Kerry's being attacked. Will he finally defend himself?

[tomreedtoon]

From the Daou Report on www.salon.com - sorry, I don't know the quote source:

"Michelle Malkin, who seems to take great pride in slandering a decorated Vietnam vet, posts an obnoxious image of Kerry juxtaposed with Jesse MacBeth. It may be funny to her, but I'll bet it wasn't a joke to Kerry when he was taking enemy fire for his country so ingrates like Malkin could have the freedom to piss on his service."

To me, this is a litmus test to see if Kerry - or any Democrat - ought to be considered for the Presidential nomination. In 2004, Kerry did not effectively fight back. I'm not saying he didn't fight back at all, just that what he did didn't work. And there are all kinds of reasons that can be offered as to why - his DLC handlers, his consultants, predictions from his astrologer - but in the end, it's the candidate who has to take the ultimate resposibility for his campaign.

Now he's being attacked again. Will he fight back in an effective way? Or is he going to allow himself to be beaten with PVC pipe and leather belts, like he was the small child of a conservative Christian? (Which is another good article on Salon today.)

[LittleClarkie]

1. Too bad about YOUR face, Michelle

Keep doing that, and it's going to freeze that way.

As for Kerry, he might react, unless he considers Michelle beneath contempt. Let's face it, she's a poor man's Ann Coulter.

[JI7]

2. he was effective

that's why the term "swiftboating" is so easily thrown around to describe smears against someone, especially their service.

but one problem we still have is Republicans and some Dems who say the attacks got Kerry on his service were deserved since he made mention of his service. lack of outrage at those who attacked him and instead demands that Kerry answer their charges as if they had any legitimacy.

[wisteria]

16. Good points. n/t

[karynnj]

32. Excellent points

The meaning of the term is unambiguous and implies that it was based on lies. The first thing Kerry did was identify many obvious lies in the SBVT claims - in any earlier election this would have ended their access to the MSM and if the ties to Bush were made obvious, it could have backfired. This was the mature, dignified rational way to deal with the problem.

I wonder if Kerry will again have someone from his office comment.

[seabeyond]

71. i bottom line this to my repugs. you didnt stand up for me

when your party said i was not christian, when they said i was traitor or a terrorist, you did not stand up for me when your party said i was unamerican..... and you did not stand up for kerry, a veteran who fought for our nation, when your party trashed him in lies. that says everything about you, and that is why i will never entertain a thought in voting repug. that is all about the people of the party. dont lecture m eon morals, because you lack when you dont stand up against your own, for you fellow american, your sister, your daughter.

[sandnsea]

3. Uhm, that piece was about smears in general

And pointed out smears on Hillary, Gore and Kerry. So why'd you decide to focus ONLY on the incredibly juvenile potshot at Kerry? And add your own potshot, 'predictions from his astrologer', which is a new one on me. Nancy Reagan owns the astrologer hit, remember??

I highly doubt Pete wrote this piece with the idea that Democrats would use it to launch their own smear campaigns against other Democrats, but I know he wouldn't be surprised.

[tomreedtoon]

6. My juvenile potshot is against ALL Democratic candidates.

I'm sick of them getting crap thrown at them by the most obvious right-wing smear artists - and they won't bother to wipe it off. I'm sick of Democratic candidates who lose because they won't fight back.

And I'm sick of Bush, and wish someone on the Democratic side would seriously challenge him in a way that the public would notice. Stephen Colbert did, but he's an entertainer, not a candidate.

And finally, I'm sick that whenever one of the contenders for the nomination - and I mean ANY of the people in contention - utter a feeble squeak in protest that only people on DU can hear, everyone on the boards calls it "incisive" and "dazzling." That's treating Democratic candidates like children with self-esteem issues, not like mature politicians who will fight for our future.

Aren't YOU tired of losing elections and our country?

[sandnsea]

8. Your post wasn't against ALL Democrats

And neither was your made up astrologist potshot.

Yes, I'm tired of losing elections because of bullshit smears by the right wing, and extra tired of Democrats who help them execute their strategy.

[midnight]

14. You may be on to something there.

I hesitate to give it a name for lack of not defining it three dimensionally, but a start would be to give a bit more loyalty.

[_dynamicdems]

26. Amen! n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

43. When was the last election the Democrats lost - in the absence

of massive Republican fraud?

[emulatorloo]

56. and another AMEN EOM

[blondeatlast]

59. Word, sandandsea--I think you are onto something there.

:applause:

[sendero]

15. You can add me to the list..

... of people who agree with you 100%.

Folks just DON'T GET IT. Clinton got it, and that is why he was president for 8 years.

If you don't STRENUOUSLY DENOUNCE SMEARS there are large numbers of people who BELIEVE THEM, no matter how ridiculous they might be.

[_dynamicdems]

27. In Clinton's case, weren't they ah,...true?

And didn't he get impeached for "defending" himself (ie: lying about the "smears" under oath)?

Bad example.

[sendero]

33. Are you suffering from memory loss?

Clinton was accused of 20 times more things than he actually did. I'm talking about starting during the first campaign.

[karynnj]

36. Only if you look at what was on hate radio

the things that made MSM were legitimate and were dismissed as not important (appropriately) by the media. The difference in 2004, was that first ALL the cable stations brought up the hate radio stuff and then the networks did. Even the print media gave credence to the SBVT. The proof that they lied MANY MANY times was always given equal (at best) weight to the charges themselves.

