John Kerry is Ready for the Swift Boat Vets
[Guest post by DRJ]
Three years after he lost the 2004 Presidential election, John Kerry is finally ready to take on the Swift Boat Vets:
“John Kerry said Monday there might be a next time for his presidential aspirations, and if there is, the 63-year-old U.S. senator from Massachusetts says he’ll be ready for the political torpedoes that helped sink his 2004 White House bid.
Kerry, whose service as a U.S. Navy Swift boat skipper during the Vietnam War came under attack in his race against President Bush, said he has compiled a dossier on his war record critics that he wishes he had as the Democratic presidential nominee.
“We have put together a documented portfolio that frankly puts their lies in such a total light of absurdity and indecency, that should they ever rear their ugly heads again, we have every single ‘t’ crossed and ‘i’ dotted, and I welcome that in a sense,” Kerry said following a morning address to the South Shore Chamber fo [sic] Commerce. “It’s a shame we weren’t able to produce all that at the time.”
I’m curious what Kerry means by a “dossier on his war record critics.” Is this Kerry’s response to the specific charges made against him by the Swift Boat Vets or is it his counterattack on the character of those who made the charges? It sounds like Kerry plans to attack the messengers rather than the message.
Tim Blair compares President Bush’s and John Kerry’s reaction times:
“Three years. It’s taken John Kerry three whole years. And people made fun of Bush for a five-minute book reading on 9/11…”
At this rate, John Kerry should be ready to respond to Tim Blair in 2010.
— DRJ
I see the interview and resulting articles as basically admissions that the original charges were never rebutted, contrary to popular belief on the left.
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/8/2007 @ 12:40 amWhat arrogance. If Kerry would only publish his
Krusher (a0cf55) — 11/8/2007 @ 3:35 ammedical records so that all would know and see the lies of the Swift Boaters. It sure would help the Republicans if this turkey could get the nomination again.
I think this has less to do with his presidential aspirations and more to do with staking out his ground for his senate race next year.
voiceofreason (83843a) — 11/8/2007 @ 4:38 amHe is positioning his “victim” position to blunt opposition. People from the swift boat group will offer to debate but it will never happen.
Somebody is shilling for him big time on WIKI.
dave (c44c9b) — 11/8/2007 @ 5:17 amI hope Kerry publishes it. It is impossible for me to see/hear anything from that man without thinking immediately of another famous former naval officer—Commander McBragg
In case you’ve forgotten him…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPgKs70Uu4
I’ve also always thought that Kerry was a dead-ringer for Don Music on “Sesame Street.”
driver (faae10) — 11/8/2007 @ 5:21 amhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=q1Ugqh471IE
Kerry has taken all this time to learn how to emulate the Clinton smear machine. Kerry won’t refute or counter the truth about him. He is just going to smear the hell out of his critics.
PCD (b7be44) — 11/8/2007 @ 6:21 amAlthough the story apparently appeared in 2004, I was not aware of it until this year. On one of the blogs, the issue of Kerry’s original discharge status arose, because it appears that he possibly had an other-than-honorable discharge that was amended and upgraded during the Carter Administration (which is the one Kerry uses publicly), as opposed to one issued on or about his actual separation date.
509th Bob (077d0d) — 11/8/2007 @ 6:27 amPCD,
I think part of the reason Kerry may not have run this time is that he worries his files were in the ones Hillary picked up in “Filegate”. That is only speculation on my part.
509th Bob,
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/8/2007 @ 6:53 amUpgrading a discharge characterization from other than honorable to honorable is not that uncommon and there is a process in place to make an appeal. If this is what happened why would or should he talk about what the original characterization of discharge was?
vor – What types of circumstances result in a highly decorated war hero getting an “other than honorable” discharge?
JD (0c5b67) — 11/8/2007 @ 7:02 amEven if Kerry could rebut the swiftboaters and show everyone what jealous whiny liars they all were he would do it in such an obtuse, long, point by point-with sub paragraphs way that everyones eyes would glaze over and they would forget what he was talking about. GW would be able to rebut a similar attack in a couple of pithy sentences that wouldn’t really be a rebuttal but that everyone would agree just said it all.
EdWood (22df1f) — 11/8/2007 @ 7:06 amGiven the depths of arcana that are plumbed in modern presidential campaigns, I think an “other than honorable” discharge from the military would be pretty significant, particularly if the person who altered that status was a fool and a charlatan, such as Jimmy Carter.
driver (faae10) — 11/8/2007 @ 7:07 amSo Kerry now claims to have finally compiled a damning dossier on the Swiftboat vets.
WHEEEE!
