Editorial: Kerry takes up the Swift Boat Charges

[kskiska]

He deserves this opportunity to set the public record straight.

Most of the controversies from the wild 2004 presidential campaign have long been forgotten. But one is coming back, the New York Times reported this week, and we're glad it is: Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee for president, is joining an effort to debunk the many attacks on his service in Vietnam more than two decades earlier.

Kerry is a holder of three purple hearts, a bronze star and a silver star, all awarded in a four-month stint aboard Navy swift boats in Vietnam's Mekong delta. When he returned home, he was disillusioned with the war and said so, most famously before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. There he recounted other veterans' stories of atrocities committed and uttered the powerful question, "How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Although they had little bearing on Kerry's qualifications to be president, his young-man's sentiments on Vietnam were a legitimate issue. But that's not where it stopped. Reprising a campaign tactic that had worked well against Sen. John McCain in 2000 and Sen. Max Cleland in 2002, White House political strategist Karl Rove went straight at Kerry's most significant strength: his war record. In the following months, Kerry was accused of shooting himself to get the purple hearts; of having political plans even at that young age that fueled a cynical plot to get medals any way he could; of fabricating, lying about and exaggerating his military experiences. The tactic worked; people began to think maybe Kerry was "Unfit for Command," the title of an anti-Kerry book. Eventually, and bizarrely, people were arguing about whether Kerry took his boat into Cambodia on one occasion. To us the story sounded quite plausible (a number of Americans made clandestine trips into Cambodia during that time), as well as irrelevant to the campaign.

No candidate should have to endure what Kerry got. Some wanted him to sue, but he is a public figure, which complicates matters, and any lawsuit would have taken too long to work its way through the courts, in the meantime highlighting the accusations.

more…
http://www.startribune.com/561/story/470443.html

[keopeli]

1. "He deserves this opportunity to set the public record straight."

While this may be true, it's also a grave understatement of the fact.

Kerry deserves to be President, just like Gore.

We have two qualified and capable and willing men who have stepped up to the challenge at hand but were thwarted by criminals who are nursing their delirium for power on the breast of America's resources, including her money, her children, and her reputation.

The fact that we are not running in the streets appalls me. I long for the day that will happen.

Who needs a piece of s*#t editorial to lick the wounds of America's last political victim! We need a voice that will shout those bastards out of their wealthy slumber and march them off to the funny farm.

Who's with me?!

--

Peace!

[cyr330]

2. Long overdue

I'm no fan of John Kerry, and he SHOULD HAVE done this long, long ago, but at least he's doing it now. . . .

[Skittles]

3. I agree

he should have confronted these lying bastards IMMEDIATELY, especially when they were following a well-known dirty tricks campaign