John Kerry: Not A Game (calls out Bunning)

[ProSense]

Not A Game

By John Kerry - March 1, 2010

Too often, the way it's played and the way it's reported, Americans might think everything that happens in Washington is a game.

But look, this is anything but a game. The business before the Senate is literally life and death on many issues, and the parliamentary tricks to delay and obstruct the basic workings of our government have real-world consequences.

What am I talking about? Start with the latest example: one Senator's effort to delay the votes on some critically-needed legislation for Americans out of work and hurting in our economy.

A lot of people today are clicking on this news story about Senator Bunning.

Political theater? Much more than that. Here's what's at stake: 2000 federal highway workers were furloughed this morning, losing the pay that their families depend on and halting work on critical national infrastructure. Nearly 1.2 million could lose their unemployment benefits without an extension of that program, pulling away a critical financial lifeline.

This has to end.

more

[MBS]

1. This indeed has to end.

His last sentence is right on the money:
"The framers invested the minority with rights to protect the Senate - not to destroy it."

[ChicagoSuz219]

2. Bitter, grumpy, old man...

...he's pissed at McConnell for making him step down & taking it out on the people in his state. Shame on him!!

[wisteria]

3. Senator Kerry could use some decent comments there.

It appears all the haters don't give a damn about those who are unemployed, but they do care about taking unfair shots at Kerry for trying to point out the hypocrisy of Binning and the Republicans.

[Arkana]

4. Aaaaaaaand the so-called "liberals" are pissing all over him

for a seven-year-old Iraq War vote that probably still haunts him to this day.

Those people cannot distinguish their friends from their enemies anymore.

Kerry's MY senior senator, he's all that remains of a once-proud legacy of MA senators (now that Senator Gone Wild has usurped Kennedy's seat), and he deserves better then what those reactionary whack jobs gave him.

[karynnj]

5. The "liberals" doing that may be

partially a "present" from people like Joe Trippi and Matt Taibbi, who seemed to never get over Howard Dean leaving. I recently read Trippi's egotistical book, "The revolution will not be televised" - written before the general election of 2004 happened. After reading a little article in New York Magazine on some bad behavior by Taibbi, http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/02/this_is_what_happens_if_you_te.html , I googled to better understand what he said in 2004 on Kerry.

In both cases, these are things written, after Kerry won the nomination , before the general election. In 2008, there was much talk of PUMAs. The fact is that in 2004, there were many prominent pundits - like these two - who were every bit as bad as the 2008 PUMAS. Unlike in 2008, when there was considerable push back by most Democrats, in 2004, the more prominent Democratic media people - from the left or the Clinton wing both attacked Kerry. This in addition to the slimiest attack campaign by the Republicans and an egotistical VP, who thought he was smarter. Yet in spite of this, Kerry would have won had there been adequate voting machines. He deserved better from his party.

Before Dean pulled out, he attacked Kerry saying that he was in agreement with Bush on Iraq, controlled by corporations and lobbyists - all false. This was Trippi's language - and Edwards used the later part in his Trippi run campaign. In Trippi's book, he distorts Kerry's position on Iraq in fall 2002 and spring 2003. (Even bizarrely claiming that Dean "coined" the phrase "regime change at home". then later claiming he changed - when he was saying what he always did.)

Tiabbi was worse. He completely trashed Kerry's convention speech - calling almost all of it BS, lies and platitudes. Perhaps the strangest claim was that Kerry stole Howard Dean's pointing at a flag and speaking of patriotism belonging to both parties. Ignoring the fact that that was not original, Kerry very prominently made the same point far more eloquently and far better remembered in 1971! http://www.nypress.com/article-9914-the-liberal-case-against-john-kerry.html

These PUMAs (2004 vintage) and their readers have led many of these people to not see that Kerry was the most liberal nominee we have had in decades. He was number 6 most liberal.

