Over the years, John Kerry has been maligned for speaking truth to power. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" The question he asked one fateful day in 1971 is again the most relevant question today. It’s a question that no doubt has made John Kerry the most quoted Senator in American history, but also exposed him to venomous attacks by his critics.
More than any other Senator, Kerry’s actions have been scrutinized through a marred media lens determined to distort his record of unparalleled service. His words and actions speak to his character, conviction and uncommon common sense; although both have been twisted out of context by a biased mass media. It’s a media phenomenon I’ve label Media Transmitted Distortion (MTD).
How about this bit of irony: Despite MTD, John Kerry’s new mission, announced when he opted out of the 2008 campaign, is the same one he’s been on since he asked the question. He is still guided by a moral compass that destines him to do the right thing.
I have tried to imagine where John Kerry would be now without the vociferous personal attacks on him; if the media had opted to criticize his policies, not create his persona.
After making his plans known and receiving a tremendous outpour of genuine disappoint and respect, Senator Kerry thanked
supporters:
You were right there with me during the most difficult hours of the long campaigns and you were there at the best of times when we offered a hopeful brave alternative to the smallness of the last six years…
I knew exactly what he meant. In the smallness of the past six years, we’ve seen religion used to promote intolerance, stifle progress, suppress speech, prey on people’s fears, and mock progressive leaders who seek to enlighten us. Today we seen bombings, murders and
wars carried out in the name of God. While this ideological power play continues, the key to our collective future lies in a more sacred spirituality, one that connects us to the larger universe. No matter how sacrosanct we hold our beliefs, forces beyond our control will always remind us of this larger connection. In these moments, such as hurricanes and tsunamis, when we must turn away from our fears to lean on our faith, we discover the power of hope not the paralysis of hate.
It may be extreme to characterize American politics in terms of hate, but it’s vicious. The current political climate is built on
fear and
smear, which has enabled demagogue-like leaders to perpetuate policies that delivers many people to death’s door by
carnage,
despair and
negligence.
The media created the cowboy President who taunted the “enemy” with “bring them on,” and they
obliged. He proclaimed the “mission accomplished” when it was actually
not.
John Kerry knows history is being repeated. From the he Senate floor he issued the following statement:
I know when I returned from war, almost 40 years ago now, I stood up and spoke from my heart and my gut about what I thought was wrong. To this day that has been controversial in some quarters, but I am proud that I told the truth. And that truth has been documented again and again from Army training manuals to books that have been written to the statements of our own Secretary of Defense at that time, Robert McNamara. But, before I finish, I want to make it clear that that is my motivation in talking about this war now and this predicament that so many of these soldiers find themselves in.
I asked the question in 1971: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? Although I knew going into public service I wanted to be in a place where I could have an impact should there be a choice of war in the future, but I never thought that I would be reliving the need to ask that question again.
We are there. Most of our colleagues understand this is a mistake. Most of our colleagues understand that 21,000 troops is not going to pacify Iraq. So all of us have a deep-rooted obligation, a deep moral obligation to ask ourselves what we can do to further the interests of our Nation and honor the sacrifices of those troops themselves. I think it is to get this policy right. I hope the President will truly listen to us in these next days because we want to work in good faith to do that.
He spoke that with similar passion in
November 2002:
Seven letters — that's all it takes to make the word Vietnam.
But we know it is much more than a word. More than the name of a country. Vietnam. It is a period in time — it is a one-word encapsulation of history — a one-word summary of a war gone wrong, of families divided, generations divided, a nation divided. It carries in its seven letters all the confusion, bitterness, love, sacrifice and nobility of America's longest war. It is a one-word all-encompassing answer to questions: What happened to him? Where was he injured? When did he change?
Snip…
It doesn't matter that politics got in the way. It doesn't matter that leaders remained wedded to their own confusion. Nothing — not politics, not time, not outcome — nothing will ever diminish one iota the contributions of these brothers and sisters, nothing can ever lessen the courage with which they waged war. Nothing reduces the magnitude of their sacrifice, nothing can take away the quality of their gift to their nation.
