Anyone more organized than I have the answers to these accusations?

[JasonDeter]

This is being passed around the web by republicans accusing Kerry of flip flops, basically parroting what bush* said in that pathetic speech the other day. The internet is a wonderful tool, I cringe when I think what America would be since 2000 without it. Any help will be appreciated. I need to respond to the republican who sent it to me and want to be accurate. Any Kerry supporters out there have the facts to refute these? I'm going to search the net and Kerry's website but I want my reply to bitchslap the republican when I send him my response.

The new "JFK" (John Forbes Kerry) presents a most interesting candidacy:

He assails the Patriot Act -- but he voted for it;

He opposes the War in Iraq -- but he voted to authorize it;

He attacks the President for "misleading" us about WMD's --
yet he believed the same intel as the President;

He ridicules the "No child left behind" education reform act, co-written and sponsored by his patron and mentor, Ted Kennedy -- yet he voted for it;

He touts his Vietnam record -- yet threw away his ribbons after he got home;

He boasts that he fought Communism -- yet, as leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War led protests which included addressing audiences waving theViet Kong flag, people not demanding mere peace, but Communist victory;
He courts the support of Veterans -- yet testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 that his fellow GI's were committing "war crimes" in Vietnam, not just occasionally, but "every day."

He faults President Bush for irregular attendance at National Guard meetings 30 years ago -- yet hopes to be excused for his own acts giving aid and comfort to the enemy, a fact acknowledged by returned POW's and records from Hanoi;

He supports those who accuse Bush of having been AWOL -- despite the fact that records clearly show Bush did have leave, and made up his 36 days before receiving his honorable discharge -- and despite the fact that in 1992 Kerry defended Bill Clionton, who never showed up for his ROTC commitment at all.

And yet he has the gall to accuse the incumbent of having a credibility problem -- when the truth is that what enrages Kerry and his fellow partisans most is that Bush has done exactly what he said he was going to do, and by doing so has earned such credibility that now even Germany is assisting us, even the UN is accepting its responsibilities, even Libya is disarming, and Al Quaeda is forced to confine its terrorist acts to the Old World.

[Wonk]

1. Not I. I'd like to see them, though.

http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly02092004.html

[Dogmudgeon]

2. On procedural grounds alone ...

... most of those questions are as bogus as a $3 bill

The "questions" of Kerry voting for a bill then opposing it conveniently leave out the reasons why he voted for it in the first place, and why he changed his mind. Selective de-funding and misuse of the law explains the No Child Left Behind position; being lied to and given false information explains USA-PATRIOT and the Iraq War Resolution votes. These are substantial issues, not casual flip-flops. The President lied to our elected representatives on critical issues -- why not address that?

Every item about his Vietnam service and protests is absolutely loaded. These are "Hanoi Jane" issues, all of which are spun like a tornado. So he gave a speech to a group of people where some of them were waving VC flags -- so what? And his Winter Soldier/Senate hearings statements dealt with soldiers who had been placed in terrifying circumstances and were later abandoned by their superiors. But it's well known that when you drop a bunch of 19-year-olds into a war zone, they will freak out and, yes, commit atrocities if the circumstances are right. Who's to blame there? Not Kerry, who fought for them in Washington.

Bush's service record is still full of holes; Bill Clinton is not running for President. The fact that Kerry defended him has nothing to do with anybody's military service. The fact that Bush has strutted around in uniform for the press does. And I would check out the assertion that Clinton illegally skipped out on ROTC. The truth is probably more like young Bill changing his major.

Find the supporting information for URLs and quotes, but I've never had trouble exposing lies simply by pointing out the ill-logic under the arguments. Neo-conservatives are notoriously sloppy liars and low-rent propagandists. Attack, never defend. Don't let them barrage you with questions -- this is thier favorite trick. And remember, if you can get them the least bit mad, they will quickly melt down.

--bkl

[gottaB]

3. on believing the same intel

it wasn't just the bogus intel--Kerry had reported the intel findings as troubling, but not unambiguous, and not in themselves a causus belli.

The essential deception Kerry has complained of was not just manufactured intel, but being misled by Bush and people within his administration.

There were a number of people offering contrary opinions, but this was compared to the overwhelming evidence that was put in front of us in very specific and factual terms. When someone shows you a photograph and says, “Our intelligence tells us that in this building is the following, and we have the following sources to back up these determinations,” it is pretty compelling.