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. Kerry voted the straight PNAC/DLC party line between 2000-2004

Because those fucking fools he surrounded himself with like Will Marshall and Richard Holbrooke told him he had to "run to the center" (READ: DLC right wing) in order to be "credible" as a candidate. He definitely did NOT run as the guy from 1971 who asked "how do you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake". And since you Kerry fans always bring up the BCCI stuff, then you cannot possibly say that John Kerry had any reason to trust the Chimp when he voted for the Iraq War authorization. ALL the senators should have known better, but Kerry especially had no excuse. He knew what kind of bastards the Bush Crime Family are, yet voted to enable them anyway.

Let's cut the history revision already.

[Mass]

8. I think you make their point. Yes, his IWR was wrong, but what does this have to do with the issue.

Are you so full of hate that you cannot acknowledge he is correct in this instance? Because this is what these people are doing: not interested by unemployed people, just by the IWR, and the same people do that again and again. For all I know, they could be libertarians.

[karynnj]

9. I am not revising history

The fact is that Kerry's votes were never in line with the DLC, which Dean also belonged to. If they were, the National Journal would not have been able to label Kerry the most liberal Senator using 2003 votes. Though he was not the most liberal Senator, he was in the top dozen most liberal Senators for the time frame you are speaking of. He was the most liberal man in the race. Dean ran far to the left of where he had governed in VT.

What Kerry said when he voted was exactly what he said in fall and in January he called on Bush to do what he said he would - to go to war as a last resort. You ignore that in summer and fall 2002, Kerry was one of the strongest voices arguing that Bush could not attack Iraq under the 2001 terror resolution and should work with the UN. In Kerry's speech when he voted, he credited the Democrats with pushing Bush to go to the UN to get the invasive inspections needed. Now, Kerry himself has said that his vote was wrong and it is clear that he greatly regrets it - but the fact is that through all the years he has given just one reason for that vote. He voted to give Bush the leverage that he thought might be needed to reach a situation where war could be avoided. The obvious reason in retrospect that it was wrong was that it prematurely gave Bush the authority to go to war - with no real test of whether the conditions were met. It left him in the position of only being able to speak out (which he did) when Bush ignored his own promises. As Kerry said in his IWR speech that Iraq did not then represent an imminent danger, he should have given nearly the same speech supporting Bush going to the UN, but saying a yes vote was premature.

You ignore that Kerry was the one targeted by David Frum, a former speech writer, in the National Review singled out Kerry (with Germany and France) as likely never to think they were not rushing to war. This in response to Kerry's speech at Georgetown. Kerry was routinely labeled "anti-war" throughout 2002 and 2003, until late spring. This is when Dean was able to position himself as the only viable candidate, who was against the war. This simplified message distorted the complexities of both of their histories to make what looked like a stark difference.

The fact is that in fall of 2002, before the vote, Howard Dean was rather aggressive himself. He spoke of giving Saddam a deadline by which he had to prove that he had no WMD. Had that been the resolution, it would have been even easier for Bush to argue that he had the right to invade than with the IWR. Dean also said that he would have voted for Biden/Lugar, also Kerry's preferred bill - which Bush would have violated as well. There was NO Dean statement either way when the vote was taken or soon afterward that he would vote for or against it.

From Kerry's 2002 and 2003 public statements, he was not for invading. What I am saying Trippi lied about is that he says Kerry (with Gephardt, Edwards, and Lieberman) had in 2003 argued for going to war - which in Kerry's case is simply not true. Now, it is fair to use Kerry's vote, which Dean did - just as it was fair to use the fact that Dean had no foreign policy experience. But, it was not fair to distort what Kerry's position was - and in fact, the voters did not buy the Dean campaigns characterization. In Iowa, Kerry got more of the voters, who said they were anti-war than Dean did.

