan B on the table ... and soon, with the next request for more war funding, the Democrats will hand bush yet another blank check ...

the message here is that bush wants to build permanent bases ... the message is that this is being done to guard the commercial oil fields that will be established by Big Oil ... there is no effective unity government ... an effective unity government could end the civil war ... the sectarian violence is growing worse and worse everyday and Iraq is totally beyond anyone's control ... if Kerry thinks the US should remain even one more day, i'd like to hear exactly what he thinks bush et al will accomplish there ... let me give him a hint: bush will accomplish nothing but his own greedy objectives ... truly, i don't believe Kerry understands this ... if he does and he still thinks our troops should remain, he's got some splainin to do ...

[kerrygoddess]

17. Sorry WT2

I'm afraid he gets it more than you do. You mischaracterize his plans here. I'm not even going to waste my time pointing out what you have wrong. As usual some people only hear what they want.

Peace.

[welshTerrier2]

18. a surprising cheap shot ...

only hear what they want?

if i have misstated his plans, it would seem more useful to explain my errors than to attack me as being dishonest ...

if you prefer to hold that view, that's of course your choice ... i stated Kerry's views as i understand them ...

peace to you as well ...

[kerrygoddess]

21. Sorry...

Didn'tmean to be flip... I'm fixing a computer and... well enough said - we all know how joyful that is.

Kerry did not call for immediate withdrawal in May (April - actually). What he said was if Iraq did not form a government by May 15, then there should be immediate withdrawal - however if they did form a government then there should be a series of benchmarks for a phased withdrawal.

The resolution that Feingold co-sponsored was very similar to the original resolution Kerry first put up - the date was changed to July 07.

[welshTerrier2]

29. no problem ...

but if you read all my responses above, that is what i've been saying about Kerry's positions ...

and let me correct the wording you used ...

Kerry called for immediate withdrawal if the Iraqis did not form an "effective unity government" by May 15 which later was modified (appropriately so) to May 22 ...

my objection to what i see as Kerry's wandering position is that i defy anyone to argue that Iraq's government is in any way whatsoever "effective" ... it clearly is NOT effective ... nor is it going to be effective anytime soon ...

and as i correctly said, after somehow concluding the Iraqi government passed his first condition on May 22, Kerry then called for withdrawal by 12/31/06 ...

and then changed his position yet again, presumably as some sort of political gambit, to a 7/07 withdrawal date ...

so he's migrated from benchmarks to immediate withdrawal to 12/31/06 to 7/01/07 ... if Kerry's looking for support from those of us who want to leave NOW, his latest position calling for another year of war is just not going to accomplish that ... this war is bush's war for oil ... positions that think we should give bush a little more time to build democracy or stabilize the government or accomplish anything in Iraq besides guarding new oil fields with permanent troop deployment on permanent bases just don't get it ... i'm for leaving immediately because bush's objectives are not, and will never be, legitimate ...

[TayTay]

46. But wt2, he's not looking for support from you

He's looking for support from other Senators in order to get a resolution through the Congress that will press for a withdrawal. His fellow Democratic Senators objected to the insertion of any date whatsoever and made their competing resolution a 'sense of the Senate' and non-binding./ (The Kerry/Feingold/Boxer Amendment would have been binding law.)

Why would Kerry want to spend time convincing people who already want to end this war that they need to, ahm, end this war? He needs to convince the people who don't currently hold that position.

Cindy Sheehan, on a recent Hardball, mentioned that John Kerry as an ally in her fight to get the troops out of Iraq and that she has been working with his office toward that end. She did not mention any other US Senator. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13735484/ She understands that you have to convince people to stand with you and that it is a long fight. Much as Ms. Sheehan wants to leave Iraq now, she understands that is not going to happen unless you convince those in the current government to take action. This is an ongoing process and will be so for another couple of years. Sens Kerry/Feingold/Boxer et all know this too.