Then as now, the media was absent or distracted by pettiness. There was news in Senator Kerry’s January 24 statement. Big news, as highlighted in this
Daily Kos diary by Beachmom. The news is all over the media today (check out the links at
TMP and Juan Cole’s
The danger of Bush's anti-Iran fatwa.
When Kerry spoke the media, unlike Beachmom, couldn’t focus on the importance of what he said, instead MTD kicked in and the news became, as Eric Boehlert points out, “
John Kerry's tears.”
The truth is, what Kerry did during his eloquent and passionate critique of the war last Wednesday was what our Founding Fathers hoped U.S. senators would use the chamber for: to speak in depth about the difficult issues facing the day. What the press was doing, I have no idea. Indeed, the same Founding Fathers, who brilliantly carved out a unique role for the free press in our democracy, would have been stunned if they had witnessed Kerry's address and then read the fictionalized accounts of him allegedly breaking down in tears on the Senate floor.
So is the relationship between John Kerry and the media. Last September, Kerry gave a speech about
Service and Faith at Pepperdine University. Integrating his personal journey made it evident that this wasn't just a political speech, it was a speech to define who he his, what he is believes and how these correlate with his vision of America’s role in the world. It was a great speech:
Snip…
We are more than just Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims or atheists: we are human beings. We are more than the sum of our differences — we share a moral obligation to treat one another with dignity and respect—and the rest is commentary. Nowhere does this obligation arise more unavoidably than in when and how to resort to war.
Christians have long struggled to balance the legitimate need for self-defense with our highest ideals of justice and personal morality. Saint Augustine laid the foundation for a compelling philosophical tradition considering how and when Christians should fight.
Augustine felt that wars of choice are generally unjust wars, that war—the organized killing of human beings, of fathers, brothers, friends—should always be a last resort, that war must always have a just cause, that those waging war need the right authority to do so, that a military response must be proportionate to the provocation, that a war must have a reasonable chance of achieving its goal and that war must discriminate between civilians and combatants.
In developing the doctrine of Just War, Augustine and his many successors viewed self-restraint in warfare as a religious obligation, not as a pious hope contingent on convincing one’s adversaries to behave likewise. Throughout the centuries there have been Christian political leaders who argued otherwise; who contended that observing Just War principles was weak, naïve, or even cowardly.
It’s in Americas’ interests to maintain our unquestionable moral authority — and we risk losing it when leaders make excuses for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo or when an Administration lobbies for torture.
For me, the just war criteria with respect to Iraq are very clear: sometimes a President has to use force to fight an enemy bent on using weapons of mass destruction to slaughter innocents. But no President should ever go to war because they want to—you go to war only because you have to. The words “last resort” have to mean something.
For Kerry, it was never about war for war’s sake. War is a last resort. His speech at Pepperdine sought to inject something into the debate, the definition of a “Just War,” how leaders grapple with decisions of life and death when sending men and women off to die.
John Kerry questioned the moral conduct of American leadership in 1971. As a member of Congress, he has had to grapple with these same issues.
How does an anti-war hero get branded a hawk? The answer is MTD and Iraq—a complete distortion of the facts surrounding the first and current Iraq war led to misguided comparisons of the two authorizations voted on in Congress.
During a Jan. 1991 speech before the start of the first Iraq war, Kerry kept emphasizing that the vote on the resolution boxed in Congress. He also referenced the threat to use force was not new and was already on the table. Here's a quote from Kerry's Jan. 11, 1991 speech (my transcription):
This is a vote about putting ourselves in a much smaller box, where war may become more likely where it needs to or not. And where we will have nothing further to say about it.
snip...
