After a brief exchange on this topic, I thought I'd bring another post here to the blog. This was posted in response to questions about a week ago on another forum.

It seems to me that your response is pretty much re-stating what the original letter said, without any new evidence (although it's stated somewhat more diplomatically).

Kerry's statements about wartime atrocities were relating what other soldiers had told him. And really, the fact that atrocities occurred in Vietnam isn't in doubt anymore, as a recent Pulitzer-prize-winning report by the Boston Globe detailed:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/20/vietnam_atrocities_revealed_in_report_boston_globe/

It simply wasn't a matter of John Kerry slandering a bunch of fellow soldiers (much less all soldiers). Rather, this was a case of hundreds of other soldiers all telling the same story -- that they were ordered to do things that violated the rules of war, and wanted the atrocities stopped.

To some, that amounts to slandering fellow soldiers. I think a better way of putting it is "blowing the whistle".

Kerry and others went to Vietnam in 1992 as part of an effort to find MIAs. Task force personnel slogged through jungles looking for any trace of living MIAs -- and found none, as they reported back to the Senate POW committee (which Kerry chaired).

The effort to find any hint, any trace of MIAs, by all accounts, was dogged. They followed up every lead available, sometimes with extraordinary, unprecedented efforts. Nothing was found.

What's more, no other freelance "rambo" mercenaries or MIA activists more than happy to take money from the families of MIAs ever found any, either. However, Kerry, McCain and other Vets found (correctly) that sanctions against Vietnam were hurting American businesses without hurting Vietnam.

I'm sure that there are families of MIAs who will always feel the whole thing was a sham, and hate Kerry and John McCain (who co-chaired the committee) for it. Some others (such as Ted Sampley) appear to have had a financial motive in keeping MIA stories alive, preying upon the families of MIAs like parasites. But the records indicate the effort to find MIAs was extremely thorough and bipartisan. Kerry earned the respect of former foes such as McCain in the process:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-kerryprofile16jan16,1,1939981.story

(free registration required)

I'm not sure which of the "advanced tools" that our troops need have been voted against by Kerry. Most of the ones the Bush campaign is talking about -- F-18's, M-1's, Bradley's, etc. -- Kerry has not opposed. Rather, Bush is saying Kerry's votes against general Defense Appropriations and/or Pentagon Authorization bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996 count as votes against every individual weapons system in the bills. This is just nuts: you might as well claim Kerry was voting against having a military in the first place. That's just not how the Senate works -- the passage of some form of a defense appropriations bill each year is never in doubt. Voting against one version of the bill shouldn't be taken for more than that. The Bush campaign knows it, and their claims are dishonest.

The same goes for Kerry's vote against the bill passed last year to provide $87 billion for the Iraq War effort. Kerry didn't oppose the money; in fact, he proposed a bill to provide the money without running up the deficit, and Bush threatened to veto it. How this translates into Kerry "opposing the money" and Bush "providing money for our troops" is beyond me.

To be sure, Kerry has specifically opposed certain weapon systems -- 20 years ago. Mostly, these were nuclear systems (hardly the ones we're using to fight terrorism) as well as a few conventional ones back in the 1980's, such as the Apache (of course, Dick Cheney proposed cancelling the Apache, too, in 1989). And Kerry (along with many other Democrats and Republicans) proposed rather small cuts in defense spending several times in the 90's in order to reduce the deficit (in one instance, Kerry proposed using the funds to hire 100,000 new police officers -- surely something we could use today in the War on Terror).

Any way you cut it, most of the claims about Kerry's record on defense (or just about anything else) are out-and-out distortions promoted by the Bush campaign (as detailed, in part, in today's Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html). Kerry's record on defense is actually a strong one, and one that has improved over time. Were I a defense contractor, I wouldn't be terribly worried about getting paid under a Kerry administration.

Evidently, recent polling finds that many Americans feel George Bush would have better judgement in a crisis than John Kerry. So, in honor of this sentiment, we'll present here a few examples of George Bush's judgement.

• Before the September 11 attacks, George Bush was consistently warned about the possibility of terrorism. According to the accounts of several former insiders, Bush ignored these warnings. He even went on a month-long vacation before the September 11 attacks, after having been warned that "al Qaeda [was] determined to strike in the U.S.".
  