Tip O'Neill turned against the Vietnam War in 1967. We did not really start to leave for years after that. It was a process and Iraq will also be a process. It isn't enough to convince those who already agree with you; you have to persuade the ones who are not currently with you and that takes time, like it or not.

[Sam Odom]

2. I'm not a Kerry fan, OK - Having said that

Kerry can be on the 'right' side of most any issue, you know why? Because some where at some time he favored either side of any major issue.

[YvonneCa]

3. I am a Kerry fan...

...PAY ATTENTION! That's totally untrue.:patriot:

[Sam Odom]

5. Please...

Remember EVEN in late '04 Kerry said knowing what he knew then he would still give chimp-in-chief the senate's blessing to go to war.

[Mass]

8. As I said, people evolve. Only idiots dont.

[YvonneCa]

12. Follow this link and scroll down to watch John Kerry ...

...at the TBA Conference and see if you can still say that.


http://www.politicstv.com/dspan.php:patriot:

[karynnj]

20. No he didn't

In August, there was a Grand Canyon question where he obviously did not hear the "knowing what you know now" to which he gave his then standard answer that he would have give Bush the leverage needed to get the inspectors back in. In September he said several times - including in the debate that he would not have gone to war.

[Sam Odom]

25. codependence

Really sad...

[karynnj]

31. It says more about you that you ignore multiple comments

made every day in September and October and rely on one - that suits your purposes, even though it was inconsistent with everything Kerry said in the primaries and in the general election.

It ignores what Kerry said on the floor of the Senate when casting the vote.
It ignores that Kerry in fall 2002, was cautiously optimistic that war could be avoided.
It ignores that Kerry spoke out in an op-ed and at Georgetown University against rushing to war in the months before the war.
It ignores that Kerry spoke daily for at least 6 months on Bush not going to war as a last resort.
It ignores many Kerry statements that he would not have gone to war if he were President.

Looking over everything said and done, I find it very easy to believe that Kerry campaigning around 16 hours a day either did not hear or did not process the conditional clause on that question and rotely gave the nuanced answer that he always gave without realizing the question had changed. Then his answer has been misquoted as being about going to war rather than the vote. They also leave off Kerry's complete answer which makes it clear he didn't hear/get/process the conditional.

If you had say 1000 data points all around (0,1) and one data point at (1000,2000), wouldn't you identify the (1000, 2000) as an outlier? I would and that is why I find it easy to believe that it was a meaningless gaffe - the type that EVERY candidate makes when answering questions 16 hours a day for months. (It is also suspicious that it is mentioned far more after the election than during it.)

[TayTay]

47. As is the inability to maintain a position in an argument

and having to pretend that see 'mental problems' with your opponent. After all, if they were right in the head, they would agree with me.

This does end the argument, but only because one side has become incapacitated and unable to argue anymore. They have resorted to name-calling as a means to make a point.

Content-free communication is what I thought we as Dems were fighting against.

[blm]

33. No he didn't. And the IWR was not a bad vote - it had bad execution by a

president who INTENDED To violate it and ANY resolution to have his war.

[Mass]

4. You mean he is thoughful and can see when a situation changes,

contrarely to many? That is a quality, not a default, and one that we could hope our current president had.

[Sam Odom]

7. He's a good senator, please let him STAY there

and not run in '08

[Mass]

9. We have to disagree on that.

[Sam Odom]

11. Cool... n/t

n/t

[kerrygoddess]

14. Did I bring that up?

No I didn't. Why are you? This post isn't about 08.

[Sam Odom]

15. Ok, I'll capitulate

He's right...

Just dont run in '08

[LittleClarkie]

24. Fine and thanks. Indeed not every Kerry thread is a "Kerry 2008" thread

Hey, don't get me wrong. If he runs, I'll vote for him. I have a bumpersticker that says so. You will vote otherwise. Right then.

