Good for Kerry, Everyone Knows Swifties Lied About Him

He admits it was a mistake not to focus on it in the campaign but he is spending the time and money to clear his name.

Shame on those who lied about him just for political gain. In my opinion, rounding up that crew to attack a true veteran in defense of a President who skipped out on the war was the most shameful moment in the 2004 campaign.

Attack Kerry as a flip-flopper or n his policy views, but to lie about his service was out of line.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/washington/28kerry.html?ei=5065&en=c5547ed7bc74510b&ex=1149393600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

I think Kerry's campaign had vastly more mistakes than this. I don't think he's really acknowledged those mistakes, and until he does I think any second attempt is ridiculous.

I agree with you about the Swifties thing, tho, Turbo. There was enough about the man to question without delving into unreasonable personal attacks.

I definitely agree with you there.

As an European bystander, I'd say that shit campaigns are nothing new in American politics.

But I think most Europeans still find it hard to understand how Bush could get re-elected. Most Americans I've talked to does not support Bush. To the average European, Bush stands out as an extremist, far away from the open-minded, liberal Americans we usually meet.

I personally question the Florida election issues, both in 2000 and 2004, but hey, it's not my country, I just read the news. I really shouldn't care.

such as?

You'd be right to question it. Both elections if held outside of the USA would have had us all screaming Coup d' tat. BUt most Americans think that can never happen here.

Bush stole both elections but the American People have a hard time aknowedging that fact.

Florida election results in 2004? Bush won by 400,000 votes. I think you're thinking of Ohio in 2004, dear, but even there the discrepencies were nowhere near the scale of Florida in 2000. That's why Kerry didn't challenge the results in a recount.

It, of course, matters not just whether they support him now, Moonshine, but whether they did two years ago. I know many people who voted for Bush in 2004 (I personally didn't; I held my nose and voted for Kerry) who say they now wish they hadn't. Kudos to them. But seriously, I doubt you know enough Americans to make a dent in electoral results - there are, after all, over 250 million people in this country.

I think since Clinton in 1996, the Democrats haven't had a truly well-run and managed Presidential campaign. Much as many Democrats don't want to admit it, Gore didn't lose the election because of Florida. If he'd run a good enough campaign, he could have won the office with or without Florida's 24 electoral votes. If he'd won West Virginia, New Hampshire, or Tennessee he'd have won the election. As much as people like to obsess about the recount, a smart Democrat should blame Gore's election loss on Gore, not Katharine Harris, and move on.

Were there problems in Florida? Yes, of course. Was it an embarrassing mess that should never have happened in any industrialized nation, let alone the world's only superpower? You bet. Should we try to fix the problems? Of course we should. Could the Bushies have known it would come down to one state, the state where the candidate's brother was governor? Of course not. It could as easily have come down to Oregon, New Mexico, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine - almost any other "swing state" in the nation. And the results might well have been equally terrible; the voting systems in this nation are not as advanced as we all like to think they are

To say he only lost because of some wide-ranging conspiracy to steal votes in Florida is to get hung up on one part of what was a much larger campaign. Whatever the results in Florida, if he had done just slightly better he would have won the election without it. So if you don't like Bush, be mad at Gore and Kerry for running lousy, undisciplined, disorganized campaigns, and do what you can to make sure the Democrats have an organized candidate next time.

His lack of any major legislative accomplishments over the course of decades in the Senate, his failure to run anything in his life besides a U.S. Senate office (even running the Texas Rangers or your father's oil company is more substantial), his policy views that seemed to change at the drop of a hat, his being from Massachusetts......need I go on?

I didn't much like Kerry, but I voted for him. I think the Democrats had a number of better options that year, and I hope they're smart enough to find a better candidate in 2008. Either a better-organized liberal or a well-liked moderate could have won in 2000 or 2004.


Except that a coup d'état is a seizure of power by the military, not the stealing of an election - even if that did happen. Believe it or not, Kendra, just because that's what you think happened doesn't make it true. It might have been a coup d'Texas.

I'll admit that I find the reelection of Bush hard to understand too. And I live in the US.

But across the pond, your sample will also be biased. The really closed-minded Americans don't travel to Europe, or anywhere else for that matter. They believe they're already living in the best of all possible nations; why would they want to leave it to visit some inferior place?

There were discrepencies in Florida as well. Kerry didnt challenge because the fascists have done away with verifiable voting through Diebold. Kerry is a former prosecutor. You don't make allegations without solid evidence.



I voted enthusiastically for Kerry.



Let's see. Gore actually won. This is not conjecture it's fact. If ALL Florida votes had been counted, and not stopped by The US Supreme Court it has been verified that Gore would have won Florida --thus giving him both the Popular AND Electoral votes. So --his campaign was fine.

Kerry actually would have won. If not for the documented cases of Voter supression in Ohio. The fact that he even came close to beating an incumbent President during "War Time" further shows his campaign was fine. The mainsteam media was constantly under-cutting Kerry. On a level playing field Kerry would have mopped the floor with the Chimpanzee.