As to BCCI, you conflate the solid work Kerry did that showed how this international bank was used to covertly launder drug money and money from other criminal enterprises with the Michael Moore et al Bush crime family conspiracy theories. There is a huge difference between Kerry's work and the BFEE stuff. The fact is that Congressmen had already voted under Clinton that it would be better if Saddam did not head Iraq. The situation was far more complex than you want to see it. The European countries were going to lift the sanctions, which should have been done years before.

These two men were 2004 PUMAs, unwilling to accept that the Dean dream was over. Tiabbi's column is best described as an articulate temper tantrum. It is complete nonsense to speak of Kerry stealing Dean's words on patriotism - something Kerry has spoken of eloquently though his entire life.

[blm]

10. Try being ACCURATE - Kerry voted for resolution, then stood with weapon inspectors AGAINST invasion

because they determined there was no reason to USE military force. You NEVER show discernment and play right into the RW corpmedia whenever you make your statements against Kerry. You act just like all the Dem HAWKS who stayed sided with Bush and refused to stand publicly with Kerry and the weapon inspectors, even though they KNEW he was acting with integrity.


Corporate media works on SOME lefties - even those who THINK they are above its influence. By crafting the narrative that a vote for IWR could ONLY mean war, they made sure Bush never had to be held accountable for making a decision that ran CONTRARY to weapon inspectors' findings.

[Arkana]

16. so for 4 years of his 25-year Senate career he didn't do as you liked

so he's an awful Senator and deserves derision?

[ProSense]

18. Not four years, the IWR vote.

The reference to 2000 to 2004 is pure hyperbole. Kerry was one of the most progressive voters during that period: voting against Bush tax cuts, the bankruptcy bill, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Rice. He was pushing stronger campaign finance reform and trying to close the tax haven loophole.

The IWR vote, which is completely mischaracterized, negates everything.

[karynnj]

25. I looked at just one of the years, 2001

and compared Kerry and Kennedy because there is no way that Kennedy was DLC and the fact is that other than a set of votes on campaign finance reform, Kerry and Kennedy voted together almost all of the time.

[blm]

44. In 2003 primary, Kerry's lifetime record was closest to Wellstone's of any Dem candidate

including Gephardt and Kucinich.

[Sebastian Doyle]

28. I never said he was an awful senator

Aside from those 4 years of deliberate right wing pandering. But he was a horrible Presidential candidate.

I also have no problem with Kerry calling Bunning out on his bullshit. I was merely addressing the Dean bashing crap from the usual suspects who haven't gotten over the 2004 primaries yet.

[ProSense]

29. "Aside from those 4 years of deliberate right wing pandering." Utter BS. n/t

[politicasista]

38. **crickets**.

People should try saying that to his face. Had any other favorite liberal progressive (and no disrepect to them at all) had said this, you would see less snark in this thread.

It's almost like they want so hard to believe the media rather than the Dem.

[karynnj]

36. I did not bash Dean - Dean actually did support Kerry in the general election

I spoke of Trippi, who in his book blamed DEAN for his (Trippi's) brilliant campaign not working and Tiabbi.

Kerry did extremely well in a year that was not likely to be a Democratic win. The week before the election, Gallop found that 59% said the country was doing either fairly well or very well. Less that 50% thought the country was going in the right direction. Not to mention, the two men mentioned dishonestly attacked him.

As to not getting over the 2004 primaries, you are not in a position to speak. I quite liked the 2004 primaries.

[blm]

37. It wasn't Dean bashing - It was bashing some political word games from those around Dean. I've

also noted more than a few times here at DU that BOTH camps exaggerated their differences in the primary though they were never that far apart on the biggest issues of the election.

[karynnj]

39. They did exaggerate the differences - and the reason was people like me

In 2003, as we began to see the field, after a quick look at the field, the two that most impressed me were Kerry and Dean. After reading more on both - after reading more about them I was convinced that I would be happy with either and really did not want the rest of them - especially Lieberman and Edwards. My biggest concern was that as they were both New Englanders, more liberal than the rest, and both anti-war, that they would be splitting the same group of people. My concern was that they could knock each other out if they evenly split that pool. As I learned more of both and watched the debates, I favored Kerry more, but as Dean soared I had no problem with him as the nominee.

