SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (8992)8/20/2004 6:16:30 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Newfound Records Contradict Kerry Critic

By Maria L. La Ganga, Times Staff Writer
latimes.com

Questions have arisen about the military record of one of
Sen. John F. Kerry's harshest accusers, a Swift boat
skipper during the Vietnam War and one of a group of
veterans running ads that accuse the Democratic
presidential nominee of lying about his combat service.

Larry Thurlow,
a member of Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth, won a Bronze Star stemming from the same
incident in which the Massachusetts senator received the
same award 35 years ago.

Kerry earned the medal for rescuing Army Lt. Jim
Rassmann,
who had been knocked off Kerry's Swift
boat when a mine exploded nearby on March 13, 1969.
Kerry, who also received a Purple Heart after being
injured during the explosion, pulled Rassmann out of the
Bay Hap River.

Rassmann's and Kerry's accounts of the incident, along
with Kerry's Bronze Star citation, describe the rescue as
happening under enemy fire, as does the official Navy
report. In addition, a damage survey filed with the Navy
report said that three of the five boats involved sustained
"battle damage," and Thurlow's boat had "three 30 cal
bullet holes about super structure."

But in interviews since the anti-Kerry group formed in
the spring, Thurlow has repeatedly said that there was no
enemy fire.


He said Kerry's boat left the area, while other boats
went to help the wounded and stabilize the damaged
boat.

In the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad, Thurlow says:
"When the chips were down, you could not count on
John Kerry."

But in an interview with The Times in June, Thurlow
admitted that he had been thrown overboard from a
nearby boat during the chaos, making it difficult for him
to have seen the entire incident.


The Washington Post on Thursday reported that
Thurlow's military records contradicted him, describing
"enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed
at all of the boats involved in the incident.

Thurlow's Bronze Star citation, the Post said, lauds him
for helping wounded comrades and a damaged boat
"despite enemy bullets flying about him."


Kerry's boat, PCF-94, was one of several in a flotilla
going down the river when the mine went off, damaging
another, PCF-3. Thurlow commanded nearby PCF-51.

In a Times interview Thursday, Thurlow stood by his
story. He said that, though he still had his medal, he had
lost the paperwork that went with it.

"If I'm required to be under fire to get that medal, I need
to give it back," said Thurlow, who lives in Bogue, Kan.

"I got it under fraudulent circumstances."

Lt. Cmdr. George M. Elliott signed the recommendations
that led to both Kerry's and Thurlow's medals, according
to the Post.

Elliott, also a member of the anti-Kerry veterans group,
has called the Silver Star into question since the ad ran;
he has not questioned Kerry's Bronze Star.

When Thurlow was pressed Thursday about how his Bronze Star citation could be
wrong, he told The Times that Kerry wrote up the report on which Elliott based his
recommendations and that Elliott "accepted John's report at face value."

But neither Thurlow nor his group has proved that Kerry was the sole source of the
battle account that led to his Bronze Star, according to a Times review of the ad's
allegations published Tuesday.


*

Times staff writer Stephen Braun contributed to this report.



To: Mephisto who wrote (8992)8/21/2004 2:42:31 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
PITTSBURGH - An American journalist who commanded a boat
alongside John Kerry in Vietnam broke a 35-year silence Saturday
and defended the Democratic presidential candidate against
Republican critics of his military service.

The former
commander's
statements came a day
after the Democratic
nominee filed a
complaint with federal
officials that accused
the president's
re-election campaign of
breaking the law over a
TV ad that denigrates
Kerry's Vietnam war
record.


Weighing in on what
has become the most bitterly divisive issue of the 2004 campaign for
the White House, William Rood of the Chicago Tribune said the tales
told by Kerry's detractors are untrue.

"There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more
than 35 years ago -- three officers and 15 crew members. Only two
of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February
28, 1969," he wrote in a story that appeared on the newspaper's
Web site Saturday.

"One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a
Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other."


Before now, wanting to put memories of war and killing behind him,
Rood had refused all requests for interviews on the subject, including
from his own newspaper. "But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I
know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what
happened were overblown." he wrote.

"The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast
doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events
has splashed doubt on all of us.

"It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to
listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come
from people who were not there," he added.

Kerry accuses Bush campaign of breaking the law


Kerry's complaint to the Federal Elections Commission about the ads
produced and aired by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth alleges
"overwhelming evidence" that the veterans group is "coordinating its
expenditures on advertising and other activities designed to
influence the presidential election with the Bush-Cheney Campaign,"
Kerry spokeswoman Allison Dobson told NBC News.

The complaint comes at the end of a week in which Kerry himself
accused Bush of having the Swift Boat veterans do "his dirty work"
and media reports have exposed connections between Bush, his
family and other high-profile Texas politicians. In a Thursday speech,
the Massachusetts senator said: "The fact that the president won't
denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to
know."

Steve Schmidt of the Bush campaign said charges that Bush is in
league with the veterans' group are "absolutely and completely
false. The Bush campaign has never and will never question John
Kerry's service in Vietnam." But the Bush campaign has, in fact,
refused to specifically disavow the Swift Boat veterans' ad, in which
fellow Vietnam veterans say Kerry acted dishonorably to win the
Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts that he was
awarded for his service in Vietnam.

msnbc.msn.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (8992)8/21/2004 10:39:11 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad
By KATE ZERNIKE and JIM RUTENBERG
The New York Times
August 20, 2004

After weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations that he had lied
about his Vietnam service record to win medals and build a political career,
Senator John Kerry shot back yesterday, calling those statements
categorically false and branding the people behind them tools of the Bush campaign.

His decision to take on the group directly was a measure of how the
group that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has
catapulted itself to the forefront of the presidential campaign.
It has advanced its cause in a book, in a television advertisement
and on cable news and talk radio shows, all in an attempt to discredi
Mr. Kerry's war record, a pillar of his campaign.

How the group came into existence is a story of how veterans
with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's antiwar statements
in the early 1970's allied themselves with Texas Republicans.

Mr. Kerry called them "a front for the Bush campaign" - a charge the campaign denied.

A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web
of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures
and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.
Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial
financing from two men with ties to the president and his
family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's,
the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's
presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare
Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice
president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's
television commercial was produced by the same team that
made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an
oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced
off in the 1988 presidential election.


The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry
the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator
of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close
examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove
to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered
as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records
and the men's own statements.

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished
praise on him, some as recently as last year.


In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's
authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley
to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear
admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed
with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say
anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good man."


In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in
June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that
led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It took guts, and I admire that."

George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group,
flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up
for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight, declaring at
a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a
Silver Star was "an act of courage." At that same event,
Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out
against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the
"bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats."

"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters
and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard.
"He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

Those comments echoed the official record.
In an evaluation
of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders,
ranked him as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage,
judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the second-highest
distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry
"unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader
in his peer group."

The Admiral Calls

It all began last winter, as Mr. Kerry was wrapping up the
Democratic nomination. Mr. Lonsdale received a call at his
Massachusetts home from his old commander in Vietnam,
Mr. Hoffmann, asking if he had seen the new biography of
the man who would be president.

Mr. Hoffmann had commanded the Swift boats during the
war from a base in Cam Ranh Bay and advocated a search-and-destroy
campaign against the Vietcong - the kind of tactic Mr. Kerry criticized
when he was a spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War
in 1971. Shortly after leaving the Navy in 1978, he was issued a
letter of censure for exercising undue influence on cases in
the military justice system.

Both Mr. Hoffmann and Mr. Lonsdale had publicly lauded Mr. Kerry
in the past. But the book, Mr. Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," while it
burnished Mr. Kerry's reputation, portrayed the two men as reckless
leaders whose military approach had led to the deaths of countless
sailors and innocent civilians. Several Swift boat veterans compared
Mr. Hoffmann to the bloodthirsty colonel in the film "Apocalypse
Now" - the one who loves the smell of Napalm in the morning.

The two men were determined to set the record, as they saw it, straight.
"It was the admiral who started it and got the rest of us into it," Mr. Lonsdale said.
Mr. Hoffmann's phone calls led them to Texas and to
John E. O'Neill, who at one point commanded the same
Swift boat in Vietnam, and whose mission against him dated to 1971,
when he had been recruited by the Nixon administration
to debate Mr. Kerry on "The Dick Cavett Show."

Mr. O'Neill, who pressed his charges against Mr. Kerry
in numerous television appearances Thursday, had spent the
33 years since he debated Mr. Kerry building a successful law
practice in Houston, intermingling with some of the state's most
powerful Republicans and building an impressive client list.
Among the companies he represented was Falcon Seaboard,
the energy firm founded by the current lieutenant governor of Texas,
David Dewhurst, a central player in the Texas redistricting plan
that has positioned state Republicans to win more Congressional seats this fall.