• Immediately after the September 11 attacks, George Bush ignored the opinions of his experts and was determined to attack Iraq. Only the efforts of Tony Blair and Colin Powell re-directed him against targets in Afghanistan.
  
• Bush allowed bin Laden familiy members (long-time friends of the Bushes) to leave the United States immediately after the September 11 attacks.
  
• Despite the advice of world-class, experienced economists and the accumulated knowledge of the last 100 years, George Bush refused to do anything to help boost the American economy besides push for gigantic tax cuts for the super-wealthy. This continued even as dire predictions regarding the ballooning deficit increased, and bad news about job prospects continued.
  
• Ignoring all scientific knowledge to the contrary, George Bush constantly advocated rolling back on environmental protections.
  
• Even as the information regarding Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction was sketchy at best, and even while it was clear our forces were already being taxed by fighting terrorism worldwide, George Bush decided to commit America to another war, severely damaging ties to allies we need to fight al Qaeda in the process.
  
• Bush's rush to war in Iraq sapped needed resources from our effort to stamp out al Qaeda; as a probable consequence, Osama bin Laden is still at large.
  
• Bush under-committed our troops to the Iraq effort, resulting in an out-of-control security situation and over 800 American troops dead.
  
• Someone high up in the Bush administration leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative to the press as a political reprisal. This action was a setback for WMD anti-proliferation efforts, as well as a felony. Bush could have pursued the identity of the leaker (who is a clear danger to national security), and has chosen not to do so.
  
• The Bush administration (and likely, Bush himself) was warned about abused and torture going on at our foreign prisons, and did nothing. The scandal has done even more damage to our standing in the world; standing we need to fight terrorism.

This is just a sampling of George Bush's "judgement". Next, we'll look at John Kerry's.

OK, if there were any doubt before that right wingers don't get how American society should work, the latest inanity from the Bush campaign should put it to rest.

You see, according to aristocratic wingnuts, what you do doesn't count. It's what you are that matters. It's your status at birth that defines who you are.

When you think about it, this explains a lot. Wingnuts don't believe in equal opportunity, since some people are just worthy, and some aren't. Likewise, they cannot understand that liberals don't have a problem with rich people because they're rich; they have a problem with the elimination of opportunities for everyone else by endless accumulation of wealth by the already rich, and they have a problem with people who use their power and money for bad purposes.

Let's put this simply: being rich isn't evil. It's not wrong to be wealthy. What's wrong is endless greed that cuts off others from fulfilling their potential. What's wrong is rich kids who never have to stand on their own because their family connections bail them out. What's wrong is rich people who take every opportunity to screw the poor. What's wrong is wealthy folks who say being poor is a "state of mind". What's wrong is rich people who say "I don't understand how poor people think", and proceed to act on this lack of knowledge.

John Kerry isn't evil because he is rich and married into money. Likewise, George Soros, a billionare, isn't evil because he has money. Simply having money isn't a bad thing.

Both of these individuals work to make the lives of non-rich people better. Both attempt to improve American society for everyone. And both have earned success through a combination of talent, good fortune and--this is important--very hard work.

George Bush, by contrast, is a mediocre individual who has always been saved from his failures by his family status and connections. He lucked into money by virtue of birth, and currently has it despite a lack of talent or hard work. He disdains and doesn't understand the poor. He has used his entire executive career to push legislation that makes it much harder for regular folks to improve themselves, ranging from huge tax breaks for the very well off to deregulation, running up the deficit, underfunding educational initiatives...the list goes on and on.

The bottom line is that John Kerry, as a very rich man, votes against his own interest and tries to improve the lives of all Americans. George Bush, as a very rich man, has constantly looked out for his own interest and done his best to screw most Americans.

Now, that doesn't mean that I don't think the Bushies aren't somewhat aware of their hypocrisy. They're trying to pass Bush off as a "regular guy", a symbol of how an average individual can "make it big". What's even more clear, though, is that this is a sick charade. George Bush has never had to "make it" in his entire life. The only true part is that he's very, very average.

Let's hope that such isn't lost on the voters.

I must say, watching the slow train wreck that is the Bush administration provides a never-ending source of entertainment. If only it didn't come at the expense of so many ruined lives.

The chaos currently gripping the White House is like nothing I've ever seen.