What’s more, what I thought was equally compelling was not just the evidence, but were the very direct promises of Colin Powell and others within the administration about how they were going to proceed, about working with the United Nations, about using weapons inspectors, and about war being a last resort. In foreign policy, traditionally, we have worked across party lines to try to have one voice to speak with as a country in the interest of our national security. Obviously, the President, we now know, broke every single one of those promises and disregarded his own word. He is not a man of his word.

Given the information we were given at that time, however, a lot of very smart people made the same decision. Bill Clinton thought we ought to do what we did. He was the former President of the United States, and made his judgment based on eight years of experience. Hillary Clinton voted for it. Tom Harkin voted for it, as did Joe Biden. A lot of people made the judgment that this is a serious threat, and made the judgment that the administration was committed to going through the international process, build a coalition and do this right.

They didn’t do it right. They did it wrong. I was one of the first Senators to stand up and hold them accountable for it. In fact, I forewarned them each step of the way about what they needed to do to legitimately live up to their obligations.

(Excerpt from the truthout interview)

Another statement.

“This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,” Kerry said. “I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.

"The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,” continued Kerry, “I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn’t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You’re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.”

(From the Trial of John Kerry)

[BruinAlum]

4. Here's a post that includes something on the IWR

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x396105#396187

[Hav]

5. I doubt that I am more organized or informed than you

but I try to repeat some things that were discussed here already quite often.


Voting for the IWR didn't mean that they were so enthusiastic to go to war.I believe they saw it as last ressort and with a broad coalition.
It is easy for us to sit at home and believe strongly in the information we assume to be right. Lawmakers face another kind of responsibility, their laws and decisions can affect the lives of millions.We aren't privy to the information that Kerry or Edwards got.What if there were really WMDs, ready to launch and posing a real threat? Until now that assumption turned out to be completely false but I assume that Edwards and Kerry believed in a threat and they have a responsibility for the American people that you and I don't have.
Kerry can say very well that Bush mislead him.He mislead him about how he would conduct that war.About the intelligence, I can only assume that Kerry relied on the information given to him and other Senators.When it was forged and when the Bush Admin had knowledge that this intel might not be 100% correct and when they stressed the Intel they preferred, then I think it's not wrong to talk about misleading.


I don't know so much about the ribbons, I believe though that Kerry was quite proud about his service and medals. I think whenver I hear Vets mention their service, it is my feeling that they are proud of their service.That doesn't mean that they can't see the wrongs in that war.
Kerry was actively engaged in trying to end that war.Giving comfort to the enemy is possibly one of the favourite lines of the right. Should one do the wrong thing when the right thing will get you accused of giving comfort to the enemy?
What counts for me is that he felt very strongly about stopping that war and therefore trying to save not only many American but also many Vietnamese lives.That was his goal.
I know that many who were in the draft age to that time and feared to enter that war are thankful for Kerry and the anti-war movement.


"He courts the support of Veterans -- yet testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 that his fellow GI's were committing "war crimes" in Vietnam, not just occasionally, but "every day."

It's this kind of reasoning and propaganda that is disturbing for me.Kerry saw things that were wrong and against the law. I read a poster's story here that (I believe) his uncle has a collection of ears that he cut off of Vietnamese. I am lucky that I never had to fight in a war but I believe Kerry when he says that there is something like a bond between him and other Vets, only they know what really went on there, they had to endure the horror on a daily basis. One can clearly have the highest respect for those who were comrades in a war and who would have put their lives at risk to save their other fellow soldiers lives but one can also clearly come out and point out obvious wrongs.For me their is no contradiction and no disrespect.



I feel my time wasted when I have to talk about the credibility of that Administration. Germany won't help because they suddenly realise that Bush was right, same for the UN. It's for the sake of Iraq and the situation in the Middle East that one has to overlook the struggles of the past.What purpose does it serve to point out that Bush was wrong when the Iraquies are in a miserable situation? Now that it's done one has to do everything to make it better.
There is a difference between the Bush Administration and these other countries and that is diplomacy and looking at the bigger picture.
To say now that UN helps because of the credibily of this Adminstration is so ridiculous, everybody should be ashamed to think like this. They help because they have to help for the sake of humanity.