I find it hillarious that he annouces his apparent evidence this week, yet he couldn’t produce same before the last statute of limitation in his defamation suit against John O’Neil, Dr. Jerome Corsi and their book’s publisher expired in Kerry’s home state on August 25th..? Of course, no one was surprised then, has ever been surprised, since Kerry never, ever wanted to have his claims or O’Neil’s examined in a court of law and risk his complete exposure as a fraud.
How convenient!
I’d bet Beldar’s colleagues heard his raucous laughter bellowing through the corridors on hearing this piece of news…
EHeavenlyGads (5ac5e3) — 11/8/2007 @ 7:12 am8, VOR, Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Early this year Kerry was barnstorming this state (Iowa) looking for Good campaign aides. He couldn’t find any available or that would work for him. His public meets and greets had more reporters than voters showing up. Only a Kos whacko wouldn’t think those facts would stop Kerry from running.
PCD (b7be44) — 11/8/2007 @ 7:35 amKerry is still not getting it. It’s about his behavior after he came back from Vietnam.
It is not about what the Swift Boaters say or don’t say, or what he says or doesn’t say about them.
htom (412a17) — 11/8/2007 @ 8:51 amHey, it takes time to forge quality documents. They learned their lessons from Rathergate…
Scott Jacobs (91f7ff) — 11/8/2007 @ 9:07 am“Kerry won’t refute or counter the truth about him. He is just going to smear the hell out of his critics.”
Even if he does smear his critics and continues his throes of righteous indignation & persecution, he forgets one critical thing: No. One. Cares.
Dana (b4a26c) — 11/8/2007 @ 9:12 amAs to the subject of No.One.Cares. — didn’t he and the flying squirrel write an enviro book trying to ride the coattails of the Gorericle? I suspect it bombed.
dave (c44c9b) — 11/8/2007 @ 9:22 amPCD,
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/8/2007 @ 9:33 amWhat koolaid? As I noted it was speculation only. Had nothing to do with what support he could or could not get.
Well, let’s see: John Kerry is 63 years old, and he’s not running for the 2008 nomination. That means the earliest he could run would be 2012, when he’ll be 68 years old, and if he’s actually expecting the Democratic nominee to win in 2008, he’d really be put off until 2016, when he’d be 72 years old.
But, more to the point, he won the 2004 nomination by running as the most electable candidate, the one who could beat George Bush. When you base your campaign on your electability, and you still lose, it seems to me that you’ve blown it forever.
Dana (3e4784) — 11/8/2007 @ 9:47 am8, VOR, the files Livingstone schlepped for the Clintons were of the REPUBLICANS. Not one file requested of the FBI were of the Clintonistas coming in to office, especially not of Webb Hubbell.
There are only a few dead heads for Kerry here in Iowa.
PCD (b7be44) — 11/8/2007 @ 10:08 am1012 days ago Kerry promised, on national TV, to sign form SF-180 and release his military records.
Dave (037445) — 11/8/2007 @ 10:18 amHe has yet to do so.
PCD,
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/8/2007 @ 11:34 amI wasn’t aware the names of all people whose file had been obtained had been released. Call me skeptical that they would think their only political foes were Republicans.
#19
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/8/2007 @ 11:37 amDana,
Which goes back to my original thought that this is more about his reelection for the senate rather than any aspirations for the presidency.
(see comment #3)
Ah, but Dave, Kerry did sign a limited form of the SF-180 that released a limited selection of his military records to three hand-picked friendly reviewers.
Isn’t that enough transparency for you? Geez.
luagha (678c67) — 11/8/2007 @ 11:48 am“Ah, but Dave, Kerry did sign a limited form of the SF-180”
Again and again.
blah (fb88b3) — 11/8/2007 @ 12:15 pmHe signed the form. The end
we’ve been here before
blah (fb88b3) — 11/8/2007 @ 12:27 pmBlah:
Of course he released the 180 and have I got some swampland for you.
People who lie so blantantly deserve to be banned.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 11/8/2007 @ 4:45 pmVoice #23: Not sure why it would have anything to do with his Senate re-election bid. After all, it’s not like he’s in any danger of being defeated!
Dana (d671ab) — 11/8/2007 @ 6:14 pmAfter all, the maxim that he could only lose if he got caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl has been disproved by a couple of other Massachusetts politicians!
Dana (d671ab) — 11/8/2007 @ 6:15 pmDana,
You could be right. Just my opinion. There have been a couple of surprises this election year – will probably be some next year.
voiceofreason (8d93c8) — 11/8/2007 @ 6:16 pmOf course we’ve been here before, blah, but you evidently didn’t learn anything the first time.
And this isn’t the first time you’ve misrepresented facts.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/8/2007 @ 6:21 pmblah – If he signed a Form 180 for a full release of his records, please show us where we can see a copy of it.
