To all the Democratic people criticizing Clinton's abrasive response

[Scriptor Ignotus]

YOU are part of our problem.

YOU are part of the reason Democrats are viewed as weak (I'm looking at you Nora Ephron).

YOUR mindset was shared by the Kerry campaign when he was maligned by the Swifties and did nothing. We know the outcome of that.

The lies and distortions of the right need to be bitch-slapped without mercy like the affront to your intelligence that it is. Period.

His response was accurate. It was correct. It was appropriate. Now everyone is talking about the "incident" or his "temper". Guess what else they're talking about -- Bush's response to terrorism pre-9/11. That's what we want.

Did Clinton do this on purpose? Is this part of his genius? I don't know. It seemed like instinct to me. If every Dem candidate this Fall shared THAT killer mindset and THAT killer instinct we would steamroll our way back to power in November.

Don't let them lie. Don't let them spin. Put them in those little grovelling lap-dogs in their place. Heel, bitch.

[Red Right and BLUE]

1. Kick, Nom. eom

[MadMaddie]

2. I agree....I am confused why Nora and others are attacking him

he was respecting the age old practice of not criticizing a sitting president.....

Would she have had him say nothing......

Clinton played Wallace like a masterful game of Chess....Wallace thought he was going to corner Clinton and make him cower and run with his tail between his legs.....instead what Wallace got was an ass kicking....and when he realized that he had lost control of the fight.....he cried foul....

Check Mate!!

[blm]

24. Interesting point you made - maybe Clinton PLEDGED to wait 5yrs before he

defended himself publically, to show the Bushes how statesmen are SUPPOSED to act?

[Frances]

107. I think that Clinton was more effective making this case now

than he would have been making it earlier.

[blm]

114. Not in my view. Precious YEARS have been wasted on that issue while other

issues that were connected to the terror issue got short shrift because of hardened perceptions.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. Wait, Have Any Dems Actually Done This? For Real?

I haven't seen it myself. But if any dems are going around actually criticizing his statements then they need a really good whap upside the head. How dumb.

[sandnsea]

12. In a rare show of unity - NO

I haven't heard one Democrat criticize what Clinton said - the timing yes - but not the content or anger. I don't know where this OP is coming from.

[w4rma]

54. Bob Shrum (DLC leadership) criticized President Clinton's remarks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2220263&mesg_id=2220263

[tblue]

79. Shrum........It figures. How many elections has he lost for us?

Is it 8?

I'm not entirely convinced he doesn't work for the other side.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

89. Bob Shrum should get a job selling seeds mail order.

He might be able to do that job.

Thanks KO.

[Vidar]

103. Shrum is an excellent candidate for tar & feathers.

[sandnsea]

105. Shrum's words: "campaign of right wing lies"

SHRUM: Well, three things. One, I know why he‘s frustrated, because there has been a campaign of right wing lies against him. When he attacked the camps in 1998, he was accused of wagging the dog to cover up Monica Lewinsky. Number two, it‘s probably smart politics...

MATTHEWS: What‘s this campaign? Who is running this campaign?

SHRUM: I think the right wing‘s been running a campaign against Bill Clinton since 1991. Now, I want to be critical of him on one thing. I think it‘s smart politics for him to say he is showing Democrats how to fight back, but it‘s wrong and it‘s not true to say that Chris Wallace is somehow or other a right wing hit man.

He‘s unbiased as far I know as a reporter, he‘s tough. I‘ve mixed it up with him, but he is one of the...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, I agree, but do you think that question was a good question, a legitimate question?

SHRUM: Of course the question was a legitimate question. And you know, I think the president just is incredibly frustrated, you know, if he had taken this out on Sean Hannity, it might have been a more appropriate target. But when he said, when he said, Chris, wipe that little smirk off your face, the real question here is when is George Bush going to wipe that little smirk off Osama bin Laden‘s face.

[JerseygirlCT]

83. That's what I thought, too. nt

[jarnocan]

4. AMEN- we shouldn't take that CRAP anymore

(and this from someone BTW who just quit her job:) Because we have a right to be mad as hell and not take BU**SH** anymore www.worldcantwait.net and I am not going to start working at a new job, until after Oct 5th hopefully.

[MichiganVote]

5. Why shouldn't he set the record straight? R. Clarke was dead on too

[sandnsea]

6. Nobody has critiized Clinton's response

Wow, where'd you pull that one out of?

[jojog]

22. HERE

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/socks_b_30199.html

[JuniperLea]

29. Bush would have been shot from the waist up if his socks were showing

That is just pathetic. Who the hell cares about his socks?!? I knew someone would glam onto that the moment I saw his bare legs sticking out. Wish I could earn a buck for every time I could predict slime ball actions like that.

[cybildisobedience]

110. me too, Juniperx

I thought, now who's going to zero in on THAT?
And sure enough, we have people like Nora Ephron on "our" side to do the dirty week even Republicans didn't do on that little bit of criticism!

[sandnsea]

35. rotfl

Oh my god, she complains about everything and everybody. So friggin' what and so friggin' what else is new about Huff Post.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

48. I should have posted a link

but was running out the door. Also, caught a typo in there but now can't edit it. Dangit!

[sandnsea]

53. To Nora Ephron???

Again, who cares about someone who never has anything good to say about any Democrat. Are you sure she's even a Dem?

[Seabiscuit]

121. Yeah, who gives a rat's ass about Nora Ephron/m?

I never even heard of her until I just looked her up - a screenwriter.

[Felinity]

95. Take a look at this

Right here at DU, word is that Clinton is a distraction, sucking the oxygen out of the Campaign season.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2845494

Pitiful, really. As if the Dems have any other national figure pulling 60%, and knowing the entire back-story of how we got to 9/11 without prior intelligence, without any attention on counter terrorism from 1/01 to 9/11/01.

[sandnsea]

106. That's not crticizing his response

That's making an observation about Clinton's timing, not what he said or how he said it.

[aquart]

7. I like the way you think.

Let's start calling greedy, treasonous thieves what they are.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

8. We Need To Be Nicer

It's not right to be so mean and nasty towards the repubs. They Always treat Democrats with the utmost respect and honor.

Clinton really needs to go back on the f-x show and issue a formal apology, not only to Mr. wallace, but also to EVERY VIEWER, and IMO, EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN. Just in case, he should probably apologize to EVERY VIEWER WORLDWIDE, because he likely offended someone outside the country by attacking the honorable chris wallace and the f-x news viewers.