As stated --Gore actually won.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Carter_says_Gore_won_2000_el_0922.html




Of course they could --and of course they did. They track this stuff for months! Hell even I knew it was going to be Florida.



But pre-polling is. Terribly exact.



That's just hype. Their campaigns were fine. To ignore what really happened in '00 and '04 is to truly doom the Democrats.




A Decorated War hero, who served as a State Prosecutor and then a US Senator who despite your allegations has a stellar legislative record AND a brilliant legacy of investigative work in uncovering the Iran/Contra scandal is hardly a do nothing guy, especially when compared to Bush's track record as a silver-spoon baby who was constantly bailed out by his daddy and his Saudi business partners.

So yes --go on --go on and feed us the mindless media garbage that was fed to you to make Kerry seem less than the stellar President he would have been.






Fine --I call it a Putsch instead (Though Coup d'Texas is terribly funny!)

You don't? Could've fooled me. I would've sworn that's what you were doing.


Funny, dozens of media-sponsored recounts showed Bush the winner, while others showed Kerry the winner. It's hardly a fact. It's a biased interpretation of the facts. The fact is that when an election is that close, it's pretty much mathematically impossible to determine once and for all who the winner is. Sad but true.


If his campaign was "fine", how come he fired his staff halfway through? How come he had $15 million left in the bank at the end of it? Those aren't signs of competency.
Though I do love that now liberals are getting into the "vast media conspiracy" delusion along with conservatives. Let's spread the grassy-knollisms around equally.


Right, just keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night. I prefer to be realistic and consider why he managed to do things like not win his home state of Tennessee, or lose a state that Democrats had been winning regularly for decades (West Virginia). Again, if he'd carried New Hampshire, he'd have been President.


There were over a half-dozen states that were as close in the polls as Florida. It could have come down to any one of those as much as Florida.


Apparently you were living in some bizarre alternate universe. Neither campaign held a candle to Clinton, who was a brilliant campaigner and political strategist. Neither overcame their troubles as candidates. When your most famous quote in a campaign is "I voted before it before I voted against it", it's a sign that things were less than perfect.


You're right. Because it goes against what you say, it must be mindless. Clearly making a reasonable argument citing events and facts is mindless garbage, if it goes against your opinion. Running a county district attorney's office hardly holds a candle to running a multimillion dollar corporation, whether you earned the money yourself or not.


Thanks. My Molly Ivins moment.

So because I voted for Bush I'm close minded? On the other hand I'm a polyglot and have travelled all over. And, yes, I think that the US is the greatest nation on earth-just as I would expect any citizen to view theirs as the greatest nation on the planet. It's called rooting for the home team. Just like I view my kids as being the greatest kids in the world...well that's proven fact-but you get my drift....


-Kiamat Dusk

I don't think that's true at all, certainly not in my experience. Most people seem to be very keen to list all of the things that are wrong with their home city, state, region, country. The moment an outsider, though, tries to do the same, well, then you start getting fireworks.

Precisely. Keep it in the family. It's fine to discuss amongst yourselves, but that's family. I saw a good example on The O'Reilly Factor one night. He was interviewing a French author about the recent riots and at one point the author said, "I never speak ill of my country when I'm abroad." Bingo! Kendra and I can go back and forth all we want, but the moment someone from outside the country steps in, we should both be telling them to stay out of it. Sadly, too many on the Left see it as a badge of honor to humble themselves before mighty Europe as if it's some sign of their superior intellect.

-Kiamat Dusk

Well, there are situations where it gets a pass. If I say "Tony Blair is a shit" and somebody else says "yes, look at his record on civil liberties, ID cards wtf" I'd agree with them. However, the moment it turns into "and we'd never do that here in <country X>" I'd be obliged to turn around and say "well hold on a minute there..."

It's a matter of informed comment and not being some sort of nationalist competitor. By all means criticise, say, Tony Blair's record on civil liberties (not that there aren't other examples) just don't do it from a position of trying to prove superiority.

I would have to disagree with that. There are many areas where I feel the US is lacking compared to other countries in the world.

The ability to objectively rank your country among others in the world allows you to work towards improving your country.

At the end of the day, home is where you hang your hat. It is up to you to decide what kind of home that is.

I've been to 14 countries. None of them give you the freedoms that the U.S. does. What are you talking about when you say "there are many areas?? Can you name several (several being 5 or more )

Briana Dawson

I think you can work towards improving your country without involving ranking or comparison at all. No matter whether my nation is the worst or best in the world, collectively or in a certain area, I always want it to be better.

In a smaller-scale example, my high school didn't believe in academically ranking students; that didn't prevent me from being motivated towards academic success, though. Motivation does not require competition.