But voting to keep sanctions and diplomacy is not a vote against war if all other options fail because we continue to hold that lever in our hands
Excerpt from 1991 resolution:
(102nd Congress
00002 12-Jan S.J.Res. 2 On the Joint Resolution Agreed to S.J.Res.2; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution )
…Whereas, in the absence of full compliance by Iraq with its resolutions, the U.N. Security Council in Resolution 678 has authorized member states of the United Nations to use all necessary means, after January 15, 1991, to uphold and implement all relevant Security Council resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; and…
I listened to the 1991 speech. All the time the two resolutions (1991 and 2002) were being compared, I never went back to check the language in the 1991 resolution. The Jan. 15 deadline blew me away. And Bush Jr., like you said one upped poppy, and no doubt had a score to settle for the scathing criticism of Bush Sr. that Kerry delivered in his eloquent and powerful 1991 speech.
What changed: the box.
In essence, Bush Sr. did exactly what Bush Jr. did in terms of getting authorization to use of force and then rushing to war with a quickly pulled together coalition. The difference was that Bush Sr. got Congress to included a deadline---a date after which using force would be authorized---in the resolution. That's why Kerry made his speech and voted against it. He even emphasized that in the speech. Saying that maybe this will all work out, but that's not the point. The point: what he said in October 1990, January 1991 on and since October 2002.
The current IWR did not include a date, Bush set that date arbitrarily and that violated the IWR. The current IWR was in line with Kerry's thinking all along. He voted for a resolution that required Bush Jr. to meet specific criteria laid out by Congress, report back. It (like the resolution he spoke about in Oct 1990) did not give Bush authority to go to war, something Kerry has refused to do---cede Congressional powers to the president.
Prior to that, Kerry gave a speech in October 1990, supporting a resolution to work through the UN:
SUPPORTING THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT WITH RESPECT TO IRAQI AGGRESSION AGAINST KUWAIT (Senate - October 02, 1990)
Mr. President, I believe this phase appropriately defines the limit of our support. We are telling the administration that Congress will support continued action so long as this action is in accordance with the decisions of the U.N. Security Council, in accordance with the U.S. constitutional and statutory processes. I would submit that since the War Powers Resolution is part of our statutory process, this resolution is covered in the legislation we are considering today.
And quite frankly, if the Congress is so predisposed to correcting a perceived policy miscalculation, the ultimate weapon we have is the power of the purse. As one who fought and bled for my country, the failure of the Congress to cut off funding for the Vietnam war for so many years represented the ultimate derogation of the responsibilities of this institution.
I am a strong supporter and advocate of the War Powers Resolution. But the War Powers Resolution, and its invocation, should not be used as an excuse for not exercising the most effective tool we have to decide these issues--the power of the purse.
We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
by Sen. John F. Kerry
Sept 6, 2002
For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. But until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq.
For Kerry it was never about war for war’s sake. There is something Kerry got years ago: The Bush admin created a mess in Iraq and no amount of spin could change that reality.
Whether it’s confusion from Condi Rice about spreading democracy (Transcript of SFRC Kerry 2/15/06):
RICE: Of course it's a tension, Senator. There are tensions in any political system.
You know, our own political life began by being unfortunately unable for a number of years to resolve the issue of slavery. We nonetheless managed to create ourselves as a union.
Snip…
As I said, elections don't mean democracy, but I've never seen one begin without an election.
KERRY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comment. Actually, the American democracy began with a revolution, not an election.
Or confusion by the administration because it lacks significant knowledge of the region:
JK: Well, it's hard to say. You know, there'll be a lot of people nervous about the issue of the funding. But I think, if you're opposed to the escalation, then you can't be content just to say “I'm opposed,” or to vote for a non-binding resolution. You've got to make an effort to try to say, “we don't want this bad policy to be implemented.” And you've got to think about those young men and women in uniform. I mean, they, they're the ones on the front line. They're the ones who are going to be put in harm's way. They're the ones who are going to go out there with some Iraqi soldiers of, you know, a dubious level of experience, and go out into the community. And I think they deserve to know that we're doing everything in our power to put the right policy in place for them.
Kerry knew what had to be done, but met resistance from every corner. In October 2005, Senator John Kerry Lays Out
Path Forward in Iraq: If Administration Acts Responsibly, We Can Stabilize Iraq and Reduce Combat Forces With Successful December Elections, Draw Down 20,000 Troops by the End of 2005
You’d think it would be hard to question Kerry’s expertise—his knowledge of the region, his understanding of America's reliance on oil, his experience in Vietnam, and his respect for people and cultures. You’d think!