I was surprised looking back on DU to that time frame (via searches). It is shocking to me that many of the Dean supporters here migrated to Edwards when Dean was out. On issue after issue, Kerry and Dean were far closer - especially on the war, where Edwards was not only a co-sponsor of the resolution, but he spoke in favor of it for most of 2003. I suspect it was that some Dean supporters believed 100% every accusation the Dean campaign made in February 2004 as Kerry replaced Dean as the front runner. The shocking thing was that even some of the pundits on the left did this. (A notable example was that Nichols of the Nation, speaking of who next to support went to Edwards - even saying that though he didn't have backup, Edwards (LCV in the 60s) was better on the environment than John Kerry (life time LCV at 96). ) My best guess is that it was the fact that he beat Dean and they felt it was unfair because they were already certain months before that Dean would be the nominee.

[JI7]

41. no, it's the Dean supporters who can't get over it including Obama not including him in his admin

Dean would lose even bigger than he did in 2004 if he ran against Obama. that's why Dean doesn't run. no matter how much his supporters talk about drafting him.

[blm]

11. Dean actually criticized Kerry for 'regime change at home' saying HE would never use those words

as if Kerry was being unpatriotic...but, then....I think Dean was just seeing an opportunity to pile on with the media against Kerry only to gain political advantage...I doubt he actually meant it.

[karynnj]

24. True

I really don't get why Trippi made that claim, because even if Dean had used the phrase and no one reported it (as Trippi claims), he did not coin it. It actually was not that inventive that it could be patented. The main reason I am surprised is that it completely contradicts his later point, where speaking of early 2004, he says Kerry and the others switched to Dean's position. But, the comment that Kerry was known to have said and which was covered in the media was in March/April 2003 - the height of popularity of the war.

The fact is that Trippi and his rhetoric were bad for the Democrats in both 2004 and 2008. It is true that he had something to do with Dean's using the internet to raise money, but the fact is that that capability was already there - developed for various companies that wanted to sell things over the internet. They also did create a community, but the fact is that it has to be in parallel to a real world campaign. (Trippi incidentally blames Dean ultimately for it not working. In 2008, he ran the Edwards campaign and though they had the most support in the blogosphere, again it did not translate to votes.)

As to Dean piling on, that is what happens in any campaign - and Kerry's team called Dean on comments that he made that came out not quite right.

[Lorien]

20. Um, your post is the first one I see that's about the messanger and not the message

This is about Bunning and the unemployed, not your Senator.

[politicasista]

33. She was talking about the comments at TPM n/t

[politicasista]

7. Kerry is too smart for DU, the liberal blogs and America

JAHO, but people will never forgive him for five things:

1. The infamous vote. (You know)

2. Beating primary favorites.

3. Not contesting Ohio.

4. Not being interesting (depends on how you define it).

5. And just being a rich person/politician.

Unfortunately, people will poo-poo everything else, because it's never good or liberal enough.



Good thread though. :kick:

[Jennicut]

13. I like John Kerry. Always will. He would have made a much better

President then the 4 years we had to endure with Bush. He has made mistakes and admitted them. He is an all around intelligent, good man. Hey, I am stuck with Lieberman. I would take Kerry ANY day over that.

[Mopar151]

15. So true. I have never gotten the "all or nothing" approach... n/t

[politicasista]

31. Agree with both of you

Haven't posted in a while, so just stirring the pot in a way.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

14. I think there is a number 6

6. Not standing up to the swiftboaters. I think if he had done that things would have been much different.

[blm]

19. Media revisionism that became conventional wisdom. He DID counter swifts and not ONE network would

carry his speech to Firefighters Convention on Aug19,2004, where he attacked them and challenged Bush to debate their services publicly instead of hiding behind the swifts and their lies. For some perspective, that would be similar to every network refusing to carry Obama's speech on race after the monthlong RevWright videos. Even more egregious, though, since Kerry was the Dem nominee at the TIME, and the networks made their decision to ignore this speech knowing full well what was contained in the speech.