One indication of the lack of fairness the broadcast media (and to a lesser degree, the print media) had on this was that NO ONE on several channels expressed ANY outrage over the purple heart band aides. In spite of all the "we love the troops", no one thought to mention that it was disgusting that the Republicans would wear these. Kerry's wounds were fortunately not life threatening or crippling but they were wounds. Kerry was extremely aware (from journal entries in Tour of Duty) that the difference between a minor wound and one that could cause death was a tiny difference in the trajectory of the scrapnell or bullet. The bronze star and silver star were awards for being exceptional, the purple hearts were for being wounded - the only importance is they got him out of Vietnam. The idea that the RW was complaining that this then 25 year old kid was "not wounded enough" is sick, especially when they avoided getting shot at in a war they supported.

The media's lack of outrage signalled approval for mocking Kerry's awards - which implies they agreed they were suspect.

[sendero]

38. I agree with you somewhat..

... but as I didn't listen to a lot of mainstream media even then, I can tell you that NPR dutifully reported a boatload of allegations that turned out to be bullstuff.

Not only that, but the entire Whitewater mess was never anything but trumped up crap, and I'm pretty sure the mainstream media ran with it every chance they got.

All that aside, my basic point I'm sticking to. When you get attacked with "swiftboat" style allegations, i.e. complete fabrications and misrepresentations - you'd better respond with a level of outrage equal to the level of offense, or lots of people will simply BELIEVE IT.

[karynnj]

54. As BLM pointed out, Kerry did but MSM didn't report it

Whitewater wasn't a big issue in 1992. The NYT printed a story on it - but it wasn't clear it had any substance.

[_dynamicdems]

49. Maybe. Maybe not. n/t

[sendero]

57. Fair enough..

... I can't remember either :)

[_dynamicdems]

62. I hear ya, a lot has happened since then!

But I do recall Kerry being one of Clinton's strongest supporters during the impeachment thing.

Sometimes I think it is better to have other people defending the person maligned, because if the person being attacked fights back too strongly it's then maligned for being a crybaby or for whining. There is also a perception that people who protest too strongly have something to hide. It's never good to look like you're being defensive.

That's why I think the Patriot Project is a terrific pro-active idea. They are a recently-formed anti-swiftboating organization with close ties but no a direct association with John Kerry. They are ready to answer the attacks with information and exposure of the people funding the mud-slinging. Their analysis of the smear against Congressman Murtha is excellent.

[karynnj]

34. Clinton didn't have the same media to deal with

In 1992, the media was far friendlier to Clinton than to Bush 1. (How many times did we see Bush and the Japanese official when Bush became ill at dinner.

Most of the stories the vaunted war room fielded were known Clinton problems. It's easier to prepare responses to known problem areas. Even then, on the draft story, Clinton initially didn't tell his staff the full story - so that actually hung around longer than necessary. He also lied on Gennifer Flowers (as the later Star questioning showed). The only unfair smear was when the Bush people went to Clinton's (and his mom's) passport files to get information. The media was very indignant that that happened and it backfired on Bush. (similar indignation should have met the SBVT claims)

Kerry was likely prepared to answer questions on his protesting - but he had a completely spotless, exceptional record in the service itself. The awards themselves attested to that - not to mention that Nixon, who did check up on Kerry - found no dirt.

[sendero]

35. That is true..

... but I wonder. I think the "news media", especially television news, is at its lowest point of credibility with the general public in the last 60 years or so at least.

Spin and lies quit working, and only work against the spinner and the liar, once the truth becomes obvious. The media has damaged itself again and again, and their blatantly hostile stance towards Dems is wearing thin.

The 30% idiot-contingent will always buy their stories. Middle America is wising up. Look at the ratings for Fox News, MSRNC, CNN - they are tanking big time. They are tanking because their lies have grown obvious and tiresome.

It's time for Dems to stop worrying about media attacks and do some attacking themselves.

[Joe Chi Minh]

45. Give it up,Sendero. You're always on the back foot.

[sendero]

48. Not 'til you do..

... you're always sleeping.

[karynnj]

58. You yourself just made the case for getting the truth out

and not responding in rage at the smearers.

"Spin and lies quit working, and only work against the spinner and the liar, once the truth becomes obvious"

This is what I THOUGHT would happen - and it didn't to the degree needed - likely because for many people the decades of trusting the news are still there - and the media signalled it was ok to smear Kerry.

Rather than attacking, I think the Democrats should take this opportunity to get a tuthful message out with enough positive overtones to be palatable. I'm not talking about painting a Carebear world, that's not believable and the truth of where the country is needs to be told. I think Kerry has been doing an excellent job at this since the election. His speeches also reflect Kerry's own optimism and problem solving personality and his deep faith in the people and values of this country.

Because the smears are now seen as lies, Kerry acting with dignity trying to help the country in his Senate job is better than attacking now.

[TayTay]

40. Clinton never diffused the smears against him

He was elected as a minority President and never governed otherwise. The smears on him about his moves to get out of the draft, his 'womanizing' and the 'Slick Willie' items never went away and, in fact, hurt Al Gore in 2000. He never completely addressed these issues. Time has simply dulled their impact. (Why else was Hillary and Bill's marriage on the front page of the NYTimes this week. None of those things were dealt with and defused. None of them.)

[sendero]

42. I'm speaking specifically..

.. of smears that weren't true. It's pointless to get out and lie about stuff that is eventually going to come out, and that was a big mistake he made.