Instead, the MTD created the memes cut and run, Defeatocrats, etc.
Continuing the say nothing bad about Bush and protect the corrupt status quo, the RW media unleashed it series of farcical pieces in response to Kerry’s calls for diplomacy and characterization of Bush’s policies, which many people believe have crossed the legal line into criminal territory.
From Davos, Kerry made the following
comments:
DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) — Massachusetts Senator John Kerry slammed the foreign policy of the Bush administration on Saturday, saying it has caused the United States to become "a sort of international pariah."
Snip…
"When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy," Kerry said.
"So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East — in the world, really. I've never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today."
Snip…
"We need to do a better job of protecting our interests, because after all, that's what diplomacy is about," he said. "But you have to do it in a context of the reality, not your lens but the reality of those other cultures and histories."
Kerry criticized what he called the "unfortunate habit" of Americans to see the world "exclusively through an American lens."
Was Kerry wrong?
Does torture ratified by Congress and signed into law by Bush make the U.S. a
pariah?
Video – John Kerry Speaks Against Torture
Let me be clear about something—something that it seems few people are willing to say. This bill permits torture.
About that lens: How does the world view America when it launches a war to spread democracy while trampling on the
Failed our troops, our country and the world?[br />
LT. John Kerry gave his historic anti-war testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. Thirty-five years later, on April 22, 2006, he delivered another historic speech:
A Right and Responsibility to Speak Out.
By his speech, Kerry linked his past and present, as well as that of the nation, to another powerful word in democracy: Dissent.
John Kerry believes in speaking truth to power. “
Truth is the American bottom line,” he said in his “Dissent” speech, and he lives by these words.
More and more people are becoming aware that Kerry’s BCCI and Iran-Contra, but few know details of the attempts to
sabotage the investigations and brush the entire affair under the rug:
Henry Hyde, who starred as chief House manager in President Clinton's impeachment, played a very different role a decade earlier.
In 1987, instead of the grim prosecutor set on punishing Clinton for his sex-and-lies offenses, Hyde was the glib defense attorney searching for reasons to spare President Reagan from possible impeachment over the Iran-contra scandal and related drug crimes implicating the Nicaraguan contra army.
Snip...
Hyde cited the memo as proof that the Democrats had “left no stone unturned” in efforts to hurt the contras, but still had come up empty.
With Hyde’s backing, the Bermingham memo galvanized a Washington conventional wisdom that the contra-cocaine charges had been thoroughly investigated and discredited.
What is now even more troubling about the memo -- and Hyde’s endorsement -- is that recent internal investigations by the CIA and the Justice Department have revealed that the agencies and the groups cited by Bermingham actually possessed significant proof of contra-connected drug trafficking in their files.
The agencies also knew that criminal investigations had been sidetracked for political reasons. For example, the CIA and Justice Department acknowledged that investigative leads into a 1983 drug-smuggling case in San Francisco were dropped after CIA officials expressed concerns that contra leaders in Costa Rica could be implicated.
Snip...
Indeed, from a review of the evidence available just in 1987, it seems like Bermingham must have been interviewing a different set of government officials and contra leaders than those who had caught the attention of Kerry and other investigators.
As Kerry's final report summarized: "It is clear that individuals who provided support for the contras were involved in drug trafficking. It is also clear that the supply network of the contras was used by drug trafficking organizations, and elements of the contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers.
Translating from pundit speak: “galvanized a Washington conventional wisdom” means the memo gave the cover-up, keep silent crowd an out. For all the tough talk on terror, for all the claims of wanting accountability and truth that goes on in Washington, acceptance of the Hyde memo is proof that some in the establishment will do whatever it takes to cast doubt on the truth and others will remain silence in favor of protecting the status quo.
More fascinating
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/index.htm information on Iran-contra.
Nothing has changed. Today, as it was in the late 1980s, positioning to save face is still more important than honoring our democracy.