Kerry also didn't have Dem party spokesmen willing to further his attacks on swifts or Bush on camera, and certainly didn't have the backup of the best known Dems at the time who would only speak publicly in FAVOR of Bush and his military leadership.

BTW....When Lawrence O'Donnell exploded on a swift on MSNBC during that time, he was not invited back for some time.

Funny how MUCH the media can get away with their revisionism because so few Democrats can remember the campaign with any accuracy.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

23. You think giving one speech to the Firefighters Convention

is an acceptable counter to the swiftboaters, who were airing commercials all over the place. You think that was sufficient when you had a media who were all too quick to jump on the swiftboat bandwagon?

And now we wonder why Dems are seen as weak.

[blm]

26. That wasn't ALL he did - it was just the most glaring example of media's complicity with BushInc

during that time. I also stated CLEARLY that Dem spokespeople would NOT further Kerry's attacks and neither would Dem lawmakers. And analysts like Lawrence O'Donnell who DID take on the swifts combatively were not called back for appearances.

Have you EVER tried reading comprehensively instead of relying on your preferred narrative that has been fully fed by your corporate media fed revisionism?

From DU's Research Forum:


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...




(August 19, 2004 -- 01:26 PM EDT)

WELL, IT SEEMS there wasn't something in the air.

I didn't know the Kerry campaign was finally going to return fire today over this Swift Boat nonsense. But this morning, in a speech to the International Association of Fire Fighters in Boston, he responded squarely to the attacks. You can see complete text of the speech and the new response-ad they're running. But the key point is that he aimed his remarks at precisely the right target ...

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.
<...>


This is a good thing -- and not simply because Kerry has to respond to the president's surrogates who are trying (and, to an extent, succeeding) in damaging his candidacy with scurrilous and discredited attacks.

There is a meta-debate going on here, one that I'm not sure even the practitioners fully articulate to themselves and one that I'm painfully aware the victims don't fully understand.

Let's call it the Republicans' Bitch-Slap theory of electoral politics.

It goes something like this.

On one level, of course, the aim behind these attacks is to cast suspicion upon Kerry's military service record and label him a liar. But that's only part of what's going on.

Consider for a moment what the big game is here. This is a battle between two candidates to demonstrate toughness on national security. Toughness is a unitary quality, really -- a personal, characterological quality rather than one rooted in policy or divisible in any real way. So both sides are trying to prove to undecided voters either that they're tougher than the other guy or at least tough enough for the job.

<…>

This meta-message behind the president's attacks on Kerry's war record is more consequential than many believe. So hitting back hard was critical on many levels.

more



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

[spiritual_gunfighter]

42. I have to admit that I was not as politically engaged

in 2004 as I am now, so I had no idea about most of this stuff. Thanks for posting it.

[blm]

43. You're welcome...and, you're not alone. MOST Dems think the same about 2004 thanks to corpmedia.

Corpmedia is THE most crucial and potent weapon in the fascists' arsenal.

[karynnj]

40. That one speech was not the total response

The biggest response was the official record and the defense of all the people in Kerry's boats. In the second place, there were not paid commercials everywhere. There was the media that picked them up and gave them both credibility by treating them as "news" and more coverage than they paid for.

Not to mention, Kerry did have his surrogates out there on this - Cleland was exceptional as were several of Kerry's men on the boat and Clark. The fact is it is rarely the candidate who personally speaks on dirty tricks attacks. It is the normal role of the VP to do so - but the media and party pushed Kerry to pick the narcissist Edwards, who would promise to attack and then fail to do so, while grinning at the media and saying the campaign did not want him attacking Bush or anyone else.