Mr. O'Neill said during one of several interviews that he had come
to know two of his biggest donors, Harlan Crow and Bob J. Perry,
through longtime social and business contacts.

Mr. Perry, who has given $200,000 to the group, is the top
donor to Republicans in the state, according to Texans for
Public Justice, a nonpartisan group that tracks political
donations.
He donated $46,000 to President Bush's
campaigns for governor in 1994 and 1998. In the 2002 election,
the group said, he donated nearly $4 million to Texas candidates and political committees.

Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush's top political aide, recently said
through a spokeswoman that he and Mr. Perry were longtime friends,
though he said they had not spoken for at least a year.
Mr. Rove and Mr. Perry have been associates since at least
1986, when they both worked on the gubernatorial campaign of Bill Clements.
Mr. O'Neill said he had known Mr. Perry for 30 years.
"I've represented many of his friends,'' Mr. O'Neill said.
Mr. Perry did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr. O'Neill said he had also known Mr. Crow
for 30 years, through mutual friends. Mr. Crow, the
seventh-largest donor to Republicans in the state according
to the Texans for Public Justice, has donated nowhere near
as much money as Mr. Perry to the Swift boat group.

His family owns one of the largest diversified commercial real estate
companies in the nation, the Trammell Crow Company, and has given
money to Mr. Bush and his father throughout their careers.
He is listed as a trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation.


One of his law partners, Margaret Wilson, became Mr. Bush's
general counsel when he was governor of Texas and followed
him to the White House as deputy counsel for the Department
of Commerce, according to her biography on the law firm's Web site.


Another partner, Tex Lezar, ran on the Republican
ticket with Mr. Bush in 1994, as lieutenant governor.
They were two years apart at Yale, and Mr. Lezar worked
for the attorney general's office in the Reagan administration.
Mr. Lezar, who died last year, was married to Merrie Spaeth,
a powerful public relations executive who has helped coordinate
the effortts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.


In 2000, Ms. Spaeth was spokeswoman for a group
that ran $2 million worth of ads attacking Senator John McCain's
environmental record and lauding Mr. Bush's in crucial states
during their fierce primary battle. The group, calling itself
Republicans for Clean Air, was founded by a prominent Texas
supporter of Mr. Bush, Sam Wyly.

Ms. Spaeth had been a communications official
in the Reagan White House, where the president's aides
had enough confidence in her to invite her to help prepare
George Bush for his vice-presidential debate in 1984.
She says she is also a close friend of Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison of Texas, a client of Mr. Rove's. Ms. Spaeth said
in an interview that the one time she had ever spoken to Mr. Rove
was when Ms. Hutchison was running for the Texas treasurer's office in 1990.

When asked if she had ever visited the White House during
Mr. Bush's tenure, Ms. Spaeth initially said that
she had been there only once, in 2002, when Kenneth Starr
gave her a personal tour. But this week Ms. Spaeth
acknowledged that she had spent an hour in the Old Executive
Office Building, part of the White House complex, in the spring
of 2003, giving Mr. Bush's chief economic adviser, Stephen
Friedman, public speaking advice
. Asked if it was possible
that she had worked with other administration officials,
Ms. Spaeth said, "The answer is 'no,' unless you refresh my memory.''
"Is the White House directing this?" Ms. Spaeth said of
the organization. "Absolutely not.''

Another participant is the political advertising agency
that made the group's television commercial: Stevens Reed
Curcio & Potholm, based in Alexandria, Va. The agency
worked for Senator McCain in 2000 and for Mr. Bush's father in
1988, when it created the "tank" advertisement mocking Mr. Dukakis.
A spokesman for the Swift boat veterans said the organization decided
to hire the agency after a member saw one of its partners speaking on television.

About 10 veterans met in Ms. Spaeth's office in Dallas in April
to share outrage and plot their campaign against Mr. Kerry, she and
others said. Mr. Lonsdale, who did not attend, said the meeting
had been planned as "an indoctrination session."


What might have been loose impressions about Mr. Kerry began to harden.
"That was an awakening experience," Ms. Spaeth said. "Not just for me,
but for many of them who had not heard each other's stories."

The group decided to hire a private investigator to investigate Mr. Brinkley's
account of the war - to find "some neutral way of actually questioning
people involved in these incidents,'' Mr. O'Neill said.
But the investigator's questions did not seem neutral to some.

Patrick Runyon, who served on a mission with Mr. Kerry, said
he initially thought the caller was from a pro-Kerry group, and
happily gave a statement about the night Mr. Kerry won his first
Purple Heart. The investigator said he would send it to him by
e-mail for his signature. Mr. Runyon said the edited version was
stripped of all references to enemy combat, making it look like
just another night in the Mekong Delta.
"It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any returned fire,"
he said. "He made it sound like it was a normal operation.
It was the scariest night of my life."


By May, the group had the money that Mr. O'Neill had collected
as well as additional veterans rallied by Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Hoffmann
and others. The expanded group gathered in Washington to record
the veterans' stories for a television commercial.

Each veteran's statement was written down as an affidavit
and sent to him to sign and have notarized. But the validity of
those affidavits soon came into question.

Mr. Elliott,
who recommended Mr. Kerry for the Silver Star,
had signed one affidavit saying Mr. Kerry "was not forthright" in
the statements that had led to the award. Two weeks ago,
The Boston Globe quoted him as saying that he felt he should not
have signed the affidavit. He then signed a second affidavit that
reaffirmed his first, which the Swift Boat Veterans gave to reporters.
Mr. Elliott has refused to speak publicly since then.

The Questions

The book outlining the veterans' charges, "Unfit for Command:
Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against Kerry," has also come
under fire. It is published by Regnery, a conservative company
that has published numerous books critical of Democrats, and
written by Mr. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, who was identified
on the book jacket as a Harvard Ph.D. and the author of many
books and articles. But Mr. Corsi also acknowledged that he
has been a contributor of anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic
comments to a right-wing Web site. He said he regretted those comments.

The group's arguments have foundered on other contradictions.
In the television commercial, Dr. Louis Letson looks into the
camera and declares, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first
Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." Dr. Letson does
not dispute the wound - a piece of shrapnel above Mr. Kerry's
left elbow - but he and others in the group argue that it was minor and self-inflicted.

Yet Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the medical
records for Mr. Kerry.
Under "person administering treatment"
for the injury, the form is signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon,
who died several years ago. Dr. Letson said it was common
for medics to treat sailors with the kind of injury that Mr. Kerry had
and to fill out paperwork when doctors did the treatment.

Asked in an interview if there was any way to confirm he had
treated Mr. Kerry, Dr. Letson said, "I guess you'll have to take my word for it."


The group also offers the account of William L. Schachte Jr.,
a retired rear admiral who says in the book that he had been on the
small skimmer on which Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968.
He contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade.

But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with
Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall
a third crew member. "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can
count to three," Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even
Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a
conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received
a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself.

Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a spokesman
for the group said he would not comment.

The Silver Star was awarded after Mr. Kerry's boat came under heavy
fire from shore during a mission in February 1969.
According
to Navy records, he turned the boat to charge the Vietcong position.
An enemy solider sprang from the shore about 10 feet in front of the
boat. Mr. Kerry leaped onto the shore, chased the soldier behind
a small hut and killed him, seizing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth describes the man Mr. Kerry killed
as a solitary wounded teenager "in a loincloth," who may or may
not have been armed. They say the charge to the beach was planned
the night before and, citing a report from one crew member on a different
boat, maintain that the sailors even schemed about who would win which medals.

The group says Mr. Kerry himself wrote the reports that led to the medal.
But Mr. Elliott and Mr. Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line
for recognition, have previously said that a medal would be awarded
only if there was corroboration from others and that they had thoroughly
corroborated the accounts.

"Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were reviewed,"
Mr. Lonsdale said at the 1996 news conference, adding, "It was
a very complete and carefully orchestrated procedure." In his statements
Mr. Elliott described the action that day as "intense" and "unusual."

According to a citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star, a group of
Swift boats was leaving the Bay Hap river when several mines detonated,
disabling one boat and knocking a soldier named Jim Rassmann
overboard. In a hail of enemy fire, Mr. Kerry turned the boat around
to pull Mr. Rassmann from the water.

Mr. Rassmann, who says he is a Republican, reappeared
during the Iowa caucuses this year to tell his story and support
Mr. Kerry, and is widely credited with helping to revive Mr. Kerry's campaign.

But the group says that there was no enemy fire, and that
while Mr. Kerry did rescue Mr. Rassmann, the action was
what anyone would have expected of a sailor, and hardly heroic.
Asked why Mr. Rassmann recalled that he was dodging enemy bullets,
a member of the group, Jack Chenoweth, said, "He's lying."
"If that's what we have to say," Mr. Chenoweth added, "that's how it was."