:sarcasm:

[rzemanfl]

27. Then he should go and personally apologize to Mike Wallace.

My goodness, just because he was President of the United States for what had to have been the best 8 years of my adult life is no reason for him to get all huffy when he is sucker punched by a two-bit asshole trading on his father's name who is only defending another two-bit asshole trading on his father's name.

[The Count]

112. LOL! Brilliant!

[calimary]

You mean Pox "news"?

Yeah. Well, I'LL play nice when they do. And not a minute sooner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2845972&mesg_id=2845972

humbly submitted...

[raccoon]

93. Ah, now I see the sarcasm gif! I was looking for it.

Clinton kicked that slimey, mealy-mouthed weasel's little butt.

[gully]

9. Magnificent post!

"Guess what else they're talking about -- Bush's response to terrorism pre-9/11. That's what we want."

[mike_c]

10. lol-- now I wish I'd seen the big dog take a bite out of Wallace...

...but with regard to the folks who're objecting, maybe they're just getting a bit too attached to dry powder. Not much point in keeping it dry if you never use it, is there?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Clinton acted like a thug.

You or I can criticize the media, but Clinton has no right to come into this country and criticize our media.

:crazy:

[SaveOurDemocracy]

43. uh huh...

Heheheh

[SeveneightyWhoa]

78. Agreed!

A member of the American media, criticized, ON OUR OWN SOIL!!

*GASP*

[Atman]

Oh PUH-leeze! It's not like he said "cut off her LEGS and run!"

That would have been insensitive! Instead, he was just using the GOP morning Blast Fax. Can't fault a guy for being a stupid lemming sheepdog lap whore groveling whore lapdog sheep lemming, can you?

[valerief]

13. You are soooo right. The neocons grab attention by name-calling

and whining. Clinton grabbed attention by being SuperNanny to pissant Wallace. He put him in the naughty chair for being a wise guy. When those in power act like babies, treat 'em like one!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

14. No more Mr. nice guy.... I think we're going to see a new attitude.

n/t

[libhill]

120. We'd better.

Or we will never win another election...

[wanpete]

15. add Bob Shrum to this list. Why on earth is he even aloud to be a Dem

spokesman....forgot, maybe it's his marvelous reputation for winning Dem presidential elections!

:mad:

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. hear, hear.

Yeah, Fuck you Nora Ephron. This is what happens when well to do liberals allow a Republican into their tennis clutch.

[sendero]

17. The first person..

...who complains near me will get a verbal ass-whupping they won't forget.

Clinton did nothing wrong, what he did was LONG OVERDUE, and we need about 1,000 more Democratic politicians who will tell it like it is.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

18. I think you're going a bit overboard.....

[Scriptor Ignotus]

42. when faced with Swifties, ABC "Docu-Dramas"

and the like can we afford to be anything but?

[Kahuna]

19. Egg-actly!!! Namby pamby, scared of their own shadow Dems

are the problem. Big Dawg, Gore and Wes Clark are the only ones who don't run from their own shadows. And who are not afraid to call the repukes out on their lies and nonsense. We need more of that.

[beachmom]

20. My only criticism was how late it was

The RW launched their "9/11 was Clinton's fault" meme one day after 9/11. There have been a MILLION books out defaming his presidency. Where do you think "Dems are weak on national security" comes from? It was born with this right wing lie that Clinton let bin Laden go.

And yet he waits until NOW, after we have lost TWO ELECTIONS to set the record straight? Hmmmmm . . . right in time for his wife's presidential campaign? How convenient.

Sigh, sigh, sigh -- Kerry DID fight back against the Swifties, but the media decided not to cover it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

I thought there was nothing wrong with Clinton's response -- he was essentially being accused of being responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans. His anger was appropriate.

[blm]

21. I think he did a GREAT job of defending himself 5 yrs after the charges

were first being made against his efforts on the terror issue.

So, I think he should have had this confrontation back then - when it mattered MOST to the elections of 2002 and 2004.

Or are you advocating that ALL Democrats should follow that example and wait 5 years without any public smackdown of the most serious charges, and THEN get in the media's face for their 5yrs of lies?

[Scriptor Ignotus]

55. what do you think? eom

[BobRossi]

23. Agreed.

Grow a set or move on.

[rzemanfl]

25. I was sent a link to the Nora Ephron article by an otherwise

erudite and sane, but combative, former DUer. Here is the response I sent to this person:

Well, we will have to disagree on that one. I thought Clinton put the
little Fox news punk right in his place. Does Nora think Dubyah should zip his fly? (I have the picture) Button his shirt correctly? (I have the picture) Know where the door is? (I have the picture) Not drop his dog? (picture is out there somewhere). Pull up his socks my ass! Did you send this link to provoke me? Don't get me started.

[JuniperLea]

30. That's all they have

pathetic, isn't it?

[suziedemocrat]

26. He ROCKED - and he was sexy as hell!!!

Is that bad to say? Seriously - I always loved Bill Clinton because he had the BALLS to play rough with the Republicans!! He makes them look like the cry-baby brats they are! I LOVE him!!! We need him back. (Not his wife - him!)

[WinkyDink]

85. The Once and Future Big Dog. Clinton ROCKS!

[BuyingThyme]

28. Abrasive people totally suck it.

[WinkyDink]

86. You mean Bush bristling about David Gregory's French? Or Helen

Thomas? Or Matt Lauer's questions?

[tocqueville]

31. Here is Nora Ephron's post on Huffington.... source of OP

Socks (246 comments )

READ MORE: 9/11, 2006, Fox News, Al Gore, George W. Bush, War and Terror

What surprised me most about the Clinton meltdown yesterday was that no one told him to pull up his socks. This is a man who never goes anywhere without staff, lots of staff. Was there no one there to see that his pants were hiked up too high and his socks were pulled down too low and the flesh on his legs was showing?

........................

So Bill Clinton was sandbagged by Chris Wallace. By Chris Wallace? And he lost it. And he wasted a television appearance - when he could have been talking about taking back Congress - talking about (no surprise) Bill Clinton. Poor Bill Clinton. The victim of Fox News, the media arm of the right-wing conspiracy. The man who went after Bin Laden and was accused of wagging the dog. "I tried," he said. I tried? How lame is that? I haven't been able to listen to that since the sixties, when Werner Erhard, of all people, became famous for demolishing that excuse. When people said "I tried" to Werner Erhard, he would put a glass on a table and say to them, "Try to pick that up."

