To: Senator John Kerry
Dear Senator Kerry,

Thus far, your presidential campaign has been focused solely on attacking President Bush and touting your Vietnam War record from over thirty years ago. Though you have stated reasons why voters should not reelect President Bush, you have not given the American people ample reason to vote for you. Further, there are many inconsistencies and unanswered allegations in your own record. Herein is an opportunity for you to respond.

You have inserted Vietnam into the campaign as a central issue. However, in the 1992 presidential election, when Bill Clinton was accused of dodging the Vietnam draft, you said, “I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign . . . . The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them.” You now seek to “reopen” these wounds. Please explain how you reconcile your current tactic of using the Vietnam War to your own political advantage with your contradictory statements of February 27, 1992.

While we deeply appreciate your service to our nation, there are many lingering questions regarding your conduct after the war. In the early 1970s, you participated in Jane Fonda’s “Winter Soldier Investigation,” and you also testified before Congress. In this testimony, you accused your fellow soldiers of committing unspeakable atrocities. Later, it was determined that many of these charges you leveled against your fellow soldiers were distorted or outright false. Please explain why Vietnam veterans should support your candidacy after you have publicly defamed them and falsely accused them of serious crimes.

As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA in the early 1990s, you lobbied zealously for normalized relations with Vietnam. As a result, your cousin, C. Stewart Forbes, was able to broker a billion dollar deal between Hanoi and Colliers International, a large company based in your home state of Massachusetts. Is this merely an odd coincidence? Further, there is credible evidence that your committee suppressed evidence – including live sightings – that there were still indeed American prisoners in Vietnam. If introduced, this evidence may have prevented the normalized relations you sought – normalized relations that were paramount to sealing the Colliers deal. Some investigators have charged that you threatened, if the suppressed evidence ever leaked out, that they would “wish [they’d] never been born.” Please answer these charges.

You have asserted that it is relevant to this campaign that President Bush allegedly missed a physical while he served in the National Guard decades ago – you and the DNC have described him as being AWOL, though he made up his missed time and was honorably discharged. The implication is that neglect of official duty is relevant to this campaign. If this is the case, then it is, by implication, relevant that your attendance record in the 108th Congress was a dismal 36%, i.e. you have failed to execute your duties to your constituents as their Senator 64% of the time in the last congress. Please explain why it is relevant that President Bush allegedly missed some time while serving his country in the National Guard decades ago, but it is not relevant that you have failed to represent your own constituents almost two-thirds of the time last session – i.e. that you were “AWOL” from the Senate. As you may be aware, 2 USC § 39 mandates that,” The Secretary of the Senate … shall deduct from the [salary] of each Member . . . the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the Senate . . . unless such Member . . . assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family.” Please explain why you feel you are exempt from this federal law.

Finally, please explain your ever-changing explanation of your vote on the resolution that authorized the President to use force in Iraq. On October, 10, 2002, you voted “aye” to H.J. Res. 114 (Senate vote #237). The explicit purpose of the bill was to “authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.” There is no ambiguity in the text of this bill. Unless you did not understand the plain language of the text, please explain your claim that you only authorized “the threat” of force, subject to the permission of the U.N.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned


http://www.petitiononline.com/ltr2krry/petition.html

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

Ha ha ha.

LOL

..statement...Since almost ALL of his administration, and most of the most vociferous pro-war republicans did EVERYTHING they could NOT TO GO...

Sorry but Kerry actually knows what service to his country means, a bunch of cowards don't get to frame the debate this time...

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

and not talk about Vietnam in an election. But, oh I forgot, he loves to flip flop, and this is just another example....

or Mr I'm against Nation-building, or Mr Compassionate Conservative, puhleez....

When taken in context what John Kerry said was fine. Bill Clinton was being accused of being something he wasn't, and John Kerry defended him. John Kerry was attacked about his Vietnam service and he responded...

What is it with republicans (and "libertarians") and being so pro-war as long as THEY don't actually have to fight it?

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

It's how people think, brit. We make laws for other people, not us. The middle class wants to tax the rich, but they don’t want to pay the same proportionally. We want to go to war, but let others fight it. Let’s build mass transit to reduce the smog, but I’ll still drive…everyone else should be riding it.

When too many people think that way, you run into serious problems…

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

I saw Kerry on CSPAN the other night. He didn't talk solely about attacking Bush or touting his Vietnam record. Things he said were:

1. I will raise the minimum wage to $7.00

2. I will not lower social security benefits, nor will I raise the age requirement.

3. I will raise taxes on the rich.

4. I will pay down the debt over 10 years.

5. I will keep our troops in Iraq until the job is done, but I will get the U.N. and other nations and put them in charge.

6. I will strive to create a healthcare system where everyone can apply. (huh?)

7. I promise to force health care companies to lower their costs of prescription drugs. Ok I paraphrased that, but basically that's what he said.

This is just some of the stuff I remember. Tune in and listen to him speak sometime, you'll have lots of things to disagree with that will probably make more interesting posts, like his comment about raising the minimum wage.

i think it,s a failure for Kirry but do you think Bush is better than Kirry after his bad policy?