Nevertheless, you and I still have go get through 2006 first. And he can be right on something and folks can admit it without it meaning you intend to vote for the dude in 2008

Personally, if he doesn't run, or even if he doesn't make it through the primaries, I will still support him. My support doesn't hinge on 2008. I will probably start campaigning for Attorney General or somesuch if he doesn't make prez.

Some of us just like the big lug is all. Ya dig?

[blm]

34. Why? Are you scared of the only real anti-corruption lawmaker we have?

Only the corrupt should be against Kerry.

[blm]

32. That's NOT True. That's RW media lies you're spreading there.

.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Kerry was right....and there are others who saw exactly what would

happen in Iraq, if the invasion took place.

Some of them voted "NO" back in 2002!

[Mass]

10. He was not the only one to see what would happen, you're right,

[blm]

48. Had weapons inspections and diplomacy be allowed to take their course

then there would have been no invasion. Diplomatic efforts were on the verge of succeeding and Saddam was preparing to leave peacefully. Had that aspect of the IWR not been violated and had been pursued with integrity, there would have been no invasion and regime change would have been peaceful with NO DISBANDING of the Iraqi army.

But no resolution was going to be adhered to by Bush - the Downing Street Memos are proof of that. They would have violated any resolution and manipulated any evidence necessary to have war.

[Clarkie1]

19. Unfotunately, setting a set date for withdrawl isn't a strategy for peace.

I know Kerry is well-intentioned, but as President Clinton said this week all that would do is tell the forces in Iraq who are causing the anarchy when to step up their attacks even futher. Most Iraqis are not participating in this low-level civil war. We need to support the peacemakers as long as they still want us there to help in any way we can, not set a date-certain to abandon them.

We need to hold the administration's feet to the fire for getting us into an unnecessary war in the first place, and expect that this year will be a significant year of transition...moving Iraq away from reliance on U.S. forces as we begin to drawdown our forces. If that doesn't happen this year, we hold them accountable for even greater incompetence than has already taken place. It's their mess, they created it. It's their responsibility to do what they can to make the best of it...hold them accountable for whatever degree of failure they achieve!

[kerrygoddess]

22. Oh my

"We need to hold the administration's feet to the fire for getting us into an unnecessary war in the first place, and expect that this year will be a significant year of transition...moving Iraq away from reliance on U.S. forces as we begin to drawdown our forces. If that doesn't happen this year, we hold them accountable for even greater incompetence than has already taken place."

Same freakin concept as Kerry's a little different play. Can we all work together? Kerry has an advantage that former Pres Clinton and Wes Clark doesn't - Kerry can push legislation. You're here nitpicking over whether a timetable or phased withdrawal is right. Good gracious. Same thing.

I see a lot more news from Kerry on holding Bush and cabal accountable than the good General on Iraq and a lot more fronts as well.

It astounds me that every time I post something about Kerry and Iraq, you show up and drop the Clark plan in the thread. Tell me when the last time I posted in one of your threads like this?

[wisteria]

23. I disagree with the suggestion that a timetable means they will

wait us out and then take over. That is too simple of a rational for staying.
Why couldn't they deceive us into believing we have won, wait for us to pull out then go back in and take over? The truth is, the insurgents don't want to take over Iraq. They aren't interested in controlling countries. They are interested in terrorizing and fighting the infidel and making sure we don't control the oil. Besides that, the Iraqi's will not tolerate these terrorists once we are gone.

Don't ever think Senator Kerry is naive and not on top of what is going on. He is well aware of the situation in Iraq and not only has a military perspective on this, but a foreign relations perspective as well. He also has done broad investigative work on these terror groups.

Oh, and by the way, Senator Kerry never,ever mentioned abandoning the Iraqi people.His strategy is a strategy to succeed.

Wait until after the November elections, then you will see quite a few more Democrats start agreeing with Senator Kerry, and I am including Gen. Clark in this group too. Right now many Dem's are more concerned about appearances.