How does it happen? How does one of the smartest men ever elected president end up sandbagged by Chris Wallace? Is this what one docudrama does to the guy? I don't think so. I'm afraid this is classic Clinton, Clinton the monologist, Clinton the guy who used to keep his White House houseguests up until 4 a.m. while he went on and on about what the press was doing to him. What a waste. On top of which: Clinton calls George Bush "43"? Is he so confused about his role in the Bush family constellation that he has adopted their nicknames for one another?

Clinton should simply have answered Wallace's question. He should have said that he went after Bin Laden and that if Al Gore had been elected (which he was) we probably would have killed him and 9/11 would never have happened. And then Clinton should have moved on to his real subject, which is not rescuing his legacy from his self-inflicted wounds, but helping elect a Democratic Congress in 2006. In fairness, he finally got the conversation around to that subject in the final minutes of his interview with Wallace.

But until then, it was only about Bill.

Come on, guy. Pull up your socks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/socks_b_30199.html
_________________________________________________________________________________

normally I don't intervene in "inter-Dems scuffles" but as an outsider and external observer I want to make the following remarks :

#1 Clinton's tone and behaviour wasn't outrageous, "crazed" etc... by European standards. You should see what happens on TV in Europe when a politicaian get's wrongly accused by a journalist... I saw one intermezzo last Saturday where the journalist was told to go and "cheney" himself, which made everybody laugh in the studio...
Clinton showed irritation which is completely normal. And the fact that he turned this irritation into brilliant rethorics is only to his honour...

# 2 if the way you wear your socks is primordial to pass your political message, I must say that in that case there is a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way to go to improve American politics...

[robinlynne]

32. let's be clear here. ONE democrat criticized clinton. Her article is stup

id bullshit. simple.

[Ksec]

33. I loved his response.

Those who didnt are why we lose elections. Playing nice with bad people doesnt work.

Polls say Clinton at 60% approoval, Bush at 42%/

[raccoon]

94. Amen, Ksec!

" Playing nice with bad people doesnt work."

The only effective way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them and when they give you crap, give it right back to them.

[NoSheep]

34. Agreed 100%. We can no longer do anything but point out these lies!

[Marie26]

36. Strawman

Are any prominent Dems actually criticizing Clinton? I haven't heard it.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

45. no

there is a train of thought that I attacked which most certainly does exist within our party. It's the train of thought that we shouldn't stoop to their level. That we shouldn't get angry or outraged at the Republican's latest false claim or underhanded tactic. Enough is enough.

Do you not see that?

[Marie26]

52. That's the Republicans' line

You're attacking non-existent figures here - no Dems are attacking Clinton for this. That's a strawman. The train of thought about "stooping to their level" is very different. I don't consider this "stooping" at all - it's a strong advocacy of the truth & the record. It would be "stooping" if the Dems started an anti-gay campaign, for example, like Rove did. Or lied & twisted the truth, like Bush did. This interview is not the same thing at all. It's something Dems should be proud of, and support, to fight the right-wing propaganda machine. And Dems are supporting it. So I'm missing the point of this post a little. It's fighting shadows.

[mtnester]

87. I still cannot get over the words "abrasive remarks"

in the headline of the OP....

Anyone? Or am I dead on target?

[Marie26]

98. Really

This OP just bugs me on a number of levels. Sort of demeaning towards women, mischaracterizes the Dems reaction, and also mischaracterizes Clinton's remarks. Abrasive? That's something Fox News would say. The OP contains its own conclusions - that Clinton was "abrasive," and wishy-washy Dems didn't support him, neither of which is true. But both are in line w/the right-wing spin on this interview.

[donco6]

60. Nor I.

Nora Ephron? Who the hell is that?

[Marie26]

65. Screenwriter?

She writes cute romantic comedies like "Sleepless in Seattle". Why her opinion matters, I've no idea.

[maxrandb]

92. It's a typical Right-Wingnut Ploy

They find anyone, who might remotely be called a "Democrat", and they give them a voice to be "outraged" by something a prominent Democrat did. Then, they'll parade this so-called "Democrat" all over the talk-radio, hate-radio, hate-print, and hate-media (Faux News) to give the Repukes cover. That's all it is. It's a juvenile way for them to "take cover" and excuse their nasty-ass propaganda.

See also:

- The "life-long" Dem caller to the Rush Limpballs show.

- Tammy "I'm a gay Democrat, but just love everything the right-wing is doing" Bruce

- Alan Colmes

- The "I'm a liberal, but I have to agree with you" caller to the Sean Insanity Show.

- The "I'm a proud Union member from a Democratic family", but I agree with the policies of the Repukes in favor of the ultra-wealthy, caller to the Neal Boortz Show.

- A "JFK Democrat".

- Susan Estridge

- Joe Lieberman

etc, etc, etc.

You'd think that Dems would wise up and realize that the other side is not playing fair, and has not played fair for at least a couple of decades. I know that some folks say we "should not sink to their level", but to that I say; "let's fight dirty, and when we control the House and Senate, we can worry about being fair".

We have a golden opportunity this November. If we kick Repuke Ass like I think we will, there are going to be a hell of a lot of Repukes in the Senate and the House that are going to retire, vice serving again in the minority. This election is crucial. It can change the course our country has been on for the past 30 years.

Don't fall for this crap. Keep fighting hard and punching these folks in the belly.

and to Bob Shrum..."FUCK YOU TOO"

[SmokingJacket]

100. She also just wrote a book called "I Feel Bad About My Neck,"

which, from what I can tell, is a bunch of cute essays on the perils of aging.

And she's criticizing CLINTON for talking about himself and the real problems of the world???

Hypocrite!

[silverojo]

37. Hell, Clinton's always been this way

That's why he bounced back from Zippergate, got away with dismantling a big chunk of FDR's New Deal, and everything else. He's a consummate politician, and a fighter besides.

It's called having a spine. More Dems could use one. :mad:

[blm]

38. Hey Scriptor - YOU are using MEDIA perception instead of facts.

You can hit the links LIVE at the DU Research Forum where this data is there for the viewing.


April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)
May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)
May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)
May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)
May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).
Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.
Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)
Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)
Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)
Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)
Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)
Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)
Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.
Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)
Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)
August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)
August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)
Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)
Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)
References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth

MH1 - This topic is to create a timeline of the response of the K/E04 campaign to the Swift Liars' smears. There is an RW-encouraged myth that K/E04 "didn't respond." As the timeline, once completed, will show, that is not true. Effectiveness of the response may be debated - that is subjective - the purpose of this thread is to collect the facts of the events.
On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)

...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.
Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...

Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc...

May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush
Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c....

Kerry campaign's quick response to Swift boat vets
By Marie Horrigan
UPI Deputy Americas Editor
Washington, DC, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts issued an exhaustively researched and extensively sourced 36-page refutation Thursday of allegations Kerry lied about events during his service in Vietnam, including how and why he received medals, and had fled the scene of a battle.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143...

Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
McClellan points out criticism by anti-Bush group

Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 2:37 PM EDT (1837 GMT)

BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.

"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.

"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attacka... /
http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/oldtricks.php

August 5, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE
Re: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Dear Station Manager:

We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively. It has been brought to our attention that a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has bought time, or may seek to buy time, on your station to air an advertisement that attacks Senator Kerry. The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the doctor who treated Senator Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and the man pretending to be his doctor was not. The entire advertisement, therefore is an inflammatory, outrageous lie.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" styles itself as a group of individuals who personally served with John Kerry in the United States Navy in the Vietnam War. In truth the group is a sham organization spearheaded by a Texas corporate media consultant. It has been financed largely with funds from a Houston homebuilder. See Slater, Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2004.

In this group's advertisement, twelve men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not a single one of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats (PCF 44 & PCF94).

Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Senator Kerry after the December 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts, Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Senator Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003. (National Review Online, May 4, 2004).

The statements made by the phony "crewmates" and "doctor" who appear in the advertisement are also totally, demonstrably and unequivocally false, and libelous. In parrticular, the advertisement charges that Senator Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." Just as falsely, it states that "he lied before the Senate." These are serious allegations of actual crimes -- specifically, of lying to the United States Government in the conduct of its official business. The events for which the Senator was awarded the Bronze Star have been documented repeatedly and in detail and are set out in the official citation signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Vietnam. And yet these reckless charges of criminal conduct are offered without support or authentication, by fake "witnesses" speaking on behalf of a phony organization.

Your station is not obligated to accept this advertisement for broadcast nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), You Can't Afford Dodd Committee, 81 FCC2d 579 (1980). The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" organization is not a federal candidate or candidate committee. Repeated efforts by organizations that are not candidate committees to obtain a private right of access have been consistently rejected by the FCC. See e.g., National Conservative Political Action Committee, 89 FCC2d 626 (1982).

Thus, your station my freely refuse this advertisement. Because your station has this freedom, and because it is not a "use" of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.

Moreover, as a licensee, you have an overriding duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.D.2d 623 (1961). Your station normally must take "reasonable steps" to satisfy itself "as to the reliability and reputation of every prospective advertiser." In re Complaint by Consumers Assocation of District of Columbia, 32 F.C.C.2d 400, 405 (1971).

Under these circumstances, your station may not responsibly air this advertisement. We request that your station act immmediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny andy future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false, and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should exercise that authority in the public interest.

Please contact us promptly at either of the phone numbers below to advise us regarding the status of this advertisement.
Sincerely yours,
Marc Elias
Perkins Coie
607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
General Counsel
Kerry-Edwards 2004 Joseph Sandler
Sandler, Reiff & Young
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003
General Counsel
Democratic National Committee

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/dem080504ltrswift...

From the transcript of the Aug. 5, 2004 White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan:
Q Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity. We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not -- and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I think that this is another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on. The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And, you know, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups.
* * *
In the days after the release of the ad a host of major newspapers published editorials condemning it including the Arizona Republic ("Campaign Non-Starter," August 6), Los Angeles Times ("It's Not All Fair Game," August 6), Plain Dealer ("Ad Says Kerry Lied; Record Says Otherwise," August 8), St. Petersburg Times ("An Ugly Attack," August 9), Las Vegas Sun ("Ad's Smear Should Be Condemned," August 9), Oregonian ("Now It Gets Nasty," August 11), and Washington Post ("Swift Boat Smears," August 12).
* * *
On Aug. 10, 2004 Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections.
* * *
From the transcript of Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance on CNN'S Larry King Live:

KING: In view of that, do you think that it's fair, for the record, John Kerry's service record, to be an issue at all? I know that Senator McCain...
G. BUSH: You know, I think it is an issue, because he views it as honorable service, and so do I. I mean...
KING: Oh, so it is. But, I mean, Senator McCain has asked to be condemned, the attack on his service. What do you say to that?
G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of
those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.
KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...

G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view...

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton's response to Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance:
"Tonight President Bush called Kerry's service in Vietnam 'noble.' But in the same breath refused to heed Senator McCain's call to condemn the dirty work being done by the 'Swift Boat Vets for Bush.' Once again, the President side-stepped responsibility and refused to do the right thing. His credibility is running out as fast as his time in the White House."
* * *
On Aug. 17, 2004 the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges.
* * *
DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on Aug. 18, 2004:

"By saying nothing at all George W. Bush is a complicit contributor to the slanderous, lie-filled attack ads that have been launched on John Kerry on Bush's behalf. Instead of stepping up and taking the high road, George Bush's response has been evasion, avoidance, everything but disavowal.

"Larry King asked George Bush to 'condemn' it. He refused. Reporters asked the President's Press Secretary if he'd 'repudiate' it. He ducked. They can try to blame it on the rules or whoever else they want, but the blame belongs squarely on the Republicans. They wrote it. They produced it. They placed it. They paid for it. And now it is time for George W. Bush to stand up and say, 'enough.'

"This is not debate, Mr. President, and this unfounded attack on Senator Kerry has crossed the line of decency. I call on you today to condemn this ad, the men who put their lies behind it, and the donors who paid for it. It's time."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.h...

Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert

Relatively early on in the August coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, ABC's Nightline devoted an entire episode to the allegations and reported, "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to Naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." (Emphasis added.) Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradicted the Swifty. In late August, CNN's scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Crewmembers have always backed Kerry's version of events." But that would have meant not only having to stand up a well-funded Republican campaign attack machine, but also casting doubt on television news' hottest political story of the summer.
When the discussion did occasionally turn to the facts behind the Swift Boat allegations, reporters and pundits seemed too spooked to address the obvious—that the charges made no sense and there was little credible evidence to support them.. Substituting as host of "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell on Aug. 15 pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale 's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The truth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question, that he came back from the war and then protested it. So, I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely re-elected that that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boast ads were clearly inaccurate.)

