John Kerry e-mail: "We gave voice to our values and won"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

I wish you could have been on the floor of the Senate to see it happen.

Yesterday, I put our values to a vote -- advancing two key elements of our Military Families Bill of Rights. Their successful passage produced a dramatic victory for military families that have sacrificed so much for our country.

You made it happen. By giving voice to our values over months of effort, the johnkerry.com community moved military families closer to the help they so richly deserve.

We succeeded in getting the Republican Senate to allow military families who have lost a loved one to remain in military housing for a full year, not the current 180 days. Then we got the Republican Senate to agree to assure that all military families receive a total of $500,000 in death benefits when a loved one dies in service to America.

These measures passed, in no small part, because I was able to read some of the more than 3000 personal stories that johnkerry.com community members shared in response to my call for help.

Several Senators were so moved that they asked on the spot to be added as co-sponsors. We still have work to do. The bill now goes to the House of Representatives where we'll have to press for action.

But, right now, I just want to thank you. We gave voice to our values and won.

Together,

John Kerry

P.S. Below are just a few of the many stories that I officially entered into the Congressional Record.

To read all of the stories entered into the record please visit:

http://www.johnkerry.com/features/militaryfamilies

Alan - Aberdeen, SD

This is a story about my own family. In January 2003, my wife was called to active duty with her Army National Guard unit. She was inactive status and a mere 7 days from being completely out of the military when she was mobilized. She went from being a civilian attorney to a Sergeant/E-5 administrative clerk at a significant loss of pay. At that time, I became a single parent to four young children for one full year. In August 2004, I too was called to active duty with my Army Reserve unit. I went from being a university professor to being a Sergeant First Class/E-7. Once again, our four children were without one of their parents during their critical stages of development. We've done our part, now it's time for others to do their part. The burden placed on the National Guard and Reserve forces seems extreme. The morale among more seasoned soldiers, those with 10 to 20 years of service, is not good. Many are getting out of the military at the first available moment.

-----------

Jack - Corpus Christi, TX

This is a story about a young couple in Austin, Texas. The husband works for Home Depot and was called up in the Marine reserves. There are two young children, both girls. One of the girls has Job's Syndrome. Home Depot did not continue the family's insurance.

They had to go out and pay ridiculous rates for additional health insurance to cover the child. That was money they could not afford because Home Depot did not pay his salary while he was gone. The child was in the hospital for much of the time the father was in Iraq. The mother had to take off from teaching to stay with the child in the hospital. She used up all vacation and sick time, and then was docked pay for lost time. We are not taking care of our soldiers or their families.

-----------

Doris - Albuquerque, NM

I just lost my husband on February 11. He was a navy pilot for 28 years. He paid on my SBP for years, and now I can hardly get by, and waiting for the increase in October is going to be difficult. I will have to sell my house to survive. It appears they are waiting for us to die to....

Not enough is being done for the active duty veteran. I don't see how the administration can be so tight with the veterans and their loved ones while we wage war in a foreign country and pour in millions of millions of dollars.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClintonTyree]

2. That was BEFORE he voted against it....

didn't you get the memo? ;) Kerry is STILL harboring thoughts of running again in '08. He waved the white flag too quickly in '04 for my tastes and ran a very lethargic campaign. He'll never get my support again, although I should NEVER say NEVER. He certainly wouldn't be in my top 10 picks for the nomination.

[Mass]

3. Happy he did something that was useful

The rest is besides the point. The nomination is in three years. Who knows who will be candidate.

The more interesting thing is that the only Senators that voted AGAINST this bill were all Republicans.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MoonRiver]

14. Lol, this routine is becoming so predictable.

[Mass]

16. You're right

All somebody has to do to have you appear is to post something about Kerry! This is really predictable.

And I should stop answering you because it is simply a loss of time. Just proud he is my Senator.

[paulk]

30. pot meet kettle

:puke:

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mass]

4. Never mind

I was going to answer, but I dont have time for that. There are real things to do in a real world.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mass]

6. Never mind

[emulatorloo]

7. Yes, I just hate it when Kerry does something to help people

Or goes after Bolton or Rice or Bush's policies or pushes things like health care for children. Or does any of the things that we at DU demand Dems do to represent us. Kerry should just stop already with the opposing Bush thing and helping people.