Several veterans insist that Mr. Kerry wrote his own reports,
pointing to the initials K. J. W. on one of the reports and saying
they are Mr. Kerry's. "What's the W for, I cannot answer," said
Larry Thurlow, who said his boat was 50 to 60 yards from Mr. Kerry's.
Mr. Kerry's middle initial is F, and a Navy official said the initials refer
to the person who had received the report at headquarters, not the author.


A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it received
three bullet holes,
suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence
reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others
wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the
boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day,
a fact left out of "Unfit for Command."

Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did not recall
what the citation said but that he believed it had commended him
for saving the lives of sailors on a boat hit by a mine. If it did
mention enemy fire, he said, that was based on Mr. Kerry's
false reports. The actual citation, Mr. Thurlow said, was with
an ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he declined
to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But a copy obtained
by The New York Times indicates "enemy small arms," "automatic
weapons fire" and "enemy bullets flying about him." The citation
was first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday.

Standing Their Ground


As serious questions about its claims have arisen, the group
has remained steadfast and adaptable.
This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they have
focused primarily on the one allegation in the book that
Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to put to rest:
that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968, as he
declared in a statement to the Senate in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley,
who has emerged as a defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview
that it was unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into
Cambodia at Christmas, though he said he believed that
Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward.

The group said it would introduce a new advertisement against
Mr. Kerry on Friday. What drives the veterans, they acknowledge,
is less what Mr. Kerry did during his time in Vietnam than what
he said after. Their affidavits and their television commercial focus
mostly on those antiwar statements. Most members of the group
object to his using the word "atrocities" to describe what happened
in Vietnam when he returned and became an antiwar activist.
And they are offended, they say, by the gall of his running for
president as a hero of that war. "I went to university and was called
a baby killer and a murderer because of guys like Kerry and what
he was saying," said Van Odell, who appears in the first advertisement,
accusing Mr. Kerry of lying to get his Bronze Star. "Not once did
I participate in the atrocities he said were happening."

As Mr. Lonsdale explained it: "We won the battle. Kerry went
home and lost the war for us. "He called us rapers and killers
and that's not true," he continued. "If he expects our loyalty,
we should expect loyalty from him."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

nytimes.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (8992)8/23/2004 10:31:18 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Officer From Another Swift Boat Breaks Silence and Defends Kerry
The New York Times

THE MILITARY RECORD

August 22, 2004

By JIM RUTENBERG

A Vietnam veteran who served with Senator John Kerry on
a Swift boat mission broke a 35-year silence this weekend to support Mr. Kerry's
version of events from one of their operations together and to chastise veterans
critical of the senator as having "splashed doubt on all of us."


The veteran, William B. Rood, is now an editor at The Chicago Tribune,
which ran on its Web site yesterday and in Sunday's paper a 1,750-word
first-person article in which Mr. Rood recounted the mission. His account
added to a growing debate over the most serious claims from the group,
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. And it ensured that questions swirling around
the veracity of the group's claims, and the Kerry campaign's
accusations that the group was connected to the Bush campaign,
would dominate the contest for yet another day.

Mr. Rood stepped forward after Mr. Kerry called him and another
veteran on Mr. Rood's boat as members of the Swift boat group blanketed cable
television and radio talk shows to repeat their claim, also made in a
book and a television advertisement, that Mr. Kerry had fabricated his military
accomplishments to win medals.

Mr. Kerry's phone calls were part of his campaign's first concerted
push to address the group's claims, which surfaced weeks ago. That push also
included the release of a new Internet advertisement on Saturday
highlighting accusations made about Senator John McCain by military
supporters of Mr. Bush in 2000 and a public call by Mr. Kerry's running mate,
Senator John Edwards, for Mr. Bush to tell the group to cease
running advertisements against Mr. Kerry.

The Swift boat group, which garnered much of its initial financing from men
who have supported Mr. Bush's and his father's political endeavors,
has been ready to defend itself and quickly provided a statement Saturday
saying Mr. Rood's article was politically motivated. The group continues
to raise money and on Friday introduced an advertisement with former
prisoners of war recounting the pain Mr. Kerry's 1971 antiwar comments
caused them when they were being held by the Vietcong.

Mr. Bush's campaign confirmed on Saturday an accusation by the Kerry
campaign that one of the veterans in the that advertisement was a
member the Bush campaign's veterans' advisory committee.
The Bush campaign said in a statement that it did not know that the man, retired Col.
Kenneth Cordier, was going to appear in the advertisement and
because of that he was no longer a volunteer.


The Bush campaign denies involvement with the Swift boat group
and on Saturday released a statement to the Federal Election Commission saying
that the Kerry campaign's accusations of coordination were untrue.
The Bush camp has declined to tell the group to stop running advertisements,
but aides said Mr. Kerry should join Mr. Bush in calling for all
outside groups to stop advertising.

In his article Mr. Rood disputed a claim the Swift boat group made
in its book, "Unfit for Command," that Mr. Kerry had received his Silver Star for
chasing down a lone Vietcong teenager "in a loincloth" who may
or may not have been armed on Feb. 28, 1969.

Mr. Rood was the skipper of one of three boats involved in the mission
with Mr. Kerry, conducting a sweep for the enemy through a tributary of the
Bay Hap River. "I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that
day was," Mr. Rood wrote, but "he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of
garb the VC usually wore." He also wrote that Mr. Kerry had devised a
plan to face into enemy fire, a breach of typical procedure.

He added, referring to John O'Neill, a co-author of "Unfit for Command"
and a leader of the Swift boat group: "The man Kerry chased was not the
'lone' attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled.
There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes
and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well."

Mr. Rood also noted that Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral
who was the Swift boat group's commander, lauded the operation at the time in
glowing terms. Mr. Hoffmann is, with Mr. O'Neill, one of the main engineers
of the anti-Kerry group's effort.

The Swift boat group released a statement yesterday from Mr. O'Neill
saying he stood by its account. He said the account was consistent with those
of two biographies of Mr. Kerry, "Tour of Duty" and "John F. Kerry:
The Complete Biography By The Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best,"
and that of Larry Lee, a crewman on Mr. Rood's boat. Mr. O'Neill said
he had tried to contact Mr. Rood for his book and that Mr. Rood's decision to
come forward now was "an obvious political move."

The biographies do say that Mr. Kerry was running after the man he shot,
but the books do not describe him as a teenager and they say he was
armed with a rocket launcher. The Globe account that the group cites
says the man had begun to run away, but also quotes Mr. Kerry saying that
he had not shot him in the back and that he believed the man would fire again.

Mr. Rood said he confirmed the details of his recollection with the leading
petty officer on his boat, Jerry Leeds. Mr. Leeds, who lives in Kansas,
said in a brief interview that he had not read The Tribune and could not
comment on it. But he said the boats were under significant enemy fire
and at great risk.

Mr. Leeds said Mr. Kerry had phoned him, too, last week. He said Mr. Kerry
did not ask for his support or for any statements on his behalf. "Mostly
we just visited about that day," Mr. Leeds said.

Mr. Rood acknowledged in his article that Mr. Kerry's calls did affect
his decision to write it but also wrote, "What matters most to me is that this
is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be
honored for what they did." He added, "My intent is to tell the story here
and to never again talk publicly about it."

The idea to contact Mr. Rood came from Mr. Kerry himself, aides said.

The candidate called Thomas Vallely, a longtime Kerry supporter,
a former Massachusetts state legislator and a marine who now runs the Vietnam
program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
"He said 'We've got to find Billy Rood,"' Mr. Vallely said in an interview on
Saturday. "John said, 'He's a reporter in Chicago,' that's all he knew."

Mr. Rood had been watching the dispute unfold and considering what
to do. He wrote in his article that he had long been reluctant to talk about
his experience and had even refused to grant an interview to his own
newspaper. But watching Mr. O'Neill on TV incensed Mr. Rood, Mr. Vallely
said.

"He was very, very angry, he was on his feet," Mr. Vallely recalled.
"I said, 'Would you talk to John?"' Mr. Rood agreed to a phone call.

Mr. Vallely also called Mr. Leeds, the leading petty officer on Mr. Rood's boat,
and asked both men if they would speak with a reporter from The
New York Times last week. The two men said they wanted to think
about it for a few days, and the result was two stories in The Tribune, a news
account and Mr. Rood's first-person article. "They wanted to do it their way," Mr. Vallely said.

Meanwhile on Saturday, Mr. Kerry's campaign continued on the offensive.