Hosting an Aug. 28 discussion on CNBC with Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Time's Jay Carney, NBC's Tim Russert finally, after weeks of overheated Swifty coverage, got around to asking the pertinent question: "Based on everything you have heard, seen, reported, in terms of the actual charges, the content of the book, is there any validity to any of it?" Carney conceded the charges did not have any validity, but did it oh, so gently: "I think it's hard to say that any one of them is by any standard that we measure these things has been substantiated." Apparently Carney forgot to pass the word along to editors at Time magazine, which is read by significantly more news consumers than Russert's weekly cable chat show on CNBC. Because it wasn't until its Sept. 20 2004 issue, well after the Swift Boat controversy had peaked, that the Time news team managed enough courage to tentatively announce the charges levied against Kerry and his combat service were "reckless and unfair." (Better late than never; Time's competitor Newsweek waited until after the election to report the Swift Boat charges were "misleading," but "very effective.") But even then, Time didn't hold the Swifties responsible for their "reckless and unfair" charges. Instead, Time celebrated them. Typing up an election postscript in November, Time toasted the Swift Boat's O'Neill as one of the campaign's "Winners," while remaining dutifully silent about the group's fraudulent charges.

That kind of Beltway media group self-censorship was evident throughout the Swift Boat story, as the perimeters of acceptable reporting were quickly established. Witness the MSM reaction to Wayne Langhofer, Jim Russell and Robert Lambert. All three men served with Kerry in Vietnam and all three men were witnesses to the disputed March 13, 1969 event in which Kerry rescued Green Beret Jim Rassmann, winning a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The Swifties, after 35 years of silence, insisted Kerry did nothing special that day, and that he certainly did not come under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann out of the drink. Therefore, Kerry did not deserve his honors.

It's true every person on Kerry's boat, along with the thankful Rassmann, insisted they were under fire, and so did the official Navy citation for Kerry's Bronze Star. Still, Swifties held to their unlikely story, and the press pretended to be confused about the stand-off. Then during the last week in August three more eyewitnesses, all backing the Navy's version of events that there had been hostile gun fire, stepped forward. They were Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

Russell wrote an indignant letter to his local Telluride Daily Planet to dispute the Swifties' claim: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

The number of times Russell was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 1. On Fox News: 1. MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1. On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Like Russell, Langhofer also remembered strong enemy gunfire that day. An Aug. 22 article in the Washington Post laid out the details: "Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. “There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river,” said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry’s. Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the “clack, clack, clack” of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks." (For some strange reason the Post buried its Langhofer scoop in the 50th paragraph of the story.)

The number of times Langhofer was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 0. On Fox News: 0. On MSNBC: 0. On ABC: 0. CBS: 0. NBC: 0.

As for Lambert, The Nation magazine uncovered the official citation for the Bronze Medal he won that same day and it too reported the flotilla of five U.S. boats "came under small-arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

The number of times Lambert was mentioned on. On Fox News: 1. On CNN: 0. On MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1 On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Additionally, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, who served as the paper's point person on the Swifty scandal, was asked during an Aug. 30, 2004, online chat with readers why the paper hadn't reported more aggressively on the public statements of Langhofer, Russell and Lambert. Dobbs insisted, "I hope to return to this subject at some point to update readers." But he never did. Post readers, who were deluged with Swifty reporting, received just the sketchiest of facts about Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

If that doesn't represent a concerted effort by the press to look the other way, than what does?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/#060518

Please use this information as a guideline for 2006 and 2008 campaigns. What the media edits out of our campaigns is CRUCIAL to public perception.

Even many Democrats are unaware of the real fight that occurred in 2004 and are buying wholesale the corporate media spin which conveniently protects the corporate media who failed to give honest coverage of Kerry's defense against the lies of the swift vets and their Republican handlers.

Not recognizing the extent of the corporate media's duplicity is a danger for all Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008.

This can and WILL happen to any Democratic candidate.

This CAN and WILL happen to ANY Democratic candidate. FIGHT THE MYTHS. Stay tough KNOWING the media is aligned with these liars.

The battle with the people really behind this group will never end.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

47. perception is far more important than facts

I think you agree with that. Kerry lost the battle of perception. The facts really don't matter much, sadly.

Kerry's strategy - as you have posted - failed. One YouTube video of him giving David Assman or Hannity or whoever the smackdown on Fox News is worth 500 times everything the Kerry campaign did.

As far as I'm concerned your entire post is an example of what NOT to do when your repuation and patriotism get besmirched. Yes, Kerry and his staff took action after the ads ran. Their actions were not effective. That's truly all that matters.

[blm]

49. Then the defenses Clinton made of his record over the last 5yrs were weak

and ineffective because the perception for 5 years in the general public was that Clinton did nothing, and Dems are weak on terror, because Clinton had 8yrs and did nothing.

So, NOW Clinton has this run in which was more aggressive, and somehow it makes up for the 5yrs the same facts never cut through?

OK.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

56. I don't think that the perception that Clinton did nothing

after 9/11 is mainstream. Not as mainstream as the Kerry 'Nam falsehoods became, for instance. I can guarantee you that if we didn't fight against the ABC show and if Clinton didn't fight against Wallace's implication that would change and common knowledge would become that Clinton WAS weak on terror and did not do enough to get Bin Laden.

I don't post a lot but give me a little credit. Of course I'm not happy he waited so long. Me and many others here have been dying for our leadership to confront these lies head on, on "their" turf (Fox News) for years.

[blm]

96. It most certainly was MSMed - BinLaden handed over on silver platter 3x

and Clinton refused to take him meme was well-traveled.

The movie was BASED on the lies written in the 8 books that came out blaming Clinton - Patterson and Miniter were the main sources used, and they got PLENTY of airtime for the 3 years after 9-11.

I'm thrilled the confrontation happened - it SHOULD have happened before the 2002 election.

[ochazuke]

39. What you have to admire about Republicans...

They stick up for another one of their own even if he said something indefensible because they view themselves as an endangered species in a take-no-prisoners war for their very survival.

For some reason, Democrats will nit pick other Dems to death, all in the name of intellectual honesty, integrety, whatever. Lot of good that'll do you when the police state arrives.

Oh, it's already here. THANKS GUYS.

[indepat]

40. Those without a killer instinct will be slaughtered without mercy

[nicknameless]

41. Thank you for this.

The last thing we need are milquetoast, spineless, mealy mouthed, get-along-Gus, doormat Dems.

All Dems should be fighting back (ie: telling the truth).


F*** Nora Ephron.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

44. If he would have been calm - it never would have gotten out there....

It did succeed in making all the newscasts.

[DireStrike]

46. All you have to do is look at Fox's spin

Fox - "CLINTON HAS A TEMPER, HE'S A BAD MAN!"
Soft dems - "I agree with Fox News."

[bagrman]

50. How many years did the Cons attack him,He's got a lot to get off his chest

Latr
chris

[SammyWinstonJack]

51. K & R

[truthisfreedom]

57. Genius Clinton did exactly the right thing.He doesn't need to come across

as a "statesman" anymore. He can sacrifice his "cool" vibe for the greater good... and he did, by drawing everyone's attention back to the truth, that bushco dropped the ball on bin laden ON PURPOSE.