[Mass]

8. No, he should simply stop to exist

This is probably the only thing that can satisfy some people.

I guess it is good sign. Kerry must be doing something good for the Kerry bashers to be out like that.

[Dr Ron]

29. How dare he oppose Bush and not be Bush-Lite

In opposing Bush, Kerry i s totally screwing up the complaints of his critics. How dare he? :)

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mass]

15. You dont like him. Your strictest right!!

If a lot of Democrats dont like him, he will lose in the primary assuming he runs. That is called DEMOCRACY. Not that some people impose their law by yelling the loudest.

I am not interested in 08 right now because there are important elections in 06, and even 05. At this point, I dont even know who I would support in 08. But it is tiring that all somebody has to do is to post something Kerry did to see you guys (the same less than 10 people) appear. Where are you when Reid or Byrd vote for the Bankruptcy Bill, for example. Generally nowhere.

[MoonRiver]

17. I have no doubt he will lose the primary.

I just get tired of all this Kerry propaganda on DU. If you don't like my posts feel free to click the ignore button. I won't be offended.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. There are important elections in 05?

I'm from the UK, and I'm not a great expert on US politics, but I thought your Senate, Congress and President were all picked in even years? What happens in 05? Statewide stuff? Judicial positions?

[Sydnie]

33. Tip O'Neil was right

"All politics are local". Statewide or City/Town elections happen every year.

[Mass]

34. A few governors and mayors

May be not important at the federal level, but I am sure that for people in NJ and VA, these elections are significative as is probably the mayoral election in LA.

[AlmightyTallest]

68. NY Mayor too

That'll be big. I'm hoping by 2006 every major office will be held by a Democrat.

[karynnj]

39. I know there's a race for Governor in NJ and I think Virginia in 2005

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sydnie]

27. I agree completely!

He still has our backs, one bill, one hearing, one statement at a time. He IS my President!

[Dr Ron]

31. Irrelevant Faction

"The little faction here on DU that does not want Kerry to run again is not going to stop him. "

We know these people aren't representative of the Democratic party. After all, if they were, Kerry wouldn't have run away with the nomination--including winning the majority of the vote of opponents of the war.

It might have helped that in Iowa there was good coverage of the issues--such as the Des Moines Register running a lengthy article showing that Dean's position on Iraq was no different from Kerry's. (Actually that article made Dean sound a bit more hawkish, but that's trivial. The key point is that both had he same position, and we would not have been in the war if either was President.)

[kerrygoddess]

37. It also helped that Kerry's team worked under the wire...

Something some folks still don't get.

[Dr Ron]

41. Sort of like his efforts at voting reform

Those attacking him for his post-election actions have no idea of how much effort he put into investigating hte election results, and into beginning the push for voting reform.

[Laurab]

66. I don't care whether you like Kerry or not

What I don't understand is why so many have to pop in on ANY thread that has Kerry's name in it, just to bash him. The post was about something good that he did in the senate. It wasn't about him running in '08, it wasn't about what you perceive he did after the election.

I think most Kerry supporters are well aware of what happened after the election. I know I am. I will never understand how people really think he could have fought something that was not proveable, but I don't even want to understand anymore. Mainly because people's minds are made up, and they don't want to be confused with the facts.

I certainly acknowledge that a lot of DU'ers don't like him - they post that in EVERY single thread about Kerry, and most are threads about something good the man has done. I don't CARE if you like him or not. I don't give a rats ass if you want him running in '08. I don't even know if I want him to run in '08 - it's far too early to even LOOK at '08 yet. I do, however consider myself a Kerry supporter.

I also support ANY dem who is fighting for the right things. I have not posted a single bash in a single thread about a democratic leader who is fighting the good fight against the evil that has overtaken our country.

I don't understand what people get out of it, and I never will.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karynnj]

20. He didn't support it - he voted for the IWR to get the inspectors in

Without the leverage from that vote, it is possible that Bush and the UN would not have been able to get the inspectors in. Without the inspectors, Bush would have attacked as he already intended to. Remember, as CIC, Bush was already sending troops to staging areas outside Iraq in the summer of 2002. The reason he went to the UN and to Congress in the first place was the pressure placed on him by people like Kennedy,Kerry et al.