[karynnj]

30. Clinton's position was against a timetable

Even the Levin amendment (which his wife voted for) requests Bush to develop a timetable. Clinton is closer to Leiberman's position here than to the Democrats' position, much less Kerry/Feingold.

I would not hold Bill Clinton out as the expert on Iraq. His positions have for the most part been pro-war. Since 2003, I have heard many Democrats, including Kerry, Clark and Biden call on Bush for a serious diplomatic conference to resolve the political issues. I have not heard Clinton make this demand, though with his history it would seem a natural thing to do.

[blm]

36. US military presence = FUEL for the insurgency. Most military experts get

that after spending time in Iraq and conferring with the regular Iraqi elected officials and the US commanders on the ground.

You want to continue pouring gasoline on a fire.

[ProSense]

26. Kerry was right! Civil war means withdrawal!

Who would advocate that American troops remain in the middle of a civil war? Are they going to fight both sides? Let the Iraqis fight each other, while they fight Bush's war on terror?

[ProSense]

27. Troops can be withdrawn, Iraq can handle it, Americans must leave

Iraqi forces are handed power as withdrawal begins

By Kim Sengupta
14 July 2006

Snip...

But what was being commemorated was significant, more so for Iraq than Britain. Three years, three months, three weeks and four days after the US-led invasion, an Iraqi government was getting back the control of security for one of its 18 provinces, at - British officials insist - Iraq's request.

Snip...

The governor of Muthanna, Mohammed Ali Abbas al-Hassai, said: "This means they mean it when they say there will be an end to the occupation."

British and US officials hope the Muthanna withdrawal will be the precursor to an exit strategy on a much larger scale. They claim it will be followed by Maysan province, which is also under British control, Dhiqar, where the Italians are based, then the three Kurdish provinces in the north which have seen relatively little violence.

Major-General John Cooper, the commander of British forces in Iraq, said he believed there were "four or five" provinces where conditions were reaching the point where they could be handed back to the Iraqi government, but he declined either to name them or indicate a timescale.

more...

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=698674

Snip...

The reaction of the tribes was hardly a foregone conclusion. In the American-led effort in Iraq, they were an afterthought. Few were courted, and they were all but left out of the political process, which began here in earnest in early 2005.

Followers of Mr. Sadr dominate the 42-member provincial council. The governor is a former Mahdi Army commander. The police chief is a former Badr member.

Snip...

"Tribes hold the key to this province," he said. "If we try to employ our own version of law in this country, we are not going to win."

The tribes have helped the occupying forces at times. They successfully mediated in 2004, when the Mahdi militia fought the British in an uprising across Iraq's south inspired by Mr. Sadr.

At that time "the tribes went to the Sadr office and said, 'Take your guys off the streets,' " said Mr. Ferguson, the British political adviser. In Dhi Qar Province, west of Amara, tribal leaders recently interceded in a similar fashion, he said.

more...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/world/middleeast/10amara.html

July 13, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor

Even in Iraq, All Politics Is Local

By RORY STEWART

Kabul, Afghanistan

A GREAT many of the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq arise from a single problem: the American-led coalitions’ lack of trust in local politicians. Repeatedly the Western powers, irritated by a lack of progress, have overruled local leaders, rejected compromises and tried to force through their own strategies. But the Westerners’ capacity is limited: they have little understanding of Afghan or Iraqi politics and rely too heavily on troops and money to solve what are fundamentally political and religious problems.

The coalitions cannot achieve political change in the absence of strong local support. And when they try to do so, they undermine their local allies. Iraqi and Afghan national and regional leaders have a far better understanding of the limits and possibilities of the local political scenes; they are more flexible and creative in finding compromises; and unlike the coalition officials, they are elected. They must be given real power and authority. This may seem an obvious prescription — but in fact the coalitions are not allowing it to happen.

Snip...