The world is waiting for the truth and accountability. Last May, Robert Parry issued the following advice to Democrats:
Democrats, the Truth Still Matters! Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.
It will be a great day when there are more Senator Kerry’s in the Congress. From the Sidney Blumenthal’s Salon article, “
John Kerry, the man who uncovered Iran-Contra,” July 2004:
For decades, Kerry has pursued a persistent and cumulative investigation into the underside of national security and terrorism. If the Democrats had held the Senate for a sustained period of time, Kerry's work would have borne more fruit, and it is even conceivable that his proposal to regulate the netherworld of money laundering, which was not enacted, would have helped stymie al-Qaida.
From Vietnam onward, Kerry has probed the inner recesses of government, grasping that good intentions are never enough and that the system doesn't work automatically. He has experienced the abuse of justice; had his patriotism impugned; battled enemies foreign and domestic; tried to restore accountability; and fought on, down to today, which is why he is running for president.
Want more truth? When ABC attempted to air its fictionalized “Path to 9/11” docudrama, John Kerry issued this
statement:
Here's a little truth: The President pretends Iraq is the central front on the war on terror. It is not now, and never has been. His disastrous decisions have made Iraq a fuel depot for terror - fanning the flames of conflict around the world.
The terrorists are not on the run. Worldwide, terrorist acts are at an all-time high, more than tripling between 2004 and 2005. Al Qaeda has spawned a vast and decentralized network operating in 65 countries, most of them joining since 9/11. The Taliban now controls entire portions of southern Afghanistan, and just across the border Pakistan is just one coup away from becoming a radical jihadist state with nuclear weapons. The Middle East is more unstable than it has been in decades. Hezbollah flags fly from rooftops in Shiia slums of Sadr City and Iran is rebuilding Southern Lebanon. We have an Iraqi Prime Minister sustained in power by our forces, who will not speak against the Hezbollah terrorists, who will not say that Israel has a right to exist, and who will not condemn the Iranian nuclear program, who will not even as a national leader support the national army over the Shiite militia. In other words, the Iraq government that the administration cites as the front-line force in the fight against terrorism won't even take our side when we are fighting terrorists. No American soldier should be asked to stand up for an Iraqi government that won't stand up for the values and interests that draw them into battle every day. Oh, and the 9/11 commission recently gave our government a failing grade on implementing intelligence reforms.
I love watching movies, but with the world looking the way it is right now I think this is a good time to stick with just the facts. After Iraq, we've all had enough fiction to last a lifetime.
The fascinating thing about John Kerry, and what makes him unique, is that one can take any of the defining issues of our time and flesh out Kerry’s commitment to these over the span of decades.
Non-proliferation:
From Kerry's BCCI report:
For example, BCCI provided $10 million in grants in the late 1980's to finance an officially "private" science and technology institute named for Pakistani President Ishaq Khan, whose director, A. Qadir Khan, has been closely associated with Pakistan's efforts to build a nuclear bomb. The institute is believed by some experts to be the headquarters for Pakistan's efforts to build an Islamic bomb. In the same period, other BCCI officials were assisting Pakistanis in purchasing nuclear technologies paid for by Pakistani-front companies through BCCI-Canada.(94)
Kerry’s questions to Powell, March 2001McCain: Clinton's North Korea policy 'a failure'
POSTED: 3:46 p.m. EDT, October 10, 2006
McCain's criticism elicited a strong response from Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee and a potential 2008 candidate.
"He must be trying to burnish his credentials for the nomination process," said Kerry, who labeled McCain's comments "flat politics and incorrect."
"The truth is the Clinton administration knew full well they didn't have a perfect agreement. But at least they were talking. At least we had inspectors going in and we knew where the rods were. This way, we don't know where the rods are. The rods are gone. There are no inspectors. Ask any American which way is better," Kerry said.
Campaign finance reform:
John Kerry led the way in campaign finance reform, persuading all the primary challengers to run the first
PAC-donation-free senate race in the country's history during his first Senate race in 1984.