[upi402]

58. I agree 100% OP

Clinton showed spine. Something moderate DINO Dems piss their pants over.
GET OUT OF THE WAY CANTWELL, LIBERMAN, HILLARY, et al.
"ooh, we can't speak out! Goodnes -they wil not be nice to us on their corporate news!"

Let us have real Democrats in our party to vote for. Be honorable and step aside if you wont stand and face a little weather. What the hell are you doing there besides swordswallowing for your corporate pimps?

[Raffi Ella]

59. I've heard some criticism today

all I havta' say about that is: If what Clinton did was 'wrong' then I don't wanna be 'right'.

Put your battle gear on Dems.It's time to do this thing.

[tirechewer]

61. I think he was great....

He got righteously angry and said what he thought. It was the best thing he could have done. I do not understand the "everyone must be nice" people.

You should be kind when you can, but not every interaction between people lends itself to that. If someone is attacking you, you have the right to make them stop by telling them where to get off. That's all Clinton did. In the process he drew attention to the inadequacies of the Bush administration and their unwillingness to either address the attacks on 9/11 before they happened, or assume any sort of responsibility for them after they happened. Both are very serious mistakes by Bush which everyone else has been reluctant to address. Clinton opened up a public debate we should have been having years ago, and I thank him for it.

Why anyone has a problem with that or tries to hold him to a standard that is not reasonable, even with dealing with interactions between children, is just plain stupid. Maybe they expect all of us to get lobotomies so that we can better do the bidding of the Great Dictator. If that's what they want maybe they should draw straws to see which of them gets to go and kiss Bush's butt first.

[minkyboodle]

62. This outsider Dems perspective

I thought Clinton was brilliant in that ridiculous
ambush. I'm glad he took the fight to Wallace. Just
to give some background, I voted for Nader in 2000, felt
it was right at the time (I was in a safe state). Voted
for Kerry in 2004 (btw my first vote ever was for Clinton
in 1996). I'm your typical torn Green idealist vs Dem
realist. I've ridden on both bandwagons. I railed against
Clinton in the 90s (policy issues) but recognize that he
is infinitely better than W (hard lesson learned). Anyway,
the main point is I wish Kerry had shown a 10th of this
"combativeness" in 2004, we all might be in a better place
right now.

[Blue-Jay]

63. Jeez. All the K&R's for such tripe.

First, I saw maybe two or three Duers post negative reactions to Clinton's interview. (and two of them are probably trolls). The OVERWHELMING reactions were positive, in case you weren't paying attention.

Basically, you're creating a false dilemma by running with the assumption that a bunch of progressives/liberals/democrats on DU were somehow upset with Clinton's performance, but (if you can read) that's clearly not the case.

Nice rant, but misplaced. No cookie.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

111. i don't want your cookie

what I want is our leadership to follow Clinton's example of showing outrage and indignation when confronted with distortions and falsehoods.

[Catherine Vincent]

64. Of course. Clinton 's got them talking.

I think he knew Fox News would pull that crap on him and he was prepared. He turned the tables on them. Folks have called Clinton everything but they certainly have never called him dumb.

The man is a genius!

[bridgit]

66. we both know you ain't talking to me, i think Clinton did a fine job...

:patriot: here's to Bill Clinton :toast:

[Duppers]

67. hear, hear!

nt

[omega minimo]

68. master bait

[TankLV]

71. Oh, get over it...

I suppose you spell it "womyn" too...

Geesh...

How come you don't get upset when we call cheney a "dick"?!

brother...

[omega minimo]

74. keep losin,' dude

That sort of cluelessness is why we're in this mess

[kdpeters]

76. Hi omega, I appreciate the reply

Since I've been on DU, I've had many challenges to my notions of what insults can be contained to its intended target and which cause greater damage to unintended, and undeserving bystanders. I've come to the conclusion that an insult is never worth hurting someone else, and that no one has the right to dismiss the feelings of another, especially in defense of a cheap insult. It seems so simple, I look back in disbelief that I had to put so much thought into it. But the time was right to read this post and see how these slurs can be as hostile as you describe.

That said, I'd ask you to reconsider "jesus fucking christ" as an expletive.

Karl

[omega minimo]

77. Actually, the shock and alienation is equivalent to the use of

"ni**er" as I said.

Jesus Fuckin Christ is nuthin.



Thank you, Karl.

[kdpeters]

69. If you criticized Clinton's response, you didn't see the entire interview

Exhibit A: It was a 15 minute interview, half discussing the Global Initiative, and half to be interviewers choice. Wallace spent three minutes, only two questions, before reneging the agreement and cutting short discussion on the Clinton Global Initiative. Clinton stayed cool.

Exhibit B: Wallace then let loose with a laundry list of loaded questions, demanding to finish piling on before allowing Clinton to respond to so many accusations. Clinton stayed cool.

Exhibit C: Having had his CGI robbed of time, having been bombarded with accusations, he was still cool as he answered the accusations and raised the obvious double standards. But when Wallace tried to cut him off again, change the topic, he'd obviously had enough. Being blamed for 9/11 is nothing anyone should be expected to suffer quietly.

Wallace is such a weasel. He started a tough-guy confrontation and went whining and crying when big bad Bill got the better of him. My dad always said, "You shouldn't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash."

[Felinity]

97. Not to mention the way the question was couched

First, Wallace said the question came from viewer emails; he didn't take ownership of it.

Second, he could have asked the same question in an open ended, less confrontational manner; but he didn't. he said, "Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?"

In effect little Chrissie was ACCUSING Bill Clinton of not doing his job. So first he short circuited the time that was to be devoted to the Clinton Initiative (I think on purpose, because it makes Clinton seem like the powerful, compassionate, effective statesman that he is), then he served him up a big slap on the face, expecting, I assume, to embarrass the (last legally elected) President.

After that, Wallace just sat there grinning superciliously while Clinton pounded him with the facts that any self-respecting journalist should have been aware of before the interview. In fact, Wallace's displayed a lack of journalistic credibility by asking the question in that manner--it displayed a complete lack of ignorance of information readily available from the 911 Commission report and the Richard Clarke book.

Jon Stewart does better preparation for interviews that Chris Wallace; and Chrissie isn't even funny.

Question: What do you make of that grinning thing? Was he amused, theatened, embarassed? I keep thinking that it was just plain hubris--that he grew up being told he was the smartest, cutest little boy in the world and still believes is--kinda like B*.