But the Westerners’ political strategies are too often based more on moral ideals than real information — very few coalition officials serve in these countries for more than a year, even fewer are specialists in the region, and security restrictions prevent them from living in the community. Many have too much faith in their ability to create a society in their own image and a mistaken belief that they can find clean, technocratic, powerful and liberal alternatives to these local leaders. They prefer to rely on constitutions and abstract economic theories than to engage with local personalities.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/opinion/13stewart.html

At any given six- to 12-month period over the past 18 months (Iraq elections) the process could have been put in place to begin standing down troops, but the determination to continue military action prevented this from happening.

Some people will continue to advocate for a prolonged presence until the situation deteriorates even more. To borrow Bush's recent statement, "just wait."

[Skittles]

28. he voted for it

he cannot escape responsibility

[blm]

35. So, you're saying the IWR took us to war? Then that means Bush didn't

violate the resolution.

Bush is off the hook - the IWR is to blame for war. In fact, it MADE him go to war.

Kerry HAS taken responsibility for his vote even though his vote did not take this country to war. He is one of the few Dem lawmakers we have who has the expertise to draw up a withdrawal plan for our military, yet alot of Dems think it's far more important to keep using him as their whipping boy because of their own lack of proportion.

[Skittles]

41. Kerry basically voted to hand the keys to a known drunk driver

he voted his career over his conscience - stop trying to let him off the hook. There is PLENTY of blame to go around.

[LittleClarkie]

43. The IWR was alot like the fake attempts at UN diplomacy

they were both mostly for show.

You don't honestly think if it hadn't passed that would have been it for war in Iraq.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, for fuck's sake the man apologized already and took his share of the blame. And he's proposed a withdrawl plan. He's not back there anymore. He's here. Where are you?

[blm]

44. He has taken more responsibility for it than any other lawmaker and while

Democrats beat him up over it they blind themselves to the fact that the IWR did not lead this country to war - Bush was going in with or without any resolution, and would violate any resolution - the Downing Street Memos confirmed that.

My point is PROPORTION - By focusing blame on Democrats for IWR you shift blame away from Bush for VIOLATING the IWR. Corporate media prefers blaming Democrats for IWR than studying how Bush violated the IWR - it just really is wrong that so many Dems do the same.

It's disproportinate to keep attacking Kerry after all this time and with all the proof like the DSM that shows Bush was going in anyway. When people stop with the constant attacking him as if the IWR was responsible for war, then I'll stop pointing to their lack of proportion and their failure to move far enough forward to support his difficult task to move withdrawal debate.

[blm]

45. btw...

nothing personal in my reply - it's the issue that I think should be treated more fairly. You're still an ace DUer in my book.

[4bucksagallon]

37. Sounds like the Swiftboaters are still at it.......

Personally I don't think Kerry was the best candidate in 04 but you go with what you are given, for better or worse. He let the Not so SWIFTBOATERS get away with telling lie upon lie and did not fight back.

[blm]

38. Did the corporate media influence what you believe?

April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).


Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth



MH1 - This topic is to create a timeline of the response of the K/E04 campaign to the Swift Liars' smears. There is an RW-encouraged myth that K/E04 "didn't respond." As the timeline, once completed, will show, that is not true. Effectiveness of the response may be debated - that is subjective - the purpose of this thread is to collect the facts of the events.




On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...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...



Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc...



May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c....



Kerry campaign's quick response to Swift boat vets
By Marie Horrigan
UPI Deputy Americas Editor
Washington, DC, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts issued an exhaustively researched and extensively sourced 36-page refutation Thursday of allegations Kerry lied about events during his service in Vietnam, including how and why he received medals, and had fled the scene of a battle.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143...



Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
McClellan points out criticism by anti-Bush group
Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 2:37 PM EDT (1837 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.

"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," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.