Kerry continued to pursue reform, introducing, as the lead author, the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act. From the
Nation:
The following year, a re-elected Kerry was in another lonely position as one of only five original sponsors of the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act, to provide for full public financing of Congressional elections. The measure would remove practically all special-interest money from House and Senate campaigns. (Kerry's colleagues were Wellstone, Leahy, John Glenn and Joe Biden--all Democrats.) "Kerry was totally into it," says Ellen Miller, former executive director of Public Campaign, a reform group pressing for the legislation. "He believes in this stuff."
In introducing the legislation, Kerry said on the Senate floor, "Special interest money is moving and dictating and governing the agenda of American politics.... If we want to regain the respect and confidence of the American people, and if we want to reconnect to them and reconnect them to our democracy, we have to get the special interest money out of politics." He was also a backer of the better-known McCain-Feingold legislation, a more modest and (some might say) problematic approach to campaign reform. But over the years he's pointed to the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act as the real reform. "It is a tough position in Congress to be for dramatic change in financing elections," says Miller. "It's gutsy to go out and say, 'Let's provide a financially leveled playing field so there is more competition for incumbents.' Kerry and Wellstone were the leaders and took a giant step. It was remarkable."
The complete 81 page PDF document
here:
Environment:
Kerry was involved in the first Earth Day on
http://kerry.senate.gov/text/congress/environment.html April 22, 1970, exactly a year before his famous testimony.
When Massachusetts looks for environmental leadership, the name John Kerry immediately arises. As an original organizer of Earth Day 1970 in Massachusetts, and Chair of the National Earth Day 1990 board, John Kerry has long recognized the vulnerability of the environment. Kerry has become nationally and internationally known as an environmental hero for his strong leadership, his stellar voting record and his continuing efforts to keep the teeth in pollution legislation.
Over 30 years ago, I spoke at the Commonwealth's first Earth Day and called for fundamental protections that became the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act and Superfund. When I look back on the many challenges we faced in 1970, I know that we have made great strides. The proof of our progress is all around us. Air pollution, water pollution and toxic emissions have been reduced. Lead has been removed from gasoline. Boston Harbor is recovering from decades of pollution. Acid rain across New England has been reduced. Species once on the verge of extinction, even the mighty bald eagle, have returned to strength. And through it all, the American economy has grown to historic levels as technology, long-term planning and commonsense have replaced environmentally destructive practices. However, our work is not complete.
Two decades later, he was first introduced to his wife, Teresa, by Senator Heinz at an Earth Day rally. In 1992, the Kerrys met again at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
Their passion for protecting the environment led them to write the soon to be released book
THIS MOMENT ON EARTH.
Military families and Veterans:
In 1979,
John Kerry co-founded Vietnam Veterans of America to fight for veterans and service members’ benefits and treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
In April 2005, he introduced the
Military Families Bill of Rights Senator Kerry is as honesty as they come, a man who consistently stands on principle. To quote
Al Gore:
John and I were elected to the United States Senate on the same day 20 years ago and I have worked closely with him for all that time. So I want to say a personal word about John Kerry the man. He is a friend who will stand by you. His word is his bond. He has a deep patriotism that goes far beyond words. He has devoted his life to making America a better place for all of us.
He showed uncommon heroism on the battlefield in Vietnam. I watched him show that same courage on the Senate floor. For example, he had the best record of protecting the environment against polluters of any of my colleagues bar none. He never shied away from a fight, no matter how powerful the foe. He was never afraid to take on difficult and thankless issues that few others wanted to touch. like exposing the threat of narcoterrorism and tracing the sources of terrorist financing. He was one of the very first in our party to take on the issue of drastic deficit reduction. And he’s developed a tough and thoughtful plan to restore our economic strength and fiscal discipline.
When John Kerry announced he would not seek the presidency in 2008, Senators Kennedy and Reid made these
statements.
I suppose John Kerry could be flattered that for nearly four decades his name has been on the tongue of so many establishment insiders, media pundits and detractors, but once his name leaves their lips along with the venom they spew, their words offer no insights about the real John Kerry: a compassionate leader, hero, patriot and dedicated public servant --- an all around great American.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