[FujiZ1]

70. Holy shit a post I agree with.

Awesome. I hate Bill, but that showing made me respect him at least. No bullshit democrat is the way we need to go.

[doctor_garth]

72. To all the Democratic people criticizing Clinton's abrasive response

FUCK YOU IDIOTS!

[joefree1]

80. You mean "Dinos"?

Democrats-in-name-only? Or the odd troll? Or the nit picking word parsing hand wringers? Yeah, f*** them.

But the rest of us are firmly behind the Big Dog when he took a bite out of Faux News. And he knew exactly what he was doing.

[wyldwolf]

90. wait a minute. Any other day and Clinton is the #1 DINO on DU...

...I'd be more concerned with asshats like Arianna Huffington

[wiley]

73. We have worm sign the likes of which......

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/

I like what KO has said better than anything else I've seen.

[calimary]

75. All I have for them is a two-word statement: FUCK YOU.

You're correct. THEY are our problem.

Just FUCK THEM. WE know what to do and where to steer. We don't have to waste our time asking them for directions.

[GeorgeGist]

81. Abrasive to whom?

Neocon assholes and their pals.

[malaise]

82. Bingo

Great post.

[WinkyDink]

84. "ABRASIVE"??? I totally disagree with the OP characterization.

President Clinton---the Last President of our Democracy---was intense, forceful, taking no sh*t, but he was NOT "harsh and rough in manner".

[Hubert Flottz]

88. Don't you think that the founding fathers wouldn't be pissed off too

if they could see what the neocons and Bush have done to destroy our country?

[ProSense]

91. YOU are part of our problem!

You make this statement:

YOUR mindset was shared by the Kerry campaign when he was maligned by the Swifties and did nothing. We know the outcome of that.

Followed by this statement:

The lies and distortions of the right need to be bitch-slapped without mercy like the affront to your intelligence that it is. Period.

May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Kerry Campaign responses: August 5-August 19

Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc0e-904bcc95946c&.

Text:

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...

Kerry Campaign responses: August 20-August 26

Bush's lawyer forced to resign:

Smeared by Ginsberg

August 27, 2004

BENJAMIN L. Ginsberg is the smoking gun. As national counsel to Bush-Cheney for five years, he has operated continuously at the center of President Bush's political organization. He was James Baker's right-hand man during the 2000 Florida recount challenge.

Snip...

Here we have a group of bitter veterans who detest Kerry's leadership in opposing the war 30 years ago and are willing to say almost anything -- frequently contradicting their own earlier statements -- to hurt Kerry's candidacy. They turn to Bush's top political lawyer for advice on campaign finance laws and then to one of Bush's top campaign contributors to fund their attack ads.

No memo trail needs to be found linking Bush personally to Ginsberg and the veterans' group; the connection is apparent.

For far too long this attack has worked to Bush's advantage. Even when Kerry and other veterans were defending his war service effectively…

Ginsberg resigned his Bush campaign position with unintended comedy, saying he was saddened that his role had "become a distraction from the critical issues at hand in this election." Was he suggesting this bogus smear is a critical issue?

...The members of the Federal Election Commission, appointed by Bush and Bill Clinton, have betrayed their office by not reining in groups that are too closely aligned with both campaigns.

But that is not the issue with the anti-Kerry veterans. The issue is Bush -- his refusal to condemn a patently false attack, his willingness to try to reap some political reward on the cheap, his utter lack of leadership in brushing off the role played by his close political aides.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/08/27/smeared_by_ginsberg

More in Research Forum

Here is what Clinton said about the Kerry campaign a week before the election:

Our friends on the other side want a world where they concentrate wealth and power on the far right, do what they want to when they can and cooperate with others only when they have to. I am very proud of John Kerry and the campaign he has run. He never gives up.
(Applause)

He never gives up. I remember in the primary campaign, very early, they were saying, "Oh, Kerry's dead. He's dashed expectations. He can't win." He just kept being John Kerry. And he won in Iowa. He won in New Hampshire. And he won the nomination for president.
(Applause)

I remember, early in this campaign, they said, "Oh, Kerry's beat. He's too far behind. He's dead as a door nail." And then he gave us three magnificent performances in those debates, and he's leading in this race.
(Applause)

CLINTON: I am proud that John Kerry has treated the voters of America with genuine respect. He's given them his specific plans on jobs, on health care, on energy, on security...

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/102504-cf-gn-ele-usa-ts-wjc-and-senator-kerry-in-philadelphia.htm

YOU need to heed your own advice!


Here is my criticism of Clinton's timing:

Less than 6 weeks before the election, Democrats are engaged in a debate about Clinton's record. Dicks Cheney and Rumsfeld, and Cantbelieverlies are out there swatting down what they claim are Clinton's lies. None of what they say is true, but this is the debate. Meanwhile...

Torture, Iraq, the NIE report and Afghanistan have been supplanted in the news by Clinton vs. Bush on who did a better job of not finding bin Laden.

Not one to put words in anyone's mouth, but imagine if Clinton had made one comment (the right one) about his actions by referencing the 9/11 report, then gone on to passionately condemn Bush about his failures since, including one of the the most damaging: sanctioned torture.

The media would have been left with only one solid comment to try to spin, if they even could, since the report vindicates Clinton:

Transcript of Rice's 9/11 commission statement
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Posted: 0425 GMT (1225 HKT)

Snip...

KEAN: ...And yet, you walk in and Dick Clarke is talking about al Qaeda should be our number-one priority. Sandy Berger tells you you'll be spending more time on that than anything else.

Snip...

RICE: Well, in fact, Mr. Chairman, it was not new information. I think we all knew about the 1998 bombings. We knew that there was speculation that the 2000 Cole attack was al Qaeda. There had been, I think, documentaries about Osama bin Laden.

I, myself, had written for an introduction to a volume on bioterrorism done at Sanford that I thought that we wanted not to wake up one day and find that Osama bin Laden had succeeded on our soil.

It was on the radar screen of any person who studied or worked in the international security field.

But there is no doubt that I think the briefing by Dick Clarke, the earlier briefing during the transition by Director Tenet, and of course what we talked with about Sandy Berger, it gave you a heightened sense of the problem and a sense that this was something that the United States had to deal with.

I have to say that of course there were other priorities. And indeed, in the briefings with the Clinton administration, they emphasized other priorities: North Korea, the Middle East, the Balkans.

RICE: One doesn't have the luxury of dealing only with one issue if you are the United States of America. There are many urgent and important issues.

But we all had a strong sense that this was a very crucial issue. The question was, what do you then do about it?