"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attacka... /


http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/oldtricks.php




August 5, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE

Re: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Dear Station Manager:

We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively. It has been brought to our attention that a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has bought time, or may seek to buy time, on your station to air an advertisement that attacks Senator Kerry. The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the doctor who treated Senator Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and the man pretending to be his doctor was not. The entire advertisement, therefore is an inflammatory, outrageous lie.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" styles itself as a group of individuals who personally served with John Kerry in the United States Navy in the Vietnam War. In truth the group is a sham organization spearheaded by a Texas corporate media consultant. It has been financed largely with funds from a Houston homebuilder. See Slater, Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2004.

In this group's advertisement, twelve men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not a single one of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats (PCF 44 & PCF94).

Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Senator Kerry after the December 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts, Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Senator Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003. (National Review Online, May 4, 2004).

The statements made by the phony "crewmates" and "doctor" who appear in the advertisement are also totally, demonstrably and unequivocally false, and libelous. In parrticular, the advertisement charges that Senator Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." Just as falsely, it states that "he lied before the Senate." These are serious allegations of actual crimes -- specifically, of lying to the United States Government in the conduct of its official business. The events for which the Senator was awarded the Bronze Star have been documented repeatedly and in detail and are set out in the official citation signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Vietnam. And yet these reckless charges of criminal conduct are offered without support or authentication, by fake "witnesses" speaking on behalf of a phony organization.

Your station is not obligated to accept this advertisement for broadcast nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), You Can't Afford Dodd Committee, 81 FCC2d 579 (1980). The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" organization is not a federal candidate or candidate committee. Repeated efforts by organizations that are not candidate committees to obtain a private right of access have been consistently rejected by the FCC. See e.g., National Conservative Political Action Committee, 89 FCC2d 626 (1982).

Thus, your station my freely refuse this advertisement. Because your station has this freedom, and because it is not a "use" of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.

Moreover, as a licensee, you have an overriding duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.D.2d 623 (1961). Your station normally must take "reasonable steps" to satisfy itself "as to the reliability and reputation of every prospective advertiser." In re Complaint by Consumers Assocation of District of Columbia, 32 F.C.C.2d 400, 405 (1971).

Under these circumstances, your station may not responsibly air this advertisement. We request that your station act immmediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny andy future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false, and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should exercise that authority in the public interest.


Please contact us promptly at either of the phone numbers below to advise us regarding the status of this advertisement.

Sincerely yours,
Marc Elias
Perkins Coie
607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005


General Counsel
Kerry-Edwards 2004 Joseph Sandler
Sandler, Reiff & Young
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003


General Counsel
Democratic National Committee


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/dem080504ltrswift...




From the transcript of the Aug. 5, 2004 White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan:

Q Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity. We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not -- and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I think that this is another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on. The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And, you know, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups.

* * *

In the days after the release of the ad a host of major newspapers published editorials condemning it including the Arizona Republic ("Campaign Non-Starter," August 6), Los Angeles Times ("It's Not All Fair Game," August 6), Plain Dealer ("Ad Says Kerry Lied; Record Says Otherwise," August 8), St. Petersburg Times ("An Ugly Attack," August 9), Las Vegas Sun ("Ad's Smear Should Be Condemned," August 9), Oregonian ("Now It Gets Nasty," August 11), and Washington Post ("Swift Boat Smears," August 12).

* * *

On Aug. 10, 2004 Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections.

* * *

From the transcript of Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance on CNN'S Larry King Live:


KING: In view of that, do you think that it's fair, for the record, John Kerry's service record, to be an issue at all? I know that Senator McCain...
G. BUSH: You know, I think it is an issue, because he views it as honorable service, and so do I. I mean...
KING: Oh, so it is. But, I mean, Senator McCain has asked to be condemned, the attack on his service. What do you say to that?
G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of
those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.
KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...
G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view...

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton's response to Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance:
"Tonight President Bush called Kerry's service in Vietnam 'noble.' But in the same breath refused to heed Senator McCain's call to condemn the dirty work being done by the 'Swift Boat Vets for Bush.' Once again, the President side-stepped responsibility and refused to do the right thing. His credibility is running out as fast as his time in the White House."

