No more Kerry's...

[karynnj]

107. Both wrong

Kerry did fight back. He hit Bush harder than his VP, who should have been the attack dog did. At the end of the campaign Kerry was speaking of the fact that Bush's people left the KNOWN ammo dumps unsecured for months - and that ammo was beig used in the ied killing and maiming "our kids". Give me one charge in ANY campaign stronger than this - it is gross negligence and it led to kids being killed AND it led to a FAR more violent Iraq for teh Iraqis as well. He was also the one in 2003 and 2004 who criticized Bush for "outsourcing the capture of OBL" to Afghan warlords who were allied ith teh Taliban weeks before.

That was STRONG - so often, people mistake pounding fists, loud voices and red faces with fighting back - Kerry's dignified demeanor let him attack harder. (This cycle Edwards talked a good game of standing up to corruption - but Kerry actually had done it!)

As to the SBVT, Kerry did fight back:

The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August.(In 2008, the first reaction of the Obama team was to put out 41 pages on lies in Corsi's book.) This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. (Like Kerry, Obama used surrogates against Corsi rather than respond himself)

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright?

Many Democrats, including Edwards who was asked to, did little. It wasn't that tey had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 2 minutes long - so there is no excuse.

As to the before it before he was against it - the comment was shorthand to explain that he had been for the $87 billion supplemental war spending paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1% - a version Bush said he would veto and against adding it to the debt.