And the decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop- off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority.

And so we kept the counterterrorism team on board. We knew that George Tenet was there. We had the comfort of knowing that Louis Freeh was there.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/index.html

Finally, the White House reversed position on Tuesday about statements it had made about Clarke. On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney said that Clarke had been "out of the loop" in the months before the 9/11 attacks. But The New York Times reports that Ms. Rice said Tuesday that this was not the case and that Clarke "was very much involved in the administration's fight against terrorism."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0325/dailyUpdate.html

New glimpses of Bush worldview
By Peter Grier and Faye Bowers | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – An extraordinary fortnight of revelations about US preparedness before Sept. 11 has provided at least this preliminary picture: When the Bush foreign policy team took office in 2000, it was determined to focus on big nations and traditional power geopolitics, not Al Qaeda and the new terrorist threat.

The Clinton people? Sure, they'd made terrorism a priority. But top Bush officials were dismissive of their predecessors' performance, and determined to avoid what they felt were Clintonesque mistakes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0401/p01s01-usfp.html

(March 27, 2004 -- 03:00 AM EDT // link)

Snip...

At the beginning of 2000, Condi Rice wrote an article in Foreign Affairs outlining the sort of foreign and national security policy America should pursue. It was published as part of the journal's treatment of the 2000 election and in the article Rice was identified as one of then-candidate George W. Bush's foreign policy advisors. The article was intended to be a quasi-official statement of Bush's policies for the foreign policy elite -- the folks who read Foreign Affairs.

I read the piece at the time, or near after, and it was certainly very widely read by people in the foreign policy community.

I mention it now because this evening a reader reminded me of it and brought a now-pertinent fact to my attention. In the article Rice notes five key foreign policy priorities. Only the last made any mention of terrrorism and it was: "to deal decisively with the threat of rogue regimes and hostile powers, which is increasingly taking the forms of the potential for terrorism and the development of weapons of mass destruction."

Her article then elaborates on each of the five priorities and takes up the fifth toward the end of the piece.

It's well worth linking through and reading.

Not only does she not mention al Qaida or Osama bin Laden, she scarcely even mentions terrorism in the sense we now generally understand it. Her discussion is about North Korea, Iraq and Iran -- rogue states that might threaten the US with weapons of mass destruction (primarily with the use of missiles) -- and, to a much lesser extent, state-sponsored terrorism from Iran.

The key policy prescription for this section is contained in this paragraph ...

One thing is clear: the United States must approach regimes like North Korea resolutely and decisively. The Clinton administration has failed here, sometimes threatening to use force and then backing down, as it often has with Iraq. These regimes are living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them. Rather, the first line of defense should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence -- if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration. Second, we should accelerate efforts to defend against these weapons. This is the most important reason to deploy national and theater missile defenses as soon as possible, to focus attention on U.S. homeland defenses against chemical and biological agents, and to expand intelligence capabilities against terrorism of all kinds.

The central policy recommendation is national missile defense -- a defensive capacity aimed at states. And though there is mention of chemical and biological agents and the need to "expand intelligence capabilities against terrorism of all kinds" even a quick read of the entire section shows clearly that ideologically-based transnational terrorism simply wasn't on her radar as a significant threat to the United States.

There's no mention of Afghanistan or the madrassas in Pakistan, the importance of knocking down terrorist financial networks, Islamist sleeper cells in American or Germany. None of it.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_21.php

The point is Clinton took the megaphone and instead of shining a light on today's failures, he decided to fight a battle from 2001. He no doubt has a right to do this, but after five years of silence, why this battle now?

[blm]

115. Thanks you for the FACTS.

FACTS cannot be spun and SHOULD not be spun.

[donco6]

118. Excellent question.

After five years of silence, why this battle now? Was he lying low for Hillary? Was he just busy with other things? Did he not get asked the questions?

[Joe Chi Minh]

99. It's time to turn the tables on them and mock them for being

wishy-washy illiberals, without any fire in their bellies, who are scared to raise their wee vocies and go for the jugular.

[napi21]

101. ABSOlUTELY RIGHT!!!!

Did you notice, although BC DID raise his voice leversomewhat, he wasn't screaming, or irrational! I'm amaized that so manyon TV are saying he lost it, or that was the ANNGER we reporters saw once in a while. I think I even heard someone call it a tiraid!

I gotta tellya folks,if those people think THAT display was a TIRAID, they sure must live in a different world than I do! Hell, I've had much worse ones myself!

An EXPERT handles it li Bill did. Visabily angered, still in control, and even with a smile!!!!

[Bitwit1234]

102. STAND UP FOR FREEDOM

Freedom from the crooked, corrupt, lying, stealing and egomaniacs in the republican administration.

Who in the heck do they think they are....2/3's of the country now disapprove of them. They are not doing the work of the people. If all the other Democrats in DC had half the balls that President Clinton did to stand up to a slippery snake like Wallace they would shut the devil up. Where's the fire Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, Byrd, Kerry and the rest. Senator Kennedy lets go at the republicans why don't the rest of them get angry also...We love a good fight. That's the problem with the Democrats they appear wishy washy. They need to let the blow back fall all over the republicans. NOW...........................!!!!

[spanone]

104. I find the TRUTH more refreshing than abrasive.

[Viking12]

108. It's amusing...

The RW haters (i.e. Hannity) are arguing simultaneously that Clinton had a meltdown AND he did it on purpose for politically strategic reasons. They are so stupid that they can't see their internal contradictions through their hate.

[madfloridian]

109. He waited all these years while other Democrats fought.

And there is thread after thread at DU listing how he fought terrorism. Why did he wait and do it right now.

And no, I am not part of the problem. I am amazed this got so many recommends when other Democrats have working just as hard in different ways.

[blossomstar]

113. TRUE THAT! Way to go Clinton... FINALLY!

[Old Smokey]

116. Great Post!!!

You are absolutely correct.

[intaglio]

117. Reading Ephron's response on Huffpo

made me think of it as an unworldly intellectuals response. She described how she thought he might have responded and it was obvious that her "method" would have failed. She also said that he ought not to have gone on the program because he could expect to be ambushed. Her most trenchant criticism was that you could see a gap between his socks and his trouser bottoms.

In her world politicians are gentlemen - sad really

[libhill]

119. Right on -

about time the Dem's fight back and show some balls. Otherwise, we can cave in and start clicking our heels and giving the Hitler salute to these Nazi bastards. The Mr. Nice Guy shit ain't gonna get it done people. Wake up and smell the coffee. Or resign yourselves to being fucking losers.