[TayTay]

46. All smears have a touch of truth to them

However light that touch might be. It is what makes them effective as smears. They all need to be guarded against.

We have opponents who dedicate way more resources than we do to smearing us. That is a fact. It has happened to Dems, nearly all of them, to greater or lesser degree. It will happen again this fall and it will massively happen to whomever the Dems nominate in '08. No one is immune to this. It is a complete and utter delusion to think that there is anyone immune to this. We have to fight this unilaterally.

[blm]

22. I'm SICK OF those who only know enough to repeat MEDIA LIES against Dems

Not even HALF of you even KNOW what Kerry did to counter or that it was the media who DOWNPLAYED it or ignored it. NO media cameras showed up to cover Kerry's speech where he went after the swiftliars in front of the Firefighters Convention on Aug 19, 2004. Most didn't even report ot happened.

EVERY move made to counter the swifts was met with media silence. Guess what? It would have happened to ANY Dem because the GOP controls most broadcast news media.


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.

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

[_dynamicdems]

4. The way I see it, you're using this article to doing some attacking of

your own.

You single out just Kerry from this article? Why is that?

When Congressman Murtha was attacked, how did he fight back? As I recall, wasn't it John Kerry who first jumped to Murtha's defense? "This is our moment of truth. You and I have to make it absolutely clear that we won't stand for Republican Swift Boat style attacks on Jack Murtha." - John Kerry

And when Allard attacked Kerry on the Senate floor, Senator Kerry rushed right from his committee meeting to deliver an immediate smack down: John Kerry Responds to Sen. Allard's Iraq Attacks

The Vet versus the Veterinarian

After Senator Kerry offered a new direction on Iraq that keeps faith with American troops and gives the Iraqis their best chance at democracy, Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) launched an attack on Senator Kerry and defended the Bush Administration's aimless course in Iraq.

Sen. Kerry returned to the floor to defend himself and his Iraq plan. The Kerry plan sets two important deadlines for the Iraqis to form a unity government and redeploy American combat forces.

Below is Sen. Kerry’s response to the Allard attacks:

Mr. President, a little while ago I was fought here. I was at a hearing of the finance committee. I am informed that the Senator from Colorado, Senator Allard, came to the floor to attack my position on Iraq, which is fine by me, but also I think somewhat questionably with respect to the rules and the etiquette of the Senate to attack me personally for my motives with respect to the position I have taken. And the Senator from Colorado suggested that -- quote -- "we're seeing an individual who is being spun in the political winds."

Well, let me make it clear to the Senator from Colorado and anybody who wants to debate Iraq, when it comes to issues of war and peace and of young Americans dying, nobody spins me period. And I’m not going to listen to the Senator from Colorado or anyone else questions my motives when young Americans are dying on a daily basis or losing their limbs...

Also recently Senator Feingold came under attack as being unpatriotic from many different RW sources. Show me Senator Feingold's response? I believe it was Howard Dean who came to his defense.

Or how about the attacks on several of our other prominent Democrats for stands they have made recently? You don't mention then, just John Kerry

I see a pattern here: the only Democrat who you expect to fend off attackers is Kerry? He's supposed to stop what he's doing and rush over to defend himself against that RW nut Malkin? Give me a break!

As I recall, didn't Senator Kerry take on both Bush and Cheney when they criticized him? He totally bitch slapped Bush on his Veterans Day statement as I recall:

“Mr. President, Veterans Day is sacred - or it is supposed to be. Veterans Day is a day to honor veterans, not to play attack politics. The President, who is Commander in Chief, should know and respect this.

“Veterans Day originally marked the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, when the guns of World War I, the war to end all wars, finally fell silent. Instead of honoring that moment, instead of laying a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington National Cemetery, instead of laying out a clear plan for success in Iraq, the President laid into his critics with an 11th hour rhetorical assault that dishonored America’s veterans and those serving today, even as he continued to distort the truth about his war of choice.

“Perhaps most striking of all is that his almost desperate sounding Veterans Day attack on those who have told the truth about his distortion was itself accompanied by even more distortion.

“Does the President think that the many generals, former top administration officials and Senators from his own party who have joined over two thirds of the country in questioning the President's handling of the war in Iraq are all unpatriotic too? This is America, a place where we thrive on healthy democratic debate. The President does not have a monopoly on patriotism, and this is not a country where only those who agree with him support the troops and care about defending our country. No matter what the President says, asking tough questions isn’t pessimism, it’s patriotism. And fighting for the right policy for our troops sends them exactly the right message to the troops: that we take the decision to put them in harm’s way seriously, and that our democracy is alive and well.

“The President even used the solemn occasion of Veterans Day to continue his campaign of misrepresenting the facts and throwing up smokescreens. His statement that Democrats saw and heard the same intelligence he did is just flat out untrue - unless of course the President and his Administration didn’t do their job and study the additional intelligence given only to them and not the Congress. As the Washington Post put it on Saturday, ‘Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material.’

“But that whole discussion is nothing more than an effort to distract attention from the issue that matters most and can be answered simply: did the Administration go beyond what even the flawed intelligence would support in making the case for war? Did they use obviously inaccurate intelligence despite being told clearly and repeatedly not to? Did they use the claims of known fabricators? The answer in each case is yes. And the only people who are trying to rewrite that history are the President and his Republican allies.

“There is no greater breach of the public trust than knowingly misleading the country into war. In a democracy, we simply cannot tolerate the abuse of this trust by the government. To the extent this occurred in the lead up to the war in Iraq, those responsible must be held accountable. That is why Democrats have been pushing the Senate Intelligence Committee to complete a thorough and balanced investigation into the issue.