It sent out a new Internet advertisement to supporters highlighting
an exchange between Mr. McCain, of Arizona, and Mr. Bush during a debate in
2000. In that debate Mr. McCain confronted Mr. Bush for playing host
at an event where the leader of a veterans group that Mr. McCain
characterized as "fringe" questioned his commitment to veterans.

The spot includes an on-screen heading that says, "George Bush is up to his old tricks."

Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman, said, "The president
has made clear that he regards John Kerry's service as noble service." And he
chastised Mr. Kerry for statements from campaign surrogates last week
questioning Mr. Bush's National Guard service. He also criticized Mr. Kerry
for failing to call on liberal groups who have run $63 million worth of
advertisements against Mr. Bush to stop. Some of the liberal groups have
connections to Mr. Kerry's campaign and political party.

On Saturday night, at a fund-raiser in East Hampton, N.Y., Mr. Kerry
suggested that his political opponents were trying to undercut his military
record because he had been persuading voters he would make an effective
commander in chief. "In the past month, they've seen me climbing in
America's understanding that I know how to fight a smarter, more
effective war," Mr. Kerry said. "That's why they're attacking my credibility. That's
why they're personally going after me."

David M. Halbfinger and David Stout contributed reporting for this article.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
nytimes.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (8992)8/23/2004 11:01:38 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Kerry camp ties Bush to 'smear' by veterans

By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff | August 23, 2004

HOUSTON -- Senator John F. Kerry's campaign accused President Bush of
running a "smear" campaign to taint his Vietnam service yesterday,
intensifying an increasingly bitter battle over negative ads from a veterans
group that the Bush campaign has so far refused to denounce.


In a new 30-second ad, titled "Issues," the Kerry
campaign demands that Bush "denounce the smear,"
referring to charges by a largely conservative-funded group, the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth, that Kerry lied about his war service to win medals
and enhance his stature as a hero.

"Get back to the issues," says the narrator of the ad, which the Kerry
campaign plans to run in six states this week. "America deserves better."

The ad, part of a new effort by the Kerry campaign to rebut the veterans
group after weeks of virtually ignoring it, marked an attempt by Democrats
to take command of the issue and touched off a fresh debate over whether
Bush should reject the specific content of the ad. Bush has declined to do
so, instead broadly condemning all advertising funded by "527 groups,"
including the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, that operate independently
from the campaigns.

Republicans are divided over how Bush should respond, with some officials
fearful that his failure to condemn the ad keeps the president in a
defensive stance and could reinforce allegations that Bush operatives are
actively supporting the attacks on Kerry.

There is evidence that at least loose associations exist: A veteran who
appeared in one of the ads, retired Air Force Colonel Ken Cordier,
resigned over the weekend from his position on the Bush campaign's
veterans steering committee after his dual roles were made public. In
California, the Santa Clara County Republican Party included a posting
from the Swift Boat group on its website.

One of the group's most generous donors, Houston real estate mogul Bob
Perry, who has given $200,000 to help fund the attack ads, is also a major
backer of Republican candidates and a longtime associate of Bush's senior
political adviser, Karl Rove.


Nonetheless, the group's directors insist they are not formally coordinating
their attacks with the Bush campaign, which would be illegal under
campaign finance laws. Bush campaign officials said they did not know
Cordier had appeared in the Swift Boat ad before it aired, and quickly
removed him as a volunteer once they did. And one of the veterans
involved dismissed the notion that Bush is playing a role in their cause or
has the power to silence them. "Our message is our message, and no one
tells us what to say," Van Odell, one of the veterans, said on "Fox News
Sunday."

But on the same program, John Hurley, director of Veterans for John
Kerry, described the effort as a "Republican smear campaign," echoing the
growing cry from Democrats that Bush is defaming his rival by proxy -- just
as they say Bush did to Senator John McCain during the 2000 Republican
primary in South Carolina
McCain -- a Vietnam veteran and former POW who suffered
withering attacks from veterans associated with Bush in the last
presidential race -- is among those who have asked Bush to refute the
charges that Kerry exaggerated his combat valor and injuries.

Although McCain has endorsed Bush and plans to
campaign aggressively with him leading into the
Republican National Convention, he is also a centerpiece in Kerry's
rebuttal to the veterans: in an Internet ad launched Saturday, the Kerry
campaign showed footage of McCain during the 2000 Republican primary
chastising Bush for failing to condemn attacks on McCain from a different
group of veterans. And in the "Issues" television ad, the narrator states:
"Bush smeared John McCain four years ago. Now, he's doing it to John
Kerry."

The Kerry campaign initially planned to run the ad, along with another ad
rebutting the veterans' group released last week, in the battleground
states of Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Upon learning that the Swift
Boat Veterans plan to expand their advertising to Pennsylvania, Nevada,
and New Mexico, a Kerry adviser said they, too, would move into those
states, despite earlier hopes of staying off the airwaves until after the
Republican convention in order to save money.

Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman yesterday released a letter to
television station managers decrying the Kerry ad as "completely false and
without any evidence," asking for the stations to "set the record straight."

At the root of the issue are two ads by the Swift Boat group: one charging
Kerry with lying about his combat activities to win medals, the other
criticizing his post-war protests, which infuriated many veterans who felt
Kerry betrayed their service.

Both sides are planning to try to shift attention away from the controversy,
in order to claim the mantle of "focusing on issues," this week. On
Tuesday, Kerry is scheduled to deliver a speech in New York that tackles
the substance of his agenda, a campaign official said, just as Bush officials
say they will be rolling out elements of the president's second-term
agenda, to be highlighted at the convention next week.

But with the ad war raging, fueling a closer examination of what both
candidates did during the Vietnam era, neither campaign predicted a
cease-fire.

Senator John Edwards, Kerry's running mate, seized on the subject during
a campaign stop in North Carolina yesterday, saying that "Senator Kerry
had a moment of truth in 1968 when he decided to volunteer and put his
life on the line" in Vietnam.

"This is a moment of truth for President Bush," Edwards said. "The
American people deserve to hear directly from the president of the United
States that these ads should come off the air"
Bush, who has been secluded at his Texas ranch preparing
for the convention, is likely to face questions on that subject today when
he appears with military commanders at an event open to a small group of
reporters.

Whether he will directly address the issue is uncertain,
but Bush advisers gave no indication yesterday that they
are about to change their message. Instead, they continued to praise
Kerry's war record in general terms while asking Kerry to join them in
calling for an end to negative ads funded by outsiders.

"This ad is another example of the campaign that is not talking about the
issues we face," Mehlman said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "We have a
president today that is working very hard to find solutions to our nation's
problems and to lead our country forward."

Republican surrogates appear less inclined to let the matter drop. Former
senator Bob Dole demanded yesterday that Kerry apologize for testifying
after his service that US soldiers were "shooting civilians, cutting off their
ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons."

"Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who
served," Dole said on CNN's "Late Edition." "He wasn't the only one in
Vietnam."

At the same time, Dole, who was wounded in World War II, leaving him
without the use of his right arm, said: "Here's, you know, a good guy, a
good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled
that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts
and you're out [of combat duty]."

That prompted an angry response from Democrats. "Today Senator Kerry
carries shrapnel in his thigh, as distinct from President Bush, who carries
two fillings in his teeth from his service in the Alabama National Guard,
which seems to be the only time he showed up," John Podesta, former
chief of staff to Bill Clinton, said on ABC's "This Week."

But despite the hammering from Democrats, Bush would speak out
against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth at his own political peril,
according to Ted Sampley, one of the veterans who opposed McCain in
2000 and now opposes Kerry.

"There is no way President Bush or anyone else can stop what we're doing
right now," Sampley said yesterday. "The Republicans should be very
careful about that, because it can backfire. These veterans aren't going to
stop."

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.



To: Mephisto who wrote (8992)8/24/2004 7:40:20 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
Attorney Works for Bush, Anti-Kerry Group

story.news.yahoo.com

By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A lawyer for President Bush 's re-election campaign disclosed Tuesday that he has been providing legal
advice for a veterans group that is challenging Democratic Sen. John
Kerry' s account of his Vietnam War service.

Benjamin Ginsberg's acknowledgment marks
the second time in days that an individual
associated with the Bush-Cheney campaign
has been connected to the group Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth, which Kerry has accused
of being a front for the Republican incumbent's
re-election effort.


The Bush campaign and the veterans' group say there is no coordination.

The group "came to me and said, 'We have a point of view we want to
get into the First Amendment debate right now. There's a new law. It's
very complicated. We want to comply with the law, will you keep us in
the bounds of the law?'" Ginsberg said in an interview with The
Associated Press. "I said yes, absolutely, as I would do for anyone."

Ginsberg said he never told the Bush campaign what he discussed with
the group, or vice versa, and doesn't advise the group on ad strategies.