Education, Healthcare, Election Fraud (as in we're not the best at stopping it), Diplomacy, Technology, Environmentalism, Infrastructure. Is seven sufficient? I can probably think of some more given time, but those are seven off the top of my head.

- Education: We can do better in this area and should work towards that.

- Healthcare: Other countries are taxed out the ass for state healthcare, I think the U.S. is fine.

- Election Fraud: ??? not worth responding

- Diplomacy: not worth responding

Environment: We ARE doing horrible in this area.

Infrastructure: ??? Get real, the U.S. has an excellent infrastructure compared to other countries.

So, no, your 'seven' is not sufficient. And still no other country offers the freedoms that the U.S. does.

Briana Dawson

Then I shall remedy and explain. First off, the post you were replying to does not mention freedom. Merely that we were lacking in several areas.

Education: We agree so no discussion is needed.

Healthcare: We are not the best at providing it broadly to all peoples, nor are we the best at providing the highest quality care (regardless of ability). I would also entertain the notion that our particular mishmash of quality and distribution may not be the best either. As the subject is healthcare and not taxes or economics, it is irrelevant how it is funded.

Election Fraud: Whether or not it has occured, we still didn't do anything to deal with accusations. I have seen more conclusive endings to such accusations elsewhere, therefore we are not the best at this.

Diplomacy: Simply put, we are not the shining example of diplomacy around the world.

Technology: Obviously we don't disagree here either, as you did not mention it.

Environment: Yup, really bad here.

Infrastructure: Every country that developed their internet after us has a better one. We have not upgraded ours. Obviously there are other portions of our infrastructure, but I need only point out one to qualify ours as not the best. So if you'd like I can merely limit the infrastructure category to "internet infrastructure". I attempted to be broad though, as the number of subcategories in which we are not the best that I could use would certainly be larger than "several".

And further, I will add:

Freedom (since you seem to want to discuss it): We do not possess the freedoms of other countries regarding the use of some types of substances. We also limit our encouragement of some types of scientific development, but not others. That may or may not be a good thing, but certain countries do trump us in these.

As a Viet Nam vet I was very concerned about what the Swifties were saying about Senator John Kerry because when he first got the nomination I like the man. Let me say that nothing John Kerry did in Viet Nam was anything other than honorable and courageus service. However after reading everything I could get my hands on from both inside the Senators own campaign website and everyother avaliable source including official government documents, I came to the conclusion the the truth lies somewhere in between what the Swifties said and what the Senator says. In conclusion, I'm sorry but I have absolutely no respect for a man who will not accept responsibility for hie own actions and you will find most Viet Nam vets have no use for John Kerry which has nothing to do with his service in Viet Nam.

Probably having to do with how nobody else legitimately won that many medals in that short of a time -- AND made personal home movies of their own re-enactments. It just smells fishy.

Svar, thank you very much for your service. My brother is a Vietnam vet, too, and would agree with everything you said. I salute you, sir.

Wow, thank you for the thank you. You are the second person to do that in a month and the first person who did is a wounded vet of the current war in Iraq. It was very hard for me to talk to him since he almost lost his life over there and would go back if he was able. I support our troops wherever they are sent but never thought we had any business in Iraq in the first place and I was privy to secret briefings on the weapons of mass destruction the USA thought were there. I couldn't tell him that because I wanted to show my support

I Thank You as well. I had a father, a sister and a (now ex husband) there. It was a horrible time. When my ex came back in uniform people were actually spitting on him. No one ever said "Thank you".

So from the bottom of my heart Svar - Thank You.

Rose.

For a very disturbing insight into the real propaganda and campaign of lies that stole the honor from our Vietnam veterans, I highly recommend Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of its Heroes and its History by B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley. Burkett is a journalist who made extensive use of FOIA documents in investigating thousands of claims of war crimes made by alleged Vietnam veterans. He discovered that most of the "veterans" cited by anti-war activist groups either never served in Vietnam at all, or were never actually in combat. Yet their lies formed the basis for a widespread campaign to discredit our military and paint them as murderers, criminals and drug addicts. The anti-war campaign was so successful that vets encountered difficulty in getting jobs (even with glowing education credentials and military records), and the media capitalized on the myth of Vietnam vets as drug-crazed sociopaths for the sake of sensationalism. (He includes the example of Peter Arnett's over-blown reports from the field, including the beginning of the "We had to destroy the village in order to save it" media myth concerning a village which was actually destroyed by hostile NVA fire, not US fire.)

Kerry's testimony to Congress in the early 70s was a part of this myth-building, and I saw very little contrition coming from his campaign for the grave disservice he did to his fellow soldiers -- Swiftboats or not, he repeated the lies of the anti-war movement to advance his own political traction, and that's well documented.

Some of the same extremist anti-war groups and their adherents have been hard at work undermining the Iraq War. The real issues and the principled opposition to that war have been drowned out by shallow sloganeering like we see in this thread, and it's a damned reprehensible shame.