“When the President tried to pretend on Friday that the Intelligence Committee had already determined that he had not manipulated intelligence and misled the American public, he knew full well that they have not yet reported on that very question -- that is why Democrats were forced to shut down the Senate and go into closed session to make the Republicans take this issue seriously. When the President said that his opponents were throwing out false charges, he knew all too well that that these charges are anything but false.

“But the President and Republicans seem far more interested in confusing the issue and attacking their opponents than getting honest answers. Let’s be clear: there is no question that Americans were misled into war in Iraq. Simply put, they were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when he did not. The issue is whether they were misled intentionally. Just as there is a distinction between being wrong and being dishonest, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and making statements that you know are not supported by the intelligence.

“The bottom line is that the President and his Administration did mislead America into war. In fact, the war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history. The facts are incontrovertible. The act of misleading was pretending to Americans that they hadn’t made a decision to go to war, and would seriously pursue inspections when the evidence strongly suggests that they had already decided to take out Saddam Hussein, were anxious to do it for ideological reasons, and hoped that inspections, which Vice President Cheney had opposed and tried to prevent, would not get in their way.

“The President misled America about his intentions and the manner in which he would make his decision. We now know his speech in Cincinnati right before the authorization vote was carefully orchestrated window dressing where again he misled America by promising that “If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully.” He did none of these things.

“The act of misleading was just going through the motions of inspections while it appears he really couldn’t wait to just kick Saddam Hussein out of power.

“The act of misleading was pretending to Americans the real concern was weapons of mass destruction when the evidence suggests that his real intent was to finish the job his father wisely refused and remove Saddam Hussein to “remake the Middle East”.

“The act of misleading was saying in his Cincinnati speech that “Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable” when the evidence suggests that all along the goal was always to replace Saddam Hussein through an invasion. For most of us in Congress, the goal was to destroy weapons of mass destruction. For President Bush, weapons of mass destruction were just the first public relations means to the end of removing Saddam Hussein. For most of the rest of us, removing Saddam Hussein was incidental to the end of removing any weapons of mass destruction.

“In fact, the President was misleading America right up until two days before launching his war of choice when he told Americans we had exhausted all other avenues. The truth is that on the Sunday preceding the Tuesday launch of the war, there were offers Security Council members to pursue an alternative to war, but the Administration, in its race to go to war, rebuffed them, saying “the time for diplomacy is over.”

“By shortcutting the inspections process and sidestepping his own promises about planning, coalition building, and patience, the President used WMD as an excuse to rush to war. That was an act of misleading contrary to everything the President told Americans about the walkup to war.

“The very worst that Members of Congress can be accused of is trusting the intelligence we were selectively given by this Administration, and taking the President at his word. But unlike this Administration, there is absolutely no suggestion that we intentionally went beyond what we were told were the facts. That is the greatest offense by the Administration. Just look at their most compelling justification for war: Saddam’s nuclear program and his connections with Al Qaeda.

“The facts speak for themselves. The White House has admitted that the President told Congress and the American public in the State of the Union Address that Saddam was attempting to acquire fuel for nuclear weapons despite the fact that the CIA specifically told the Administration three times, in writing and verbally, not to use this intelligence. Obviously, Democrats didn’t get that memo. In fact, similar statements were removed from a prior speech by the President, and Colin Powell refused to use it in his presentation to the UN. This is not relying on faulty intelligence, as Democrats did; it is knowingly, and admittedly, misleading the American public on a key justification for going to war.

“This is what the Administration was trying so desperately to hide when it attacked Ambassador Wilson and compromised national security by outing his wife. It is shameful that to this day Republicans continue to attack Ambassador Wilson rather than condemning the fact that those sixteen words were ever spoken, and that so many lies were told to cover it up. How are the same Republicans who tried to impeach a President over whether he misled a nation about an affair going to pretend it does not matter if the Administration intentionally misled the country into war?

“The State of the Union was hardly an isolated event. In fact, it was part of a concerted campaign to twist the intelligence to justify a war they had already decided to fight. Again playing on people’s fears after 9/11, the Administration made statements about the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq that went beyond that what the intelligence supported. As recently reported by the New York Times, in a Cincinnati address the President said “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases” despite the fact that the Defense Intelligence Agency had previously concluded that that source was a fabricator.

“The President went on to say that ‘Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons’ despite the fact that the Air Force disagreed with that conclusion. As the Wall Street Journal reported, ‘the Air Force dissent…was kept secret even as the President publicly made the opposite case…before a congressional vote on the war resolution.’ That’s two more memos that Congress never got.

“In fact, when faced with the intelligence community’s consensus conclusion that there was no formal relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda, the Administration set up their own intelligence shop at DoD to get them some answers better suited to their agenda. Again, there is a fundamental difference between believing incorrect intelligence and making up your own intelligence.

“Where would Republicans and the President draw the line? No where. How else would 70% of the American public be lead to conclude that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11? This was no accident. In fact, I had to correct the President in the first debate when he said it was Saddam Hussein who attacked us. Why else did Vice President Cheney cite intelligence about a meeting between one of the 9/11 hijackers and Iraqis that the intelligence community and the 9/11 Commission concluded never took place? Why else make false statements about Saddam’s ability to launch a chemical or biological weapons attack in under an hour without clearing that with the CIA - which mistrusted the source and refused to include it in the NIE? Why else would they say we would be greeted by liberators when their own intelligence reports said we could be facing a prolonged and determined insurgency? Why else tell Americans that Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion when they had to know that the dilapidated oil infrastructure would never allow that?