"They have legal questions and when they have legal questions I answer
them," Ginsberg said. He said he had not yet decided whether to charge
the Swift Boat Veterans a fee for his work.


The Kerry campaign last week filed a complaint with the Federal Election
Commission (news - web sites) accusing the Bush campaign and the
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth of illegally coordinating the group's ads.
The ads allege Kerry has lied about his decorated Vietnam War service;
the group's accounts in a television ad have been disputed by Navy
records and veterans who served on Kerry's boat.

On Saturday, retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier resigned as a member of
the Bush campaign's veterans' steering committee after it was learned
that he appeared in the Swift Boat veterans' commercial.

Kerry, meanwhile, is the subject of complaints by the Bush campaign
and the Republican National Committee accusing his
campaign of illegally coordinating anti-Bush ads with soft-money groups
on the Democratic side, allegations he and the groups deny.

Ginsberg also represented the Bush campaign in 2000 and became a
prominent figure during the Florida recount.

He also served as counsel to the Republican National Committee in its
unsuccessful lawsuit seeking to overturn the nation's campaign finance
law, which banned the national party committees from collecting
corporate, union and unlimited donations known as soft money and
imposed stricter rules on coordination involving parties, candidates and
interest groups.

Ginsberg contends that by offering legal advice to both the Bush
campaign and the Swift Boat group, he has done nothing different than
other election lawyers in Washington, including attorneys for Kerry and
the Democratic National Committee who have also
advised soft-money groups. Representing campaigns, parties and
outside groups simultaneously is legal and allowed under the law and by
the FEC, he said.

"The truth is there is only a handful of lawyers who live and breathe this
law. And so because the coordination rules do not include legal services
among the prohibited coordinated activities, we provide legal service,"
Ginsberg said.

Larry Noble, head of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics
campaign watchdog group and former FEC general counsel, said it's true
that serving as a lawyer for both a campaign and a soft money group
isn't considered automatic evidence of coordination under commission
rules, but said that doesn't mean the FEC won't look at it.

"I think there's a valid question about when you're talking about strictly
legal advice and when you're talking about policy issues and strategic
issues," Noble said. "It's fair to ask what the advice is about."



To: Mephisto who wrote (8992)8/26/2004 11:28:10 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Swiftboat Crewman: Kerry Boat Took Fire
story.news.yahoo.com

By JOSEPH B. FRAZIER, Associated Press Writer

PORTLAND, Ore. - A swiftboat crewman decorated in the 1969 Vietnam
incident where John Kerry won a Bronze Star says
not only did they come under enemy fire but also that his own boat
commander, who has challenged the official account, was too distracted
to notice the gunfire.


Retired Chief Petty Officer Robert E.
Lambert, of Eagle Point, Ore., got a Bronze
Star for pulling his boat commander - Lt.
Larry Thurlow - out of the Bay Hap River on
March 13, 1969. Thurlow had jumped onto
another swiftboat to aid sailors wounded by
a mine explosion but fell off when the
out-of-control boat ran aground.

Thurlow,
who has been prominent among a
group of veterans challenging the
Democratic presidential candidate's record,
has said there was no enemy fire during the
incident. Lambert, however, supports the
Navy account that says all five swiftboats in
the task force "came under small arms and
automatic weapon fire from the river banks"
when the mine detonated.


"I thought we were under fire, I believed we
were under fire," Lambert said in a
telephone interview with The Associated
Press.

"Thurlow was far too distracted with rescue
efforts to even realize he was under fire. He
was concentrating on trying to save lives."

The anti-Kerry group, Swift Boat Veterans
for Truth, has been running television ads
challenging the Navy account of the boats
being under fire. Kerry has condemned the ads as a Republican smear
campaign.

A career military man, Lambert is no fan of Kerry's either. He doesn't like
Kerry's post-Vietnam anti-war activity and doesn't plan to vote for him.

"I don't like the man himself," Lambert said, "but I think what happened
happened, and he was there."

A March 1969 Navy report located by The Associated Press this week
supports Lambert's version. The report twice mentions the incident and
both times calls it "an enemy initiated firefight" that included automatic
weapons fire and underwater mines used against a group of five boats
that included Kerry's.


Kerry's Bronze Star was awarded for his pulling Special Forces Lt. Jim
Rassmann, who had been blown off the boat, out of the river. Rassmann,
who is retired and lives in Florence, Ore., has said repeatedly that the
boats were under fire, as have other witnesses. Lambert didn't see that
rescue because Kerry was farther down the river and "I was busy pulling
my own boat officer (Thurlow) out of the water."

Thurlow could not be reached for comment about Lambert's
recollections.

But speaking for the Swift Boat Veterans group, Van Odell, who was in
the task force that day, remembers it differently from Lambert.

"When they're firing, you can hear the rounds hit the boat or buzz by
your head. There was none of that," he said in a telephone interview from
Katy, Texas, where he lives.

On Thursday, the group released a 30-second Internet ad disputing
Kerry's contention that his swiftboat crossed into Cambodia. Kerry's
campaign has acknowledged that he may not have been in Cambodia on
Christmas Eve of 1968, as he has previously stated, but that he does
recall being on patrol along the Cambodia-Vietnam border on that date.

Lambert said the swiftboats were on their way out of the river when a
mine exploded under one, PCF-3.

"When they blew the 3-boat, everyone opened up on the banks with
everything they had," he said. "That was the normal procedure. When
they came after you, they came after you. Somebody on shore blew that
mine."

"There was always a firefight" after a mine detonation, he said.

"Kerry was out in front of us, on down the river. He
had to come back up the river to get to us."

Lambert retired in 1978 as a chief petty officer with 22
years of service and three tours in Vietnam. He does
not remember ever meeting Kerry.



To: Mephisto who wrote (8992)8/27/2004 1:40:27 AM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Poll: Presidential race remains dead heat
Kerry convention gains blunted


Thursday, August 26, 2004 Posted: 11:11 PM EDT (0311 GMT)
cnn.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The race for
the White House between
President Bush and Sen. John
Kerry remains a statistical tie, with
Kerry holding a single-point edge
among registered voters, according
to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup
poll.

The survey of 876 registered voters found
Kerry leading Bush 48 percent to 47 percent.
The margin of error in that poll, conducted
August 23-25, was plus or minus 3.5
percentage points.

Among the 709 people determined to be likely
voters, Bush held a three-point lead over
Kerry, 50 to 47 percent -- a figure unchanged
since the last poll, three weeks ago. And this
poll comes in the wake of a controversy over
harsh ads questioning Kerry's decorated
military service during the Vietnam War.

The margin of error among likely voters was 4
percentage points.

Asked what they thought of how Bush was
handling his job as president, 49 percent of
the total survey said they approved; 47 said
they disapproved.

When independent Ralph Nader was added
into the mix, Bush led Kerry by a 48-46 margin
among likely voters, with 4 percent supporting
Nader. The major-party candidates were tied
at 46 percent among registered voters, with
Nader drawing 4 percent again.

The poll was taken as Kerry attempted to fend
off attacks on his Vietnam war record by a
group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth, which has accused Kerry of lying to
win combat decorations during the conflict
and criticized his role in the antiwar movement
after he returned home.

The survey indicates the ads and the
controversy surrounding them may have
helped Bush blunt any boost Kerry received
since the Democratic National Convention,
particularly on national security issues.

But they appear to have had little impact on the
overall horse race, and the poll found that half
of all adults hold Bush responsible for the
anti-Kerry veterans' campaign.


Before the convention, when Kerry accepted
the party's presidential nomination, Bush led
Kerry by an 8 percentage-point margin -- 51 to
43 -- on the question of who would be a
better commander-in-chief. After the
convention, Bush and Kerry were tied at 48
percent apiece, but in the latest poll, the
numbers returned to the same pre-convention
margin.

Similar patterns emerged when voters were
asked about which candidate would better
handle the war in Iraq, where respondents
preferred Bush 49 percent to 43 percent, and
the global antiterror campaign, where Bush led
Kerry 54-37.

Only 22 percent said Kerry's military service
made them more likely to vote for him in
November -- more evidence that the Swift
Boat ads have neutralized the Massachusetts
senator's military record as an asset. But 63
percent said Kerry is telling the truth about his
military record, suggesting that most of those
polled discount the charges raised by Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth.


The group is an independent "527" committee
funded largely by Republican contributors
from President Bush's home state of Texas. Its
claims about Kerry's military record are
contradicted by official Navy records, other
veterans and, in some cases, by past
statements from group members themselves.

Kerry accuses the group of being a front for
the Bush campaign, an allegation Bush aides
have strongly denied. The Democrat has
called on Bush to disavow the ads, but Bush
-- who has been the target of millions of
dollars in advertising by Democratic-backed
527s -- has called instead for an end to all
independent attack ads.