The fact is that in hindsight, it is easy to say that Kerry should have gone on 60 minutes or something to speak about it - but it is not likely that would have had much impact. Using substantial money in August would have been money he would then not have in October and November.

The problem is the media opted to play with the SBVT long after they were discredited. How do you run against a media that is tilted against you to that degree? One answer is seen in the fact that Kerry advised Obama to not take public financing. He also was the person put out to defend this because the reason for doing it was obvious given 2004. What platform would the media have given Kerry to defend himself? Did you actually see the coverage of the statement before the Firefighters? It did not get much coverage - even as they continued to give the liars hours of time.

[karynnj]

27. Kerry responded to the the SBVT and they thought the response was adequate at the time

The fact is that Kerry's response was exactly what any reasonable person would have expected him to do. The SBVT had come out first in April. At that point, Kerry put his entire service record on his web site, other than the medical reports that he made available for a couple of weeks to the media. The service reports included fitness reports that coverd the entire nearly 4 years - all glowingly positive. In addition, the media before the convention, spoke of the Nixon tapes speaking of Kerry - and on finding that he was a clean cut war hero, Nixon called on his people to destroy him. In addition, every man in his boat for any of those medals supported him.

Within a day of the book coming out, the Kerry team sent the media a 36 page document pointing out provable lies.

Between that and what the media already had when the SBVT disputed the official Navy record, you would think they might have asked the SBVT for some proof - certainly if he was such a problem there would have been a telex or two written. No, instead, as the Kerry team disapproved one lie after another, the media just went to next accusation - even though they should have considered the source discredited from day one.

As to why this would have seemed to be enough - remember the War Room that Clinton had. Their goal was to have a response out in the same news cycle. Now, "response" did not mean a complete proof that the charge had no merit - which is what Kerry's stuff said. A response was just some form of pushback. If you remember the draft story or Flowers, they backtracked multiple times on the initial response.

Here, Kerry had the official record and all the closest witnesses on his side. The media, pure and simple, engaged in a character assassination.

[politicasista]

34. Point proven. Not good enough for some

He should have just choked Bush and the Swifties until their faces turned red and passing out. Not condoinging violence or anything.

OTOH, did not mean to give any poster one to bash on, just seeing it like it still is six years later.

Unfortunately, these replies will get crickets, but people just don't care anymore about facts. They do the same to Obama everyday.

[blm]

35. and THIS is a glaring reason WHY the corpmedia undermined Kerry whenever they had the opportunity:

Note the DATE. Corpmedia did NOT want Kerry in the WH.


06/02/2003
KERRY SEEKS TO REVERSE FCC’S “WRONGHEADED VOTE”

COMMISSION DECISION MAY VIOLATE LAWS PROTECTING SMALL BUSINESSES; KERRY TO FILE RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a “Resolution of Disapproval” as a means to overturn today’s decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America’s small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC’s decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today’s media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC’s decision, Kerry said:

“Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today’s wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

“Today’s vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public’s access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission’s responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today’s vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy.”

-- 30 --

[Arkana]

17. It's been six years.

We got a Democrat elected to office. The Bush years are finally, at long last, over.

Are we still going to hear about this in 2020 or 2024? Geez, I don't think Republicans gave Nixon this much shit for not contesting 1960.

[politicasista]

32. Probably n/t

[Lorien]

21. You miss the point of the OP entirely. nt

[politicasista]

30. No, I got point of the article

just saying the list of things people will never forgive the senator for. The comments from TPM, HuffPo, and sometimes Daily Kos reinforce that. Also, post #14 is another example.

[saltpoint]

12. In a concurrent post, Jim Bunning cites FOX News as his information

source.

Note John Kerry's contextually perfect invocation of the framers' intent.

I believe the axis of public service is ably embodied by Mr. Kerry. Mr. Bunning? Eh, not so much.

[Cha]

22. Thanks Senator Kerry..

he really knows how to get to the heart of the matter.