“And what about the President’s promises to Congress that he would work with allies, that he would exhaust all options, that he would not rush to war? If the President wants to use quotes of mine from 2002, he might look at the ones that were not the result of relying faulty intelligence and trusting the President’s word. As I said in my floor statement before the authorization vote: “If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day…Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible.”

“In my speech at Georgetown on the eve of the war, I said: ‘the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people…We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult…I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.’ Today our troops continue to bear the burden of that promise broken by this Administration.

“We need to move forward with fixing the mess the Administration has created in Iraq, and I have laid out in detail my views about how to accomplish our goals and get our troops home in a reasonable amount of time. But that does not excuse our responsibility to hold the Administration accountable if they knowingly misled the country when American lives were at stake. We can, and we must, do both. And Republicans need to stop pretending it doesn’t matter if the Administration stretched the truth beyond recognition and start working to find the real answers the country deserves - and the real leadership our troops in Iraq deserve from a Commander in Chief, not just a Campaigner in Chief.”

[wicket]

17. Well said

n/t

[greyl]

5. We aren't required to defend ourselves from all insane accusations

The litmus test in the OP holds a pretty low and inconsequential standard.

That said, Al Gore is more relevant today than John Kerry is. :)

[tomreedtoon]

7. You still think this a nomination fiight. It's an ELECTION fight.

I don't care who the Democratic nominee is. Hell, I'll even support Steve Gerber's comic book character Howard the Duck if he gets the nomination. All I want is a candidate who's willing to stand up and fight back. And so far, none of them have.

This isn't the sissy fight about "who will get the nomination." It's whether any of the current candidates can stand up on their own, against Republican smears, and throw the lies back in the face of the liars. I frankly wish ALL of them would.

And to answer your question directly, it was all the insane accusations that no one had the courage to defend themselves from that killed the Democratic Party in the last two elections. Those insane accusations worked. And until the entire party stands against them, they'll continue to work.

[sandnsea]

9. "the entire party"

Including you. So what did you do in August 2004, help spread the information that disputed the smear boat lies - or did you stand around with your thumb up your ass saying 'why won't he fight'.

[tomreedtoon]

10. So, descending to personal attacks? Well...

I distributed leaflets. I talked to people. I did some door-to-door. And this was after the party had chosen Kerry.

Your turn. What did you do? And why did you descend to a personal attack on me, for asking the simple question "will Democrats ever fight back"? Perhaps you're feeling guilty yourself?

[sandnsea]

11. You didn't answer my question

I didn't ask you what you did to campaign, and I did all of that and more. In other words, I fought back.

I asked what you personally did in August 2004. Did you dispense the information that disputed the smears - or did you whine about why he didn't answer the attacks.

[greyl]

13. That wasn't a personal attack at all.

If it's true, I can understand how defensive you're being.
So, back to John Kerry and Al Gore...

[MH1]

20. That's not what you asked - you know it - to pretend otherwise just

further reveals your disingenuous agenda.

[greyl]

12. I didn't ask you a question.

Why are you claiming to 'answer my question directly'?

I think you're willingly being full of shit and that Al Gore could beat you at Frogger®.

[wisteria]

18. Define what you mean by fighting back. What do YOU expect

of them when you use the term fighting back. After all, there are many ways to fight back. Fists? Words? Turning the other cheek? characterize Malkin with an ugly picture? Lawsuits? Silence, because sometimes not acknowledging something ridiculous and malicious keeps the curious away from viewing it and allows it to die from lack of exposure.

[tomreedtoon]

69. Did "invented the Internet" die from silence? C'mon!

By fighting back, I could mean, within an hour of the slander hitting a candidate, the candidate responds to the remark on the air, on camera, his eyes burning with rage, calling the accusing party everything not censorable on the air - and with proof from his opposition research staff that it came from the Republicans.

Or I could mean, instead of pretending that a Presidential campaign is like the Presidential campaigns run in high school where being nice wins, getting speeches on the stump accusing the Republicans of the things mentioned so often here in DU posts - with the hard research printed in the press releases distributed after the event, and campaign spokesmen there to read it on-camera to illiterate reporters.

Or I could mean the candidate, in a debate, immediately pouncing on his opponent whenever he spews a half-truth or outright lie, embarassing the Republican with the truth he wished to hide.

It means that elections are won by those impasssioned enough to do anything to win them. Democrats haven't shown that much fire since Clinton.

Hasn't it occurred to most of you that the last two candidates lost? Even if voter fraud helped tip the scales, the voting margin was so low that if Gore or Kerry had won, they'd have spent nearly all their time combatting a solid Republican majority in both houses of Congress and get nothing done?

I'm tired of Republicans winning, Democrats losing with "honor," and people on this board who would rather posess the moral high ground than save this nation. Does that spell it out simple enough for you to understand, bunky?

[MH1]

19. Bullshit, utter and complete bullshit. With some horseshit thrown in.

Kerry responded to the attacks in 2004 (go look it up in the Research Forum). What HAPPENED - for you folks who weren't paying attention, notwithstanding that some here would like to see Democrats continue to lose - is that the MSM continuously re-ran the attacks and spent hours on them, implying that those attacks had credibility, while giving minutes - when that - to the responses from Kerry's team. Kerry has said that because of that, they should have spent more money and done a better job on advertising response - as unfair as that would be, when the attackers were getting massive airtime for free.