Among those surveyed in the latest poll, 56
percent said Bush should denounce the ads,
and 50 percent said they consider him
responsible for them. Forty-eight percent said
they think Kerry has been the victim of unfair
Republican attacks, while 43 percent say
Democrats have attacked Bush unfairly.

The favorable ratings for Kerry and his
running mate, Sen. John Edwards, have
dropped since August 1, with 52 percent
saying they view both Kerry and Edwards
favorably now. Bush's favorable rating was
at 54 percent, while only 44 percent said they
viewed Vice President Dick Cheney favorably.

But the Swift Boat Veterans ad campaign may
have dampened public enthusiasm for voting
this year as well: In the August 23-25 poll,
only 60 percent said they were enthusiastic
about voting compared with 69 percent who
said they were enthusiastic about casting
their vote in surveys after the Democratic
convention.



To: Mephisto who wrote (8992)8/27/2004 2:20:44 AM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Kerry's Testimony
August 26, 2004


latimes.com

EDITORIAL

It turns out that the attack on John Kerry's war record
was just Act 1. Now the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
(and, miraculously, all the right-wing media) have turned
to Kerry's antiwar record. After returning from Vietnam,
Kerry became a spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans
Against the War, a major force in the antiwar
movement. In 1971, he testified before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. This famous testimony
launched Kerry's political career and the talk of him as a
future president. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger can
be heard fretting about it on the Watergate tapes.

This at least is a real issue, unlike the manufactured
nonsense about his war medals. Does what Kerry said
back in 1971 disqualify him for the presidency 33 years
later?

There is some ambiguity, or purposeful confusion, about
the precise objection to Kerry's ancient testimony. Is it
something in particular that he said? Or is it the very fact
that Kerry opposed the Vietnam War and worked to end
it?

Many of those who condemn Kerry for opposing the
Vietnam War are too young to have been politically
aware during that period. The rest are fighting very old
battles. But the fact is that the argument over Vietnam
was settled long ago, and a majority of Americans
decided that Kerry was right.


Members of the Swift boat group and like-minded Americans are free to try to
re-litigate the basic Vietnam question. They say, from the comfortable perspective
of 2004, that the antiwar movement emboldened the enemy and thus lengthened the
war. That's their premise: We could have won the war by 1971 if not for Kerry and
his ilk. Of course, after continuing the war for three more years, we still didn't win
it. So even accepting the dubious premises of these Hindsight Hawks, blame for the
lives lost after Kerry's testimony goes primarily to the leaders in Washington who
kept the war going needlessly.

But most Americans came to accept Kerry's view that the war was ill advised and
unwinnable at any reasonable cost. Only when that happened did the war end, and
the antiwar movement made it happen sooner. If that historical judgment is correct,
which we think it clearly is, then Kerry saved the lives of many more Americans in
his antiwar role than he did as a Navy officer.

Kerry's testimony in April 1971 was eloquent, persuasive and damning. Consistent
with his cautious instincts, Kerry never joined the extremist America-haters who
hoped for a North Vietnamese victory, but instead he patiently explained to
senators why the war was a disaster.


Undoubtedly, Kerry was overwrought when he declared that atrocities by
American soldiers were ubiquitous. They weren't. But it is ignorant fantasy to
suppose that the United States emerged from Vietnam unblemished by horrible
misdeeds. What about the free-fire zones and the dumping of more munitions than
during World War II? What about the Phoenix program of mass assassinations? In
his new memoir, retired Gen. Tommy Franks recounts how he was tempted to kill
inhabitants of a Vietnamese village because he feared they were communist
sympathizers. Sometimes, temptation was not resisted.

But Kerry's anger was not directed at soldiers in the field. On the contrary, in his
testimony, he blamed the Washington establishment.
He lashed out at former
Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara and former national security advisor
McGeorge Bundy: "Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to
war, have returned?" Kerry asked. "These are commanders who have deserted
their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war."

None of what Kerry said was particularly novel or shocking. But his status as a
decorated sailor sent the Nixon administration into overdrive to depict him as
providing aid and comfort to the enemy, just as his current detractors seek to depict
him as a traitor unfit to lead the war against terror.

The late 1960s were a moral obstacle course for young Americans, especially
young men. Kerry is one of the few who got it right. He served, and served bravely
as even President Bush now concedes. Then he came back home and worked to
stop the killing and the dying.

George W. Bush, by the way, dodged the second part too.



To: Mephisto who wrote (8992)8/27/2004 2:32:58 AM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
McCain says end war over Vietnam

Thu Aug 26, 9:40 AM ET

story.news.yahoo.com

By Jill Zuckman Washington Bureau

With Vietnam veterans taking sides over Sen. John Kerrys war record, Republican Sen. John McCain , a Navy pilot held prisoner in Vietnam for almost six years,
sharply criticized Kerry's critics Wednesday and said the long-ago war in
Southeast Asia should not be an issue in the presidential campaign.

"I'm sick and tired of reopening the wounds
of the Vietnam War," McCain said in an
interview. "As we speak, some young
American is dying in Iraq. . All the issues facing the nation are
being lost."


When the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth first began airing ads
questioning Kerry's valor several weeks ago,
the Arizona Republican denounced them. In
the interview, he said he does not question
the medals Kerry received, as the
Democrat's critics do.

McCain made his comments as a top Bush
campaign lawyer resigned Wednesday, one
day after acknowledging he also was doing
legal work for the swift boat group.

Benjamin Ginsberg, a longtime Republican
lawyer, defended his work as ethical and
appropriate, but said he resigned because it
had become a distraction for the president's
re-election effort.

Kerry aides seized on the resignation as
further evidence that the Bush campaign is
tied to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Bush aides have denied links to the
veterans' group.

In Crawford, Texas, where Bush was at his
ranch, former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, a Vietnam
veteran who lost three limbs in the war, tried to deliver a letter by nine
Democratic senators denouncing the anti-Kerry attacks.

"The question is where is George Bush (news - web sites)'s honor, the
question is where is his shame to attack a fellow veteran who has
distinguished himself in combat?" Cleland asked.

Senator challenges Bush


The senators' letter said Bush had "a special duty" to condemn the
anti-Kerry veterans' ads. But the U.S. Secret Service guards and others
at the gate of Bush's ranch did not accept the letter.

As the political war over the Vietnam War has raged, both sides have
sought McCain's support. A former prisoner of war with a reputation for
bravery, the Arizona senator to some embodies a moral authority on
issues related to Vietnam, and Cleland cited him Wednesday.

"Republicans like Sen. John McCain, who have been the subject of
scurrilous attacks like this before, say it's dishonest and dishonorable,"
Cleland said.

Responding to McCain's comments Wednesday, John O'Neill, the
Houston attorney leading the charge against Kerry, called McCain "an
American hero." But O'Neill said he and other veterans felt compelled to
call Kerry to account for his actions in the war and for his harsh rhetoric
when he came home and criticized the conduct of U.S. soldiers.

"He's created a situation where there's no choice but to come forward,"
O'Neill said of Kerry. "We couldn't abide a situation where he claimed
generally our activities and those of our friends who are dead were all
criminal."

McCain said he agreed that the subject of Vietnam began with Kerry
himself. "I don't think there's any doubt that Sen. Kerry made this a very
big part of his campaign and therefore legitimized this issue," McCain
said.

McCain, who also spoke to the Tribune last week before leaving for a trip
to Europe, criticized Kerry supporters for calling President Bush (news -
web sites) a coward because he joined the Texas National Guard and
did not go to Vietnam.

"I believe that President Bush served honorably and I believe John Kerry
served honorably. End of story," McCain said.

The Arizona senator said Americans are more
interested in how to win the war in Iraq and the fight
against terrorism than in rehashing Vietnam and its
aftermath. Lost in the back-and-forth, he said, are all
the issues the nation must face in the future.

"But this debate, and this focus on the Vietnam war, is
a symptom of the underlying bitterness and
partisanship that not only pervades the campaign, but
the whole political atmosphere in America today," he
said.

Although he lost his campaign for president in 2000,
McCain emerged from the experience more popular
than ever, with a strong following among crucial
independent swing voters. This year, Bush and Kerry
have featured the Arizona senator in their television
advertising, and both regularly invoke his name on the
campaign trail.

The Kerry campaign announced Wednesday that it
would feature McCain in a 60-second advertisement
called "Shame," in which McCain chastises Bush in
2000 for refusing to disavow attacks on the Arizona
senator.

Kerry even attempted to court McCain earlier this year
to become his running mate, but McCain refused the
entreaties.

Instead, McCain is campaigning for Bush and will serve
as a featured speaker at the Republican National
Convention in New York on Monday night, as the Bush
campaign seeks to showcase the moderates in the
party. The following day, McCain will campaign with
Bush, and at the convention's end, McCain is expected
to leave Manhattan with for another round of
appearances.

