Here's my LTTE: Comments & corrections appreciated.

[Jackpine Radical]

As a Vietnam veteran I have carefully examined the charges some other veterans have been making against John Kerry--specifically, that he lied in order to receive fraudulent decorations for combat injuries and valorous actions. Beyond noting that none of Kerry's accusers were eyewitnesses to the events in question, I will not rehash the details of the matter here, but will summarize by saying that all contemporaneous military documents, as well as virtually all eyewitness reports, support Senator Kerry's accounts of the events and show up his detractors as either mistaken or deliberately lying. Interested readers may find a detailed report in a front page story (“Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad”) in the August 20 New York Times.
The Bush campaign has denied any connection to these attacks--as indeed they must, because any such connection would be a violation of law. Nevertheless, we know that these ads were funded by big-time Texas Republican donors and that at least one of the prime instigators, John O'Neill, began his career as a Republican propagandist and dirty trick specialist for Richard Nixon. And we also know that whenever George Bush comes up against a combat veteran, then a "mysterious" smear machine shows up to defame his opponent. It happened to John McCain in the South Carolina Republican primary of 2000 with a whispering campaign that alleged his five years as a North Vietnamese POW had left him mentally deranged and dangerous. They also claimed that he had fathered an illegitimate black daughter. There were rumors about his wife that do not bear repeating here. The attack worked. McCain's credibility collapsed and Bush defeated him.
Next, the same mysterious forces went after Max Cleleand of Georgia in 2002. They painted Cleland, who had lost both legs and his right arm at Khe Sanh, as a dupe and ally of Osama. Cleland went down in defeat to Saxby Chambliss, a man who, like Bush and Vice President Cheney, had "had other priorities" than to fight in Vietnam.
Who will be next to suffer from this administrations's disrespect for true patriotism? If you are a veteran, it may be you. The Bush administration has already revealed their true feelings toward us, not merely by making scurrilous attacks upon those veterans who have gotten in their way, but by slashing funds from veterans' hospitals while claiming to do the opposite, and by reducing retirement benefits to disabled veterans while pretending to honor their service.

[gratuitous]

1. It probably needs to be shortened up

Which is too bad, because it's a good compendium of what happens to veterans who get in Lil George's way. Maybe shorten the segment about the scurrilous charges against John McCain, and the first paragraph regarding John Kerry. It's tempting to parade the whole story across the letter so that folks can understand everything that happened, but it's crucial to keep it short, especially during election season.

The letter comes out in a great place: The Bush administration does indeed have it in for veterans. As a veteran, your turn in the barrel will come sooner or later.

[mimitabby]

2. i agree

it is clear and well written, but a little long. Your vocabulary is excellent, but this is the newspaper we're talking about.

[mimitabby]

3. okay, suggestion

cut the verbiage on the attacks and increase the last paragraph
with more details on what bush has done to vets.

best of luck

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Comments received, appreciated & integrated.

I think it's a much stronger offering as a result of your kind help.
My local paper limits the length to 300 words.
Here's the current version, which just makes it for length:

As a Vietnam veteran I have studied the charges some other veterans have levelled against John Kerry--specifically, that he lied in order to receive fraudulent decorations for combat injuries and heroic actions. Interestingly, none of Kerry's detractors were eyewitnesses to the events in question, and all military documents and eyewitness reports of the time support Kerry's accounts of the events, showing up his accusers as either mistaken or deliberately lying. Interested readers may find details on the front page of the August 20 New York Times in a story captioned “Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad”.
It seems that whenever George Bush comes up against a combat veteran, then a "mysterious" smear machine goes into operation. In South Carolina in 2000, the smear campaign alleged that John McCain’s five years as a North Vietnamese POW had left him mentally deranged and dangerous and falsely claimed McCain had fathered an illegitimate black daughter. There were rumors about his wife that do not bear repeating here. The attack worked. McCain's credibility collapsed and Bush defeated him.
Next, the same mysterious forces went after Senator Max Cleland of Georgia in 2002. They painted Cleland, who had lost both legs and his right arm at Khe Sanh, as a dupe and ally of Osama. Cleland went down in defeat to a man who, like Bush and Vice President Cheney, had "had other priorities" than to fight in Vietnam.
Who will be the next target? If you are a veteran, it may be you. The Bush administration has already revealed their true sentiments, not merely by viciously attacking McCain, Cleland and Kerry, but by slashing funds from veterans' hospitals while claiming to do the opposite, and by reducing retirement benefits to disabled veterans while pretending to honor their service.

[kaitykaity]

5. Nicely done.

I would add a link to the NY Times story. The local paper here prints them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?n=Top%2FNews%2FWashington%2FCampaign%202004%2FCandidates%2FJohn%20F%20Kerry

and then delete the "then" in the second paragraph.

up against a combat veteran, then a "mysterious" smear

I would start the sentence like this: "Whenever George W. Bush comes up against an honorable combat veteran, a "mysterious" smear machine goes into operation."