THIS SHIT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED ON DU OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

As for the Malkin thing, it is juvenile bullshit and doesn't warrant a response to give it legs.

[_dynamicdems]

29. Some people don't get it even if you drill a hole in their skulls

(might break a drill bit here) and pour the facts in.

This is why we lose. Our poor candidates are up against the RW and the "friends like this" Democrats. You know: with friends like this who needs enemies?

I don't remember anyone rushing to John Kerry's defense the way he did to Murtha's or the way Dean did to Feingold's recently. Couple of grumbline remarks that the Swifties were not credible but no real defense. The closest to a defense came from the OTHER side: McCain. Where were our Dems when this was happening?

When other Dems are attacked, THEY are not supposed to defend themselves. Other Dems jump in and cry "foul" for them. However, John Kerry is left swinging in the breeze all by himself. THAT is total bullshit.

[Joe Chi Minh]

47. Well said, MH1. It's a shame we have to waste time and effort

rebutting their nonsense. But it's all they have. What else can they do? Speak truth?

[blm]

24. They were LIES - Dems need to defend themselves from STUPID people who

think the media are here to report the news.


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.

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

[_dynamicdems]

25. Check this out....

See any familiar names?
http://www.patriotproject.com

The Patriot Project’s Board consists of veterans and the family members of veterans who believe that, in a democracy, it is a citizen’s right, and even duty, to speak out when he or she believes a policy or action of their government is misguided or wrong. The Patriot Project’s Board includes:

Judith Droz Keyes – President
Judith Droz Keyes is a partner in an international law firm and has practiced labor and employment law in California for more than 30 years. Keyes’ husband, Lt. Donald Droz, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate and Swift Boat Skipper (PCF-43), earned the Bronze Star for action in the Mekong Delta before he was killed in action in April 1969. Keyes became a spokesperson for the anti-war effort. Keyes’ daughter, Tracy Droz Tragos, produced and directed the 2004 Emmy-award winning documentary film Be Good, Smile Pretty, about her father and his death in Vietnam and the journey of his daughter to know him and to understand that war and that time.

Christopher Ream – Vice President and Secretary
Christopher Ream has practiced law in Silicon Valley since 1971. Mr. Ream served in the U.S. Navy for four years (1964 through 1968), rising to the rank of Lieutenant. He served as Chief Engineering Officer on the USS Whitfield County (LST-1169) in the Western Pacific, where the ship was principally engaged in combat landings and resupply in Vietnam. He was then the Skipper of a Swift Boat on combat patrols in the coastal waters of Vietnam. Among other decorations, he was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat V.

David Thorne – Treasurer
During a thirty year career in small business development David Thorne successfully founded and operated businesses in publishing, political consulting, real estate, and investment management services. He recently sold Body and Soul magazine to Martha Stewart Omnimedia and currently is a Founder and Director of Adviser Investment Management, Inc, the nation’s leading investment specialists in Vanguard and Fidelity mutual funds. Mr. Thorne served in the U.S. Navy from 1966 to 1970, completing service as a Lieutenant. He was stationed aboard the USS Maddox (DD-731) patrolling the Coast of North Vietnam. He also spent a year in Vietnam engaged in harbor operations in Danang, Vung Tau, and Saigon. Mr. Thorne is the co-editor with George Butler of The New Soldier (Macmillan, 1971).

Edward Elliott “Skip” Barker
Edward Elliott “Skip” Barker is an Alabama lawyer, cotton farmer and Vietnam Navy Veteran. He has practiced law in Alabama since 1972 and grown cotton since 1995. Barker served in the U.S. Navy from 1966 to 1969, completing active duty as a Lieutenant. In 1968-1969, Barker served in Vietnam as a Skipper of a Swift Boat, PCF-31, in the lower Mekong Delta and was awarded the Silver Star for combat action. He then served on Admiral Elmo Zumwalt’s staff in Saigon as Assistant Officer in Charge of the Naval Forces Vietnam, Small Boat School as part of the “Vietnamization” program. He retired from the Navy in 1994 with the rank of Captain.

[_dynamicdems]

31. The entire party did not stand against the Swiftie accusations.

Half of them smirked and looked away. The other half looked outraged but did and said what amounted to nothing. That was the big shame of 2004. The Dems literally fed one of their own to the wolves.

Yet we see John Kerry constantly and tirelessly defending other Dems.

He was running straight out during the campaign and he responded as time permitted to the Swifties WITHOUT ANY FRIGGING HELP! That is what totally pisses me off. Other Dems were probably already positioning themselves for '08.

Kerry took the sniper fire without any backup and he KEPT on going. He was going after Bush. That was his target and he should have had people covering his back so he didn't have to deal with the swifties...which were a distraction from the goal. Instead, he had to take valuable time from the campaign and the real issues to deal with their nonsense. OTHER Dems remained silent.

Considering that, he did a pretty good job of answering them even thought the MSM didn't cover that. They interviewed John O'Neill plenty though. Who would have thought such absolutely bogus charges would be given any credence at all? Guess it helps to have the media in your pocket.

Because he's been there, Kerry is better suited to smack down this kind of thing in the future. There isn't anything else they can hit him with either. He's about as vetted as any national candidate could be and I think he's itching to have a go at those swiftie bastards again. I think that the PatriotProject is a pretty pro-active step in that direction. Great organization...check it out...

http://www.patriotproject.com.