With the destruction of Iraqi missiles and investigations even in Presidential palaces, Bush could have found a REAL victory by letting the inspectors complete their work and remove all the explosives and other materials under seal and under control. (In fact there was a Friedman column at that time hoping that Bush was "crazy like a Fox" by appearing crazy enough to start a war against Iraq in order to achieve this end.) Remember all those explosives are now in terrorist hands. Without the inspectors - if there were no war, they would presumably be in Saddam's hands. The best solution was to have the international inspectors do their job and to then drop sanctions (that were killing people) while monitoring that Iraq remained clean.

I honestly do not see any circumstances where Bush would not have gone to war. As many people pointed out at the time, Clinton did not have UN or Congressional approval when he authorized the bombing of Serbia (with NATO). Bush could have and would have started the war.
Kerry's statements against the war in early 2003 were as strong as any other statements I've seen. People who assign the same quilt to Kerry (and other Democrats) for Bush's war are diminishing Bush's guilt. Read Kerry statements, had he have been President he would not have gone to war. If Kerry voted against the resolution, there would still have been war.

[rfkrfk]

21. Kerry meant what he wrote in the e-mail, or not?

Kerry meant what what he wrote, or is it nuance?
If the latter, perhaps someone could interpret.

If Kerry didn't mean what he wrote, he should send
clarification.

[kerrygoddess]

23. huh?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kerrygoddess]

26. Final answer on what?

[Dr Ron]

28. Obviously they don't know what they are talking about

Kerry had a single, consistent policy opposing Bush's policies on Iraq from the beginning (as I know you realize). Same position as Dean's to support military action if, and only if, we were shown to be endangered by WMD.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[politicasista]

35. Great Rovian talking points

Just what Blinky wants. Poor Kerry, he does the right things yet people are so ungrateful for it. Some people just can't get over the primaries.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

54. Sort of like some posters who can't deal with the fact that their primary

promises he made to get a party position.But that would be irrelevant. Some think they worked really hard on THAT campaign only to see their "outside the beltway candidate " morph into Al From and appoint a pro-lifer as spokesman for the party. But whatever. THAT doesn't count.We have to go back to bashing Kerry for doing the right thing in the Senate and not being quiet and disappearing.
There is something Rovian and it isn't the Kerry supporters. They are true liberals as is the Senator!

[blm]

42. Probably the same as if the Biden-Lugar version of the IWR passed.

Kerry supported a RESOLUTION that had guidelines to prevent war, not significantly different than the Biden-Lugar bill which Dean supported. If Bush had followed the guidelines for weapons inspections and allowed them the time they needed, there would have been no invasion.

You let George Bush off the hook for skirting those guidelines every time you try to blame the IWR as the cause of the war.

Resolutions don't CAUSE wars.

[MoonRiver]

43. "Resolutions don't CAUSE wars."

No. But they open the door for them. After years of being deceived how on earth could Democrats, including Kerry, have trusted that * was going to do anything ethical, moral or according to anybody's guidelines? I'm convinced they didn't trust him but were so terrified about their own political arses that they voted for IWR, maybe hoping that the UN would show the spine Dems lacked. Like I've said a million times, I somehow got through that and worked for Kerry's campaign after he got the nomination. But he finally blew it for me when he conceded without a fight and before all the votes were counted.

[blm]

55. and so now, you think it's OK to distort everything about him to fit your

storyline....as if the Iraq war was the beginning of all thought. Sorry, but, anyone who knows real history knows that Kerry supported actions against Iraq long before, and, along with Clinton and Gore, it had a purpose. In fact, two purposes.

The Republicans launched a campaign to get rid of the UN in the 90s. They wanted to use the fact that Saddam wouldn't allow the inspectors back in as proof the UN couldn't handle their job. To preserve the UN as relevant, Clinton drafted plans to go into Iraq. Kerry was with him on that, and even Scott Ritter testified to Kerry's committee in 98 that Saddam had WMDs and possibly nucclear capabilities. So, they were going to use force to back up the original UN resolution.....to preserve the UN....but there's more....

They wanted to effect regime change from within because Saddam was being targeted by Bin Laden for control over Iraq. Everyone thought Iraq had greater capabilities including Bin Laden, and he also hated Saddam for not allowing Islamic rule in any part of government. Bin Laden wanted Saddam assassinated or overthrown.

Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Biden were all very much aware of the terror issue and knew that Saddam was prone to miscalculation and they couldn't afford for Bin Laden to pick him off and take control of Iraq. Bin Laden as head of a state.

When the allies wouldn't go with them on the regime change, Clinton went to deal with Bin Laden over in Afghanistan. He made a deal with the Pakistani president to train a special forces team that would work with Pakistani intelligence agents to take on Bin Laden in the hills of his training camps.

Musharraf's coup put an end to that deal. That is why I think MIHOP was being put into place even back then.

There is nothing one-dimensional about the whole Iraq situation. There were alot of layers to it that would never come up in the media. But, OUR guys were NOT the bad guys. They had the right motivations and goals, and nothing close to what the BFEE had planned. None of them would have invaded Iraq unless it was the ONLY way. They planned for an internal negotiation to replace Saddam and as documents show, Saddam was ready to negotiate before Bush invaded.

If YOU want to believe there were only shallow reasons for that vote, then go ahead. I don't expect anyone new to the whole issue to grasp all the factors that were in play for many years. There was way too much going on to explain to those who weren't paying attention.

I happened to be paying attention back then because the Feminist Majority Foundation was pressuring the Clinton administration to do something about the rise of the Taliban back in 96 because of its suppression of women's rights and their very lives. When Bin Laden joined forces with them, it gave us greater urgency and Clinton was well aware of that.

Not everyone learned about Bin Laden and the Taliban on Sept. 11, 2001. Some of us already had working knowledge of both.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MoonRiver]

62. No that is the entire situation. Kerry enabled the bushistas in their

imperialistic aggression.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Laurab]

70. Was his the deciding vote?

I mean, aside from the fact that he did NOT vote to go to war per se, although your posts all seem to say it's his fault we're there. He voted to give bushit authority to go through a whole bunch of steps that one could reasonably expect he would have gone through. Actually, more than reasonably expect - I think legally he was obligated to go through those steps. Of course he didn't, we all know that now. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, however the senate didn't have the benefit of that when they voted on that bill.

There is no precedent in our history of a president NOT doing the things he has promised to do, prior to taking the country to war. There is no precedent for almost ANYTHING this president has done. There is so much about bush we know now that we didn't know then.

It is not John Kerry's vote that led us to Iraq, it is George W. Bush. No matter WHAT the vote had been, we would still have gone to war, since * & co do what they want, when they want, and suffer no consequences. We were going to Iraq, it had already been decided. Kerry's vote, however ill-advised it was, made NO difference.

He is NOT the reason we're there. George W. Bush and his warmonger PNAC buddies are, and we would be there no matter HOW the senate had voted.

[MoonRiver]

71. I never said he was the sole reason we're there.

Obviously, his vote encouraged * to proceed and, along with all the other Senate votes, gave the invasion its only symblance of legitimacy. * couldn't con most of the world community but he was able to pull the wool over the US Senate! Go figure!

[LittleClarkie]

53. February 20, 2003, Salon.com

"If the UN in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the US should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

Howard Dean

[Eloriel]

60. Yeah, and he was already disarmed, which is something Dean

also believed to be true. What's yer point?

[Dr Fate]

38. Kerry did a great job on this- thanks JFK! n/t

n/t

[Clarkie1]

46. Cheap ammendments.

These are great ammendements, but cheap and easy ones for the Republicans to vote for. The Republicans apparantly only want to help the relatively small minority of Veterans who die in the line of duty and to hell with the rest.

They shot down on the same day a 1.98 billion ammendent for veterans' health care for the living.

The vote for that ammendment was on straight party lines with the exception of Spectre voting for it. All Democrats voted Yea, all other Republicans besides Spectre voted Nay.

So I guess what the Republicans are saying is they only have enough money for the dead Veterans and their families.

[LittleClarkie]

47. And so proud of the fact

they did it by voice vote, so as to be undetectible in their "compassion."

God forbid they should be seen doing something bi-partisan.