McCain's prominent role in the Bush campaign has
puzzled many political observers, both because of policy
disagreements between the two men and because of
the brutal nature of the attacks leveled by Bush
supporters against McCain in 2000.

In that campaign, Bush supporters circulated rumors in
South Carolina that McCain's adopted Bangladeshi
daughter was black, that his wife was a drug addict,
and that he was a coward. The Bush campaign
questioned his temper and his temperament,
suggesting that he might be unstable after enduring
many years of torture and confinement.

Similarities in attacks

To this day, McCain seems peeved that the Bush
campaign, taking liberties with McCain's Senate
record, suggested he opposed funding for breast cancer
research at a time when his sister was fighting the
disease.


Several of the same people who went after McCain four
years ago have been instrumental in attacking Kerry
today through the swift boat veterans group. Many have
longstanding ties to the Bush family and to the
president's operatives.

While McCain acknowledged the similarities between
the attacks on him and Kerry with a quiet "yeah," he
refused to dwell on it.

"Let me emphasize, that's over and in the past and for
me to hold a grudge about what happened four years
ago is simply inappropriate and would diminish me,"
McCain said. "You have to get over things and move on.
And I did in 2000 when I went to campaign actively for
President Bush's election."

During a recent campaign trip in Florida, New Mexico
and Arizona, McCain said he did not talk to Bush about
repudiating the current ads questioning Kerry's
military service, although he had previously said Bush
should do so. "I stated publicly my view," he said. "It's
up to him."

McCain said he believes Bush deserves re-election
"because I think he has led this nation with strength
and clarity since 9/11. And that's the major challenge
of our time." Although he said Kerry is fit to be
commander in chief, he added, "I just think that
President Bush is better."

And he insisted that he and Bush really like each
other, despite their awkward public embrace in a
recent appearance in Pensacola, Fla., and what has
long seemed to be a lack of personal chemistry.

"We enjoy each other's company. We do," McCain said.
"We have a lot of things in common. We talk about
issues, we talk about sports, we talk about mutual
friends, we talk about history. We're never at a loss for
things to talk about."

Advisers to McCain, however, describe the relationship
as businesslike and say part of McCain's motivation in
helping Bush is to leave the door open to a possible run
for president in 2008. "For John, this is not a labor of
love. This is doing your duty," said one adviser.

To run for the Republican nomination for president,
several of his associates said, McCain, who is about to
turn 68, must support his party's candidate now.

Dismisses talk of motive


McCain dismissed talk of his presidential ambitions as
a "cynical" view of his motives. He described his
political philosophy as based on the principles of
progressive Republicans like Abraham Lincoln and
Theodore Roosevelt and said he will stick with the
party in hopes of moving its compass back to where it
once was.

"I think my party has strayed from those principles,
rather than me, [from] environmental issues to fiscal
discipline," he said.

Responsibility for that shift rests with everyone, he
said, but Bush should start vetoing "these pork-laden
spending bills."

In fact, McCain and Bush have not often seen things
the same way. McCain has criticized Bush for not
sending enough troops to Iraq, and he believes the
administration did not send enough of the right kinds
of troops, such as Special Forces soldiers, Marines and
linguists.

Despite a friendship in the Senate with Kerry, McCain
said he has disagreed with him, too, citing Kerry's vote
against spending $87 billion the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan (news - web sites).

- - -

Sen. John McCain speaks out . . .


On the attacks against Kerry by Swift Boat Veterans
for Truth:

"I'm sick and tired of reopening the wounds of Vietnam.
As we speak, some young American is dying in Iraq. All
the issues facing the nation are being lost."

On Bush and Kerry's service:


"The Vietnam War was perhaps the second most
divisive war in modern history. Because of that
divisiveness, a lot of young Americans who served there
have had great difficulty in coming all the way home.
So now we have reopened all of those wounds and to
state the obvious, I believe that President Bush served
honorably and I believe John Kerry served honorably.
End of story."

On Kerry bringing the attacks on himself:


"I don't think there's any doubt that Sen. Kerry made
this a very big part of his campaign and therefore
legitimized this issue."

On his campaigning for President Bush:


"People keep saying, `How could you? How could you?'
Because you've got to do what's right. You have to do
what's right. If you don't, if there's one thing that I had
with the people of this country, it's that they believed
that I tried to do the right thing, not the political thing.
If I start to hold grudges against people, then I don't
deserve that kind of credibility. There's no other way."



To: Mephisto who wrote (8992)8/29/2004 3:07:14 AM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Slime sticks to those hurling it

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 8/29/04

It is an axiom of normal human behavior that one is embarrassed when
caught flat-footed in a lie. That axiom, however, does not apply to
the swift-boat critics of John Kerry. When
caught cold in one lie, they simply move to the next.

The latest news reports shed light on the prevarications of John
O'Neill, who succeeded Kerry as commander of swift boat PCF-94. A
ringleader of the swift-boat critics, O'Neill is the author of a book --
"Unfit for Command" -- that tries to discredit Kerry's wartime heroism.
Now walking the low road for George W. Bush, O'Neill first got into
the dirty tricks business on behalf of Richard Nixon, who used O'Neill to try to undermine
Kerry's rising appeal as an anti-war veteran in 1971.


Currently a darling of the right-wing talk show circuit, O'Neill has insisted in repeated
interviews that Kerry could not have been in Cambodia during the war, as Kerry has said.
In his book, O'Neill wrote: "Kerry was never in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all
during the Vietnam War," adding, he "would have been court-martialed had he gone there."

But days ago, reporters unearthed taped conversations between Nixon and O'Neill, in
which O'Neill bragged, "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water."

Was O'Neill court-martialed?
Apparently not. Did he so much as pause after being caught
contradicting himself? Not on your life. He just moved from interviews with legitimate news
reporters to the friendlier zones of hacks such as Sean Hannity, who would not press him
on his mendacity.

Neither O'Neill nor his band of liars is humiliated when one of their accusations blows up in
their faces.
In a recent attack ad, for example, George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer
in Vietnam, insisted that Kerry "has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."
This is the same Elliott who praised Kerry's courage and leadership profusely during the
war, according to military records, and who campaigned for Kerry's re-election to the U.S.
Senate.

He and the other veterans against Kerry apparently believe that truth doesn't matter; if they
just keep throwing slime at Kerry, sooner or later, some will stick. They don't seem to care
that much of the slime clings to them. This group is so obsessed with tearing Kerry down
that they not only tell blatant lies, but some of them have also trashed their own records of
wartime heroism.

Take Larry Thurlow,
who commanded a swift boat alongside Kerry. Thurlow and others
have spent weeks trying to undermine one of Kerry's central claims to heroism -- his
rescue of Jim Rassman, for which Kerry won a Bronze Star. Thurlow has insisted that
none of the swift boats in the Bay Hap River were under enemy fire that day, March 13,
1969.

But contemporaneous military action reports tell another story. Several documents back
up Kerry's -- and Rassman's -- account. Indeed, the citation for Thurlow's
own Bronze Star, received for his actions that day, notes
enemy small arms," "automatic weapons fire" and "enemy bullets flying about him."


Just last week, Oregon resident Robert Lambert, who was a
crew member on Thurlow's boat that day, told his local newspaper: "He
[Thurlow] and another officer now say we weren't under fire at that time.
Well, I sure was under the impression we were."

Several of the veterans opposed to Kerry trace their animosity
back to Kerry's anti-war activities, during which he accused U.S.
soldiers of committing atrocities. But they haven't framed their major
attacks around that. That's because they know -- or at least
Karl Rove knows -- that Kerry's fiery rhetoric from 30 years ago won't
sink his campaign.


The Bush campaign must portray Kerry as weak and
indecisive -- an unfit commander in chief. That's difficult, since Kerry is a bona
fide hero whose wartime exploits seem titanic compared
with those of the president. Suffice it to say that Bush and Kerry were not
exactly in the same boat in Vietnam. So Bush's surrogates lie to tarnish Kerry's medals.

They may have succeeded in sullying Kerry's military record.
But the real truth they've revealed is the corroded core of the Bush
campaign, which denies any link with the swift-boat veterans but profits by their poisonous bite.


Cynthia Tucker is the editorial page editor. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays.

ajc.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (8992)8/31/2004 1:18:51 AM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Why have we landed in Vietnam again?

By Stanley I. Kutler. Stanley I. Kutler is the editor of
"The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War."
Published August 27, 2004

chicagotribune.com

The Vietnam War lies like an angry scar across America.
Sen. John Kerry's presidential candidacy provides yet
another occasion for renewed skirmishes.