* * *

On Aug. 17, 2004 the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges.

* * *

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on Aug. 18, 2004:

"By saying nothing at all George W. Bush is a complicit contributor to the slanderous, lie-filled attack ads that have been launched on John Kerry on Bush's behalf. Instead of stepping up and taking the high road, George Bush's response has been evasion, avoidance, everything but disavowal.

"Larry King asked George Bush to 'condemn' it. He refused. Reporters asked the President's Press Secretary if he'd 'repudiate' it. He ducked. They can try to blame it on the rules or whoever else they want, but the blame belongs squarely on the Republicans. They wrote it. They produced it. They placed it. They paid for it. And now it is time for George W. Bush to stand up and say, 'enough.'

"This is not debate, Mr. President, and this unfounded attack on Senator Kerry has crossed the line of decency. I call on you today to condemn this ad, the men who put their lies behind it, and the donors who paid for it. It's time."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.h...



Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert
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.

If that doesn't represent a concerted effort by the press to look the other way, than what does?

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



Please use this information as a guideline for 2006 and 2008 campaigns. What the media edits out of our campaigns is CRUCIAL to public perception.

Even many Democrats are unaware of the real fight that occurred in 2004 and are buying wholesale the corporate media spin which conveniently protects the corporate media who failed to give honest coverage of Kerry's defense against the lies of the swift vets and their Republican handlers.

Not recognizing the extent of the corporate media's duplicity is a danger for all Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008.

This can and WILL happen to any Democratic candidate.

This CAN and WILL happen to ANY Democratic candidate. FIGHT THE MYTHS.

[LittleClarkie]

39. Holy crap

Now I'll have to bookmark this thread. Nice collection there, blm!

Personally I file "never fought" with "conceded fast". It's an overstatement of what actually happened.

Eventually defended himself, but was a tad pokey, maybe.

Conceded slower than many, but still faster than some wanted, maybe.

Maybe it's the nature of the internet, but many folks when they discuss things seem to go in for the hyperbole.

[blm]

40. Just copied from Research Forum - the live links are in the op there.

Anyone can access the info there.

[karynnj]

42. Contrast that to the entire media jumping on Rather

when RW bloggers 2 hours after the TANG show questioned the authenticity of the documents BUT NOT THE CONTENT that showed that Bush's NG years had serious problems. The secretary who said it wasn't typed on her typewriter also said similar content was true and was typed. The records are missing.

Kerry had all the official records behind him. Nixon himself had Kerry investigated near that time and he was totally clean. The then Secretary of the Navy, now Senator Warner, said he saw Kerry's silver star paper work and that he even went back to check it and it was good. The RW make conjectures about records that they say should exist and ignore 100s of pages of records that uniformly show a very good leader.

This would be like a boss ignoring your college transcript because a guy told him he went to school with you ( even if he didn't) and that he knows you really got poor grades. Other than saying the record is what transcript says (which is the equivilent of what Kerry did as early as April), how would you prove you were a good student? (Kerry's team did expose lies of the accuser - but it seemed the burden of proof fell on Kerry, even though the SBVT had NO proof and many had written or said that Kerry was an excellent officer in the past.) Could you have defended better? Also, think - this was going on as you took on the most complex, detailed, time consuming project of your life (as running for President was.)

[lojasmo]

49. Um...I said that BEFORE J.K. voted against, then for, the war.

Or for, then against, or whatever...

[blm]

50. That never happened - no many how many times that GOP lie is repeated it

will never be true.

Kerry voted FOR an 87billion dollar funding bill that had accountability for its spending and targeted for armor and supplies actually NEEDED by the military force. He voted AGAINST the 87billion dollar bill that Bush wanted written with NO ACCOUNTABILITY for the money.

Which bill would YOU have voted for and which would you have voted AGAINST?