[WildEyedLiberal]

48. Every little bit helps

The Repukes should really be ashamed of themselves that they are so loath to spend money on veterans. I guess "support our troops" only applied to those who are still physically able to be used as cannon fodder. :mad:

[AlmightyTallest]

50. Republican lingo

Support the Troops = Support the War. Of course that then results in more dead troops, but thankfully our government keeps us blissfully free of such images!

[WildEyedLiberal]

51. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[AlmightyTallest]

69. Thanks

Been lurking a while, finally posting. Still working out the system.

PS I love the smilies. B-)

[AlmightyTallest]

49. It's better than nothing

And I'm sure Kerry, Clark and Pelosi will keep pushing the Veterans Bill of Rights. Now the Dems need to make that vote stick to the Republicans and show that they are not truely supporting the troops. This should be talking point for 2006.

PS. Hurray for small victories too! :toast:

[Clarkie1]

52. Agreed...

The G.I. Bill of Rights needs to be a major 06' talking point.

We need to attack them on their patriotism.

And, of course, small victories are better than nothing and I commend Kerry for working to pass these ammendments.

[KoKo]

57. Praise Jesus! Kerry has come out and is fighting for us.....n/t

[wabranty]

63. I'll make you a deal on Kerry . . .

I will support him if he promises to run in all 50 states, never hire overpriced and undertalented consultants (Shrum), and creates a consistent message. If you run the Kerry that did so well in the first debate, then he's a great candidate.

And no freakin' windsurfing pictures!

[Eloriel]

65. How 'bout finding his own center and sticking with it?

That's my main beef with him -- that and his narcissism. And this little communique just reminds me of all of it.

:grr:

[wisteria]

67. Kerry is responsible for a small victory against the republicans

and with our help has made the lives of military families struggling with death and enormous hardships a little easier,(we hope) and you fault him for this? I certainly don't agree with any of your post. It's easy to make broad statements and not explain the motive or reasoning behind them.

[karynnj]

72. Narcissism? I certainly don't see it

Any one who runs for President has to be extremely self confident and have high self esteem. I wish I was as centered as Kerry is -
He has pushed the government to do right be veterans since he before he was 27 years old. Read the full Senate testimony - he was concerned about how poorly the returning soldiers and their families were being treated. The poor quality of health care and support, did not affect him personally, he returned to the welcome of his fiancee, family and friends and could have easily stepped back into a very privileged existence. Even politically, finishing his Navy assignment, and going to law school immediately would have been the more likely successful political path.

The letter is, if anything trying to do what many people want Dean to do, developing grassroots - he's thanking people who backed him on these amendments and giving them part of the credit for it working. The success of these amendments can partly be tied to Kerry's use of these heart felt letters. They work because they describe real problems that should be corrected. Many totally reasonable Democratic bills and amendments were defeated, so if Kerry had merely tried to argue the point eloquently, it may not have worked. The fact that he than thanked the "activist" community as a whole, may be an effort to transform some of the people on the list from politically interested people into activists on issues that concern them.

He has had a very consistent theme lately that people need to become activists on issues they consider "felt needs". In the Senate, he spoke of the emails as being sent by people who want the Senate to hear them. When he introduced the amendments, he referred to them as small and said that he felt they could get bi-partisan approval. He said that he would be advocating broader measures later in the year.

A narcissist would more likely have simply put out his full blown military bill of rights, that he had from his campaign, and insisted that it was the only correct perfect piece of legislation on this issue. Instead, Kerry has signed on as co-sponsor to other people's bills that he agreed with and spun off these 2 amendments that he (correctly) thought he could pass. (He has since gone with Wes Clark to talk to Democrats in the house - passing something in the Senate alone does nothing).

It may be that the amendments would have passed solely on their merits or that this is a unique event and Kerry will not be able to replicate it for anything else, but it is a very creative attempt to do good when we control nothing. If he's able to do something similar with Kids' First, it will be very significant. Both because each of these things help people and because it will be useful in stating a Democratic agenda when campaigning in 2006.

Before assigning Kerry a personality disorder (narcissism) and implying that he isn't centered around some core values, ask yourself how you would have responded if someone else did this and wrote that letter. I personally am intrigued by the idea of a sitting Senator being so overtly an activist. The closest I can think of is Wellstone. (In fact Wellstone/Kerry was a much better campaign financing bill than McCain/Feingold.)