JD (49efd3) — 11/8/2007 @ 9:13 pmWhy dont kerry show the pictures of himself in the same place with HANOI JANE whats this demacratic crook afraid of?
krazy kagu (fb0f9e) — 11/9/2007 @ 8:23 amHaving just read the copies of Kerry’s ‘signed form 180’ they state:
“A single, one-time-only complete record to be given 1 a reporter from the Boston Globe.”
There’s three of them each authorizing that ‘single, one-time only’ complete record.
So the record is complete, but it is only given to known friendlies. It’s also one-time, so you get what the military gives to you, not what the military can dig up like they did to Bush…. stuff like any weekly report with his name on it, his flight evaluations, etc.
luagha (4c2833) — 11/9/2007 @ 8:44 amluagha, exactly. And that is what blah misleadingly omits.
Again.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/9/2007 @ 8:58 amBecause he likes to run on his military record. Remember “Reporting for Duty!” and the accompanying salute? If he’s so proud of his record, why keep it secret?
Pablo (99243e) — 11/9/2007 @ 9:02 amBill’s Wagging His Finger Again
In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s disastrous performance in the last Democratic debate, her “gallant” husband, Bill, has joined in the ludicrous attempt at spin to limit the damage to Hillary’s credibility. In spite of the campaign’s insistence that Hillary is not playing the female victim of the “Boys’ Club” of presidential contenders, we still see the anger at Tim Russert for having the temerity to ask a pointed question with a pointed follow-up. Believe it or not, the Clinton camp thinks that Hillary has been victimized by the news media in their questioning. (Mainstream News Media no less). For once, someone had the courage to ask her a hard question and insist on an answer. Now, Bill has jumped into the fray.
This time, Bill has once again wagged that famous finger of his at the press and warned them not to “Swift-Boat” his wife. I have a couple of thoughts about Mr Clinton’s words. First of all, the last time we saw Clinton wag his finger, I believe he was telling the press and America that “he did not have sexual relations with that woman” (Ms Lewinsky). That, it turned out, was one of the greatest and most convincing lies a president ever told the American people. Most of us have thus concluded that whenever Mr Clinton wags his finger (or bites his lower lip), falsehoods are on the way.
In addition, Clinton’s protests belie the claim that Hillary is strong enough to run on her own, independent of Bill. The truth is that she has ridden his coattails ever since he entered public life. Does anyone really believe that Hillary would be a presidential candidate or even a US Senator had she not been married to Bill? Of course, we are expected to believe that her experience as First Lady “uniquely qualifies” her to be President. Yet, the Clintons have succeeded in keeping any and all documents from the Clinton Administration that pertain to Hillary from public view.
But I degress. As for his reference to “Swiftboating”, Mr Clinton was referring to the campaign by Viet Nam Swiftboat veterans in the 2004 election that questioned John Kerry’s Viet Nam War experience. Now, I have written before, and will repeat that I, as a Viet Nam Era veteran who served in Germany, would never criticize or question Kerry’s military credentials. As for the Swiftboat veterans, in my view, they did have the standing and the right to speak out. That leads me to my point: How dare Bill Clinton make any negative references to those Swiftboat veterans-people who served in Viet Nam while Clinton was hiding from the draft through trickery, lies and deceit? Bill Clinton is a bonafide, certified draft dodger, and anything relating to Viet Nam is an area he would be best advised to stay away from.
But with his cojones, you can bet Bill will keep digging himself deeper. The question is whether the Mainstream News Media will follow Russert’s lead and keep asking Hillary the questions they should have been asking for years, which they must know she cannot handle well. I have a few suggestions.
One- Mrs Clinton, do you and/or your husband have any overseas bank accounts in, say, Switzerland for example-or any other country?
Two- In the light of the release of Kathleen Willey’s book, do you believe that charges made by her, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaderick and Jennifer Flowers were false?
Three- Could you please tell us what, if any actions, you took to have those women investigated and discredited.
Now, I have no idea how Mrs Clinton would answer those questions- whether she would lie, deny, spin or what. But wouldn’t it be worthwhile to get her on record in a public forum?
It must have been a great shock to the Clinton camp when Russert asked her about illegal licenses for illegal aliens. Now I can understand why the Democrats refused to debate in front of Fox News. We should watch Hillary closely in her answers, and we should watch the Mainstream News Media closely in their questions.
gary fouse
fouse, gary c (3cdf03) — 11/9/2007 @ 3:54 pmfousesquawk
Here we are approaching another Christmas, and here is John Kerry lining up an early Christmas present for us.
Ah, yes, the Christmas of 1968. Such fond memories, seared, seared, in my mind!
http://strongasanoxandnearlyassmart.blogspot.com/2007/11/john-kerrys-christmas-gift-to.html
Major Mike (eda643) — 11/10/2007 @ 4:43 pm