About the other issues: Don't want to talk about AWOL. I will let someone of Bush's unit come forward and say : "Yes, I clearly remember that I served with that guy." .Didn't happen, did it?
He can ask about Bush's service and defend Clinton without any problem, the same way that Dean could ask about Bush's service.First, he had to show up because that is the law and secondly because Bush uses his service in his campaigns.Remember the carrier landing,turkey surprise?

About communists at a rally..do we want to hold Kerry responsible about what every damn person was doing at that rally? Nonsense.
I'm quite sure that Kerry did not hope for a Communist win.Why? Because he surely knew many who were still fighting there.Remember that bond?

[Ganja Ninja]

6. You could spend a lot of time and energy chasing after the answers

but you better save them because you'll be seeing this over and over again right up to the election. As far as answering for Kerry's war record you might answer with this:

Details of Kerry's Past Emerge as Campaign Heats Up

Del Sandusky was a little skeptical when he first met John Kerry in Vietnam's Mekong Delta back in the late 1960s.

The enlisted sailor thought that Kerry, the new commander of his crew's swift boat, might have been on a hunt for personal glory. Kerry was, after all, a Yale graduate who had majored in political science.

"But we learned in the first couple of patrols - this is a very brave man," Sandusky told a group of veterans Thursday at VFW Post 2903 on Milwaukee's south side.

Sandusky, an Illinois resident who appears in a widely viewed television ad for Kerry and is traveling the region stumping for his old comrade, said Kerry regularly risked his own life to save those of his crew.

Sandusky vowed Thursday to steer clear of the "blood and guts" stories, but he did recount the time Kerry earned the Silver Star by ordering the boat beached so he could chase down and kill an enemy soldier who wielded a rocket launcher.

"John knew it was the only way," Sandusky said. "He knew (the enemy soldier) was going to launch."...

"We all know what kind of person he is, because you can't hide it in war. You just can't," said Milwaukee veteran Roger Quindel.


And as far as Bush's record goes you could answer with this:

The only reason Bush didn't join the Vietnam Vets against the war is because he was hiding out in a champaign unit in the TANG. A position he got over 300 more qualified applicants who were on a waiting list.

Who was it that had to go to Vietnam in Bush's place?

[trotsky]

7. The biggest flip-flop of all...

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
-- George W. Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
-- George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

Throw that in the freeper's face. It's shut up every one of them that I've used it on.

[JasonBerry]

9. That is damning

The Bush flip-flop on Osama is unbelievable. Those two quotes played over and over and over with no other commentary - says it all.

[rucky]

8. Most of that came from GWB's mouth

a couple days ago. And there BETTER be a way to refute 'em, or else we are escrewed.

Go ahead and chastize people for not appreciating NUANCE, but this stuff is clear & simple. That's what we've been trying to say. It's not a personal issue with Kerry - it's one of electablility. I know Kerry can credibly address this. But I'm not sure that Kerry can convincingly address this.

[trotsky]

10. The biggest problem is that...

yes, this can all be refuted. But no, it can't be done in a 10-second soundbite.

Kerry, as he indicated in his speech when he voted for the IWR, was for an invasion *as a matter of last resort*, and only when all other diplomatic and alliance options were exhausted.

Similar for PATRIOT Act - voted for it only because it was specifically a temporary measure, and would not vote to renew it.

Each has a simple yet not so simple answer. But a lot of John and Jane Q. Publics out there don't have the attention span to hear them.

[AP]

11. The fault line in Kerry's persona that Republicans are tapping into is...

...that Kerry has wanted to be president since he was a kid. He has carefully constructed a persona his entire life which was meant to be all things to all people. A little bit of liberal for the liberals, a little bit of moderation for the conservatives.

He isn't in his core being either of those things. He's a kid who grew up with a lot of opportunities to construct the persona he thought would get him elected, whether that was going into the navy, or becoming a DA, or currying favor with the environmentalists and the Wall St banks.

Compare that to Bush -- Bush didn't have to do anything plainly visible to create a persona of electability (the baseball deal and the TX governership were clearly contructs, but most people don't perceive them as such).

So what Bush will be doing is finding everything that Kerry ever did in order to play both sides - liberal and moderate - and portray them as inconsistencies of character.