[tomreedtoon]

70. Question: are you saying many Dem's betrayed Kerry?

I mean, did much of the party betray their elected nominee by allowing the Swiftboat attacks to go unchallenged?

As mentioned before, I have no special love or hate for Kerry, but as the party's nominated candidate I supported him. I thought that was the way any halfways-sane Democrat would behave.

If you really mean that - if people who call themselves Democrats stabbed their own candidate in the back, and allowed Bush to win a second term because "their man" lost - then damn it, the Democrats deserved to lose. And they deserve their share of blame for the hell our country is in right now.

[MH1]

72. Many, many pundits allowed the charges to stand; but WORSE -

party leaders like Harry Reid are now backing a Republican allegedly turned Democrat who backstabbed Kerry in 2004, in fact raising the specious crap that the Swift Liars did in FEBRUARY 2004 - before the Liars even made their debut.

I repeat, the leaders of the Dem party - and many posters on DU - are BACKING this guy (Webb) for VA Senator in 2006 - in a contested primary against someone who has worked hard for the Dem party for years (as I understand - I am not from VA and only care because I am appalled by Webb). Even Jack Murtha, whom Kerry came out vigorously defending when Murtha was attacked. Even Wes Clark, who should know better, and whose action here I will not forget. (btw, where are the DU screams about choosing sides in a primary now?) Kerry aside, what this guy has written about Vietnam ("Why we fought and why we would do it again" - Vietnam????), that is chilling enough. Oh but he was against invading Iraq from the beginning - because he saw it as a "strategic error".

I've beat this horse to death on DU before and don't want to start a new flame war, and I refuse to link to the articles that prove my allegations. If you are truly appalled and want the details, pm me, and I will send them to you. Then you will see just how much "loyalty" exists in the leadership of the Democratic party.

As for the pundits in 2004, I don't have those links and mostly ignored the pundits at the time myself, but examples have been posted frequently on DU. I do recall thinking during the 2004 campaign that the Democrats were hopelessly underrepresented on the pundit shows...only later did I find out that some of those people were allegedly "liberals." Sigh.

:banghead:

[Mass]

21. SO, should he take time to defend himself from your attacks?\nt

[Inuca]

30. Good point

:-)

[Totally Committed]

23. Thanks, this is one I will watch carefully...

He needs to get up swinging and not sit down until they all fall silent.

TC

[_dynamicdems]

28. Against Malkin? He might as well attack Rush while he's at it! Duh! LOL!

[Totally Committed]

37. And that would be bad because..... ????

I just want to see him start ripping new ones left and right and fighting his ass off, so sue me.

I am so effing sick and tired of Democrats just taking it and taking. Time to start dying standing up instead of living on our knees, if necessary. F*ck Republicnas! I want heads on spikes!

TC

[_dynamicdems]

51. Well, some of them are beneath contempt. Malkin pretty much

falls into the psycho bitch category and it would be beneath the senator's dignity to go one-on-one with the likes of her. It would probably just increase her ratings. If any smack downs occur with her they should be through a second party. Howard Dean or David Wade could be very effective there. Dean recently went to bat for Feingold who has been attacked as unpatriotic, btw. Has he defended himself? Or how about someone Kerry has recently defended against attacks actually sticking up for Kerry in return? Now that would be a novel idea, wouldn't it?

I love the smack downs Kerry has recently administered to Bush, Tweety and Allard. He hasn't been mincing words lately. The Vet vs. the Veterinarian ass kick was a thing of beauty. He rushed to the Senate floor, bitch slapped Allard and accused the repug of violating Senate rules. Kerry's pretty tough and he doesn't mince words. When he attacks it isn't with a sledge hammer, it's with a scapel. They don't even know they are cut till they try to walk away and find themselves sliced in half.

Malkin is too easy. Not worth the effort. She is a poison monger and she isn't just attacking Kerry. Where are the other Democrats? Why are THEY letting her attack them? Could it be that they don't think she's worth a bucket of spit either?

[karynnj]

39. I thought it was great

when David Wade attacked Rush Limbaugh for him. Wade's comment was perfect contrasting Kerry as a highly decorated war veteran with Limbaugh characterized as "donut eating". Very clever - implies exactly what Wade likely wanted to say without stepping over a line.

[Totally Committed]

44. I agree...

But I'd love to see Kerry do it for himself... and not be concerned with "stepping over a line".

Democrats ahave been slandered, maligned, lied about, made to look ridiculous, and MARGINALIZED because of it by the Republican attack machine. I'd dearly love to see EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT grow a new and improved set of balls and go after these assholes mano a mano. F*ck them all!

We need to become a Party of fighters again or the "D" after our name in the voting rolls will stand for "D"efeated.

TC

[karynnj]

53. I think Wade responding from Kerry's office to Limbaugh

was far more appropriate. First, Wade could say Kerry's a highly decorated veteran as opposed to Limbaugh who is not. (I loved Wade's use of "donut eating" to replace the descriptive adjectives he would likely prefer)

Kerry has seriously spoken of the RW media - the Kennedy Center speech for one - and I assume he will again. I doubt he will respond to the daily nonsense - and it is daily as at least one of the RW lunatics says somehing each day. The contrast between the serious work Kerry does in a dignified way and the spewing of filth they do is pretty extreme.

[_dynamicdems]

50. That's something I've noticed. David Wade has been

great as an attack dog. I love his way with words.