The "First Vietnam War" resulted from a futile French
attempt to restore their Indochina empire from 1945 until
their defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The United States
then provided substantial economic aid and military
guarantees to the newly created Republic of South
Vietnam. When the North Vietnam government resumed
hostilities--following our broken promise to allow free elections--we actively intervened with our longest war, ending in our
withdrawal in 1973 and the collapse of the puppet government two years later. Following that, we embarked on the "Third
Vietnam War," a new American civil war, in which we furiously debated the propriety of the war, demonize the 1960s,
haggle over our posture toward the Vietnamese government, or insist that every aged Frenchman or drug addict spotted in
Vietnam was a prisoner of war.

Finally, in 1994, President Bill Clinton, with considerable aid from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.),
normalized relations, essentially making Vietnam safe for American investment. When John Laurence, a former CBS
reporter, returned to Vietnam, an American official ruefully rather than ironically remarked, "You know, it would have been a
lot easier if they had just let us win the war." Make no mistake: Twenty years have passed since Vietnam was unified, but
our bitterness lingers. When Clinton announced he would send low-level envoys to Vietnam, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), the
then new Republican chairman of the House International Affairs Committee, denounced him for having "broken trust" with
the American people.

We are just over two months away from a presidential election, one that offers a referendum on a sitting president. This time
the incumbent has shifted American policy in significant new directions, with a doctrine of pre-emptive war and a revised
version of wars of national liberation, yet one that carefully avoids conflict with formidable enemies. Vietnam has
considerable usefulness as a practical lesson against such notions, but that is not what the current discussion is all about.
Instead, a group of embittered partisans, substantially aided by legal and financial advice from President Bush's supporters,
has generated an astounding array of charges questioning the Democratic candidate's war record. The media, apparently
deciding that Iraq, the economy, the politicization of scientific research, prescription drug care, the prospect for privatization
of social security, energy policy and the fiscal policies of the government are of no moment, have provided abundant space
and legitimacy for our newfound fascination with the saga of swift boats. Why are we in the Vietnam quagmire once again?


Memories linger and corrode our politics. The "Bloody Shirt" prevailed in 10 presidential elections after the Civil War.
Democrats ran against Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression for nearly 30 years. Republicans for the past 30 years
have channeled their dissatisfaction with the 1960s transformation of the culture and "values" into monumental struggles
over abortion, stem-cell research and capital punishment. Mercifully, long hair is no longer fighting ground.

The war on the 1960s is couched very much in macho terms. The assault on American foreign and military policies, critics
charge, resulted in a lingering defeatism and paralysis for the United States. The permissiveness spawned in the 1960s
arises, it is said, from both weakness and lack of principle. House Republican leader Tom DeLay has provided a new twist.
If George W. Bush had been president in the 1960s, he has said, we would have won the Vietnam War.

John Kerry volunteered for Vietnam. His shipmates have testified to his bravery and his saving some of their lives. By official
accounts, he served with distinction, even heroically. His detractors have offered us absolutely no credible evidence to
belittle his war record, except to raise doubt if he actually was in Cambodian waters. One prominent Republican veteran
remarked that he does not recall any directional signs stating, "Welcome to Cambodia."

Kerry's detractors have diverted their attention to his anti-war record. And now the cat is out of the bag. Kerry's turn
against the war struck at their conscious images of their own efforts, however heroic or ordinary. A wrong war? One with
unnecessary American brutalities and war crimes? Those who complain about Kerry and others who pointed to atrocities
on both sides in the Vietnam conflict have forgotten not only My Lai but Abu Ghraib--not to mention acts of unnecessary
cruelty by Americans and their enemies in other wars.

Kerry's opposition to the war is the heart of the matter.
We fought a war in part in behalf of a "domino theory." We did not
win, but the dominoes did not fall--no "red hordes" descended on Japan, Hawaii, or La Jolla. Kerry's criticism underscored
former Democratic Sen. J. William Fulbright's observation that the United States suffered from an "arrogance of power" and
that we could not be the "world's policeman." What is American arrogance to one man is American mission and responsibility
to another. Here is our real, intractable division.

Kerry's critics have established an argument that has no end for them, except in Kerry's defeat. They are blithely
unconcerned that the Vietnam adventure, too, resulted from deceptions or false assumptions the nation had nurtured
throughout the Cold War. Are we to forget that the Vietnam intervention was misconceived and misinformed from the start,
and miscalculated and misdirected as it progressed?

The war becomes ever more murky and ambiguous in American minds as time recedes. The astonishing irony is that the
blame cannot all fall on Kerry's detractors. Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger and Ronald Reagan insisted that
Vietnam was a "noble crusade." The nation never really bought into that dubious proposition, freighted as it was with
self-serving political calculations. But nobility apparently is now fashionable. President Bush has called Kerry's service
noble. And as journalist Christopher Hitchens recently observed, Kerry's brandishing of his military record, coupled with the
Democrats' loyal backing of him, has unintentionally bestowed on the Vietnam War what even Ronald Reagan could not:
nobility.

Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune



To: Mephisto who wrote (8992)9/2/2004 12:39:21 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 

Kerry's Past Is Key to His Future

August 3, 2004

latimes.com

Robert Scheer:
The Republicans have tried to turn John Kerry's military
service against him with repeated derogatory references
to his 1971 testimony on behalf of Vietnam Veterans
Against the War before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. But this negative tactic could backfire. If
voters were actually to read what the young war hero
said 33 years ago, most would come away with
increased respect for Kerry's prescience, his patriotism
and his willingness to speak truth to power.

After all, the young veteran was daring to state the
obvious to leaders who had been in denial for nearly a
decade, pointing out that tens of thousands of
Americans and many more Vietnamese were dying
because "we can't say we have made a mistake" in
taking sides in a civil war.


"Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be
- and these are his [Nixon's] words - 'the first
President to lose a war,' " continued Kerry. What
Kerry did not know, because the White House tapes
were then still secret, is that Lyndon B. Johnson had
uttered sentiments similar to Nixon's to justify the major
escalation of the U.S. intervention in 1964.

"I stayed awake last night thinking about this thing," LBJ
told national security advisor McGeorge Bundy on May
27, 1964. "And the more I think of it … I don't think
it's worth fighting for, and I don't think we can get out,
and it's just the biggest mess." But stay he did, launching
another decade of carpet-bombing of Vietnamese
peasants, subjecting farmers and soldiers alike to the lifetime suffering of Agent
Orange exposure, and even generating war crimes by the U.S. side, such as the
infamous My Lai massacre.

Why would Johnson expand a war he didn't believe in? Because, as another
advisor cynically warned: "The Republicans are going to make a big political issue
out of it" in that year's election. Johnson agreed. "It's the only issue they've got."
So off to war went hundreds of thousands of Americans, many of them still
suffering today - mentally, emotionally and physically.

Consider, for one, Max Cleland, who gave three limbs to that misguided war,
only to lose his Georgia Senate seat in 2002 to a Republican demagogue. His
opponent, Saxby Chambliss, who avoided service in Vietnam with a knee
problem, ran campaign ads morphing Cleland's image into Osama bin Laden's,
implying the veteran was a soft-on-terror traitor. This is a prime example of how
false patriotism can trump the real thing.

Unfortunately, the measured cadence of Cleland's and Kerry's calls for strength
tempered by wisdom during their party's convention were muffled by almost
obsessive flag-waving, which is fine so far as it represents a genuine love of
country but too often is a cover for mindless us-against-the-world militarism. It is
one thing to criticize the war in Iraq - President Bush's version of Vietnam -
but it helps little if your solutions center on even heavier applications of military
force, as some Democrats advocate. Kerry, to his credit, on Sunday vowed to
bring a significant number of troops home.

If Kerry can adhere to the integrity he displayed at key moments in his life, he
could be the man to end U.S. isolation on Iraq and rally the world toward
cooperative solutions.
This would undermine the recruitment of terrorists, rather
than inadvertently increasing it, as Bush has clearly done. But to do that, he must
be Kerry the hero and patriot who came back from Vietnam and risked his future
to expose the folly of a stupid and doomed war - not merely an echo for Bush's
militarism.

"At any time that an actual threat is posed to this country or to the security and
freedom, I will be one of the first people to pick up a gun and defend it," testified
Kerry at 27 years old. "But right now we are reacting with paranoia…. We may
have to fight … somewhere based on legitimate threats, but we must learn, in this
country, how to define those threats."

How timely to reread that testimony now, after the current U.S. administration so
underappreciated the threat Al Qaeda posed before 9/11 and so overplayed the
threat Saddam Hussein posed to the U.S. afterward. Unfortunately, the paranoia
that young Kerry warned against is now a staple of the Bush reelection campaign,
and Kerry must meet it head-on.