[TayTay]

41. Not only himself

but he wil defend himself against attacks on other Dems.

http://patriotproject.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

Go to the about page. Read who put this up. Read the section on tracing out the money on the RW smear attacks.

Yeah, they are dead serious about defusing the RW attack machine. And they are putting, time, money, researchers and effort into it.

[rinsd]

52. I think Kerry should get a freerepublic account!

And individually defend himself each time he is attacked.

[karynnj]

55. Great use of his time

They would also throw him off in less than an hour.

[rinsd]

64. That was the point....

Responding to Malkin is a waste of his time.

[blm]

65. heheh... I thought your post was pretty damn funny.

Nods to you.

[rinsd]

67. Thanks

It has nothing to do with not wanting to see Kerry fight but my feeling that responding to the crap falling out of Malkin's mouth is beneath him.

Shit its beneath US!

[blm]

68. I read it loud and clear - you hit the right note, imo.

.

[_dynamicdems]

63. LOL! Hey that is a great recreational activity for DU'ers who want

to annoy the Hell out of the Freepers.

[blondeatlast]

60. Let Michelle preach to her slack-jawed, couch-potato choir.

John Kerry et al. have better things to do and more important things to worry about.

She's only famous if we LET her be.

[ProSense]

61. I can't believe anyone would advocate that Sen. Kerry respond

to a nothing like Malkin. That's like responding everytime a car blows out exhaust! Wait...the Senator's numerous statements about pollution seem applicable. Malkin is like pollution!

[Dr Fate]

66. I'd prefer Kerry attack larger media personalities...

...big names like Russert, Matthews, etc- call them out, to their face on their lies & distortions.

I'd rather see him pick a fight rather than take the bait, in other words.

I doubt he will do much of that either- but who knows- he does listen to the base more than most.

[TayTay]

74. How about an ongoing project to document the RW smear attack

List the names of who is doing this, where the funding is coming from and how the smears are organized. How about one that 'connects the dots' about the names from one incident of 'swift-boating' to the next.

How about one that puts those names up on the web in a searchable way. How about an ongoing research project that is serious about making these resources available to other Dems and to the public at large.

http://www.patriotproject.com/

Check the list of people on this. They are all 'Kerry people.' This is an ongoing project.

[karynnj]

75. He already did

In late January, when a OBL tape came out, Tweety and the other cable people started talking about how OBL sounded like the Democrats. Kerry came out with a strong statement that if Bush hd anot let OBL get away, we wouldn't have these tapes and that the comments were outrageous.

He then wrote his first Dkos diary, that became so large they split it in 2 - there were well over 1000 comments.

[saltpoint]

73. If Kerry could somehow scrape together a private militia, maybe

manned by his fellow vets in 'Nam, he could launch an air strike on Malkin's house, and/or radio broadcasting studio.

That'd teach her!

________________

I think in a year or two or ten, John Kerry is still going to be John Kerry.

Michelle Malkin is still going to be Michelle Malkin.

That's punishment enough for Ms. Malkin, and it frees John Kerry to continue to serve others, as he has for decades.

[MH1]

76. Heh heh, so true

I think in a year or two or ten, John Kerry is still going to be John Kerry.

Michelle Malkin is still going to be Michelle Malkin.

That's punishment enough for Ms. Malkin...

And having had the good fortune to meet John Kerry once in a casual situation, I'd say he's pretty happy being who he is.

[saltpoint]

79. Hi, MH1. I envy you your opportunity to meet John Kerry.

I'd love to meet him, if only to thank him for being such a tremendous model of a public servant.

[MH1]

81. I mostly stuttered

but I think he got that message from me.

;-)

I hope you do get the opportunity to meet him some day. So far, that day is in my personal history as "BEST.DAY.EVER".

[karynnj]

77. I agree with the comments below the line

Not to mention that Kerry is surrounded by family and friends who love and respect him.

[saltpoint]

78. I put the line in there to show I only agree with the part below it, too.

But I like to have a little fun now and then. Malkin is a hate-spewer. They pay her to smear Democrats.

Such a dark force moving through the airwves, that Michelle Malkin.

[MH1]

80. "That Man is a Success"

That Man is a Success

Who has lived well,
    laughed often and loved much;
Who has gained the respect of intelligent men
    and the love of children;
Who has filled his niche
    and accomplished his task;
Who leaves the world better than he found it,
    whether by improved poppy, a perfect poem,
    or a rescued soul;
Who never lacked appreciation of earth's beauty
    or failed to express it.
Who looked for the best in others
    and gave the best he had.

I'd say this describes John Kerry pretty well.

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Sui-Generis/Emerson/success.htm

(your post made me think of this.)

[karynnj]

84. Great Poem MH1 - it really does sound like Kerry (n/t)

[LittleClarkie]

82. Kerry's being attacked

and it looked like SO much fun you thought you'd join in, right?

[mtnsnake]

83. Kerry needs to learn how to fight back like a woman

...like Hillary, for instance. With passion!

Enough of this turn the other cheek nonsense. Maybe Hillary can give John a few pointers in how to put some smack on the right wing.

:smoke:

[zulchzulu]

85. Exsqueeze me, but Kerry DID defend himself...

It didn't help that even after Kerry mentioned attacks on his character that the MSM kept repeating the lies...

There were plenty of veterans that were out speaking out against what Bush/Rove/Fox News/MSM were doing to Kerry...and maybe you just weren't paying attention...granted Kerry could have cold-cocked Chimpy in the first debates and stomped on his neck (which I would have done), but...