MAY 01 - 15, 2004

VOL. 2 ISSUE 9

MAY 5, 2004 – He broke the code, Republicans are claiming.

John Kerry won’t have the support of our nation because he spoke out against our own troops while they were fighting in Vietnam, the very troops he had served with, accusing them of human rights abuses and atrocities, even coming clean on how he had committed some himself.

This article from yesterdays Wall Street Journal is typical of the sort of dishonest, see-no-evil garbage the media has been using to try and make John Kerry’s record of standing up to terrible things that happened in a time of war a bad thing.

"He doesn’t deserve to be commander in chief," the article, written by a soldier who served with Kerry, John O’Neill, claims.

"Niether I, nor any man I served with, ever committed any atrocity or war crime in Vietnam. The opposite was the truth."

He claimed that John Kerry was "slandering America’s military by inventing… claims of atrocities or war crimes…" O’Neill then assails him, "His (claims) played a significant role in creating the negative and false image of Vietnam vets that has persisted for over three decades."

John had pointed out the ugly side of war, the side that people like O’Neill like to pretend doesn’t exist but which America saw if living color in its living rooms this past week.

And again, in the 1980’s, John Kerry took the same stand. He stood up and spearheaded an investigation into alleged human rights abuses being either covered up or co-perpetrated by our own military during what became known as the Iran-Contra days. You have likely read our articles over the past few days detailing how the man President Bush wants to make ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, was the one who covered up – and possibly helped facilitate – these abuses (see www.moderateindependent.com/v2i4negro.htm and www.moderateindependent.com/v2i4dodd.htm and www.moderateindependent.com/v2i4abuses.htm ) Well John Kerry was the first person to stand up and say, "Hey, something wrong seems to be going on down there and we need to look into it, now."

Why was he the one to notice first? Exactly because of his experiences in Vietnam in all likelihood.

Yes, John Kerry was the code-breaker, the whistleblower who just couldn't and wouldn't stand for amoral actions, even under fog of war. That's why he stood up to protest when he came back, and that is why he was keeping an eye on what was going on down in Central America.

Today, President Bush's spokesman claimed the President knew nothing about the abuses taking place in Iraq until he saw the media reports last week.

As we reported in www.moderateindependent.com/v2i4abuses , the military now admits it has known about these claims for months, and for weeks before CBS aired the photos had known and been in discussions with CBS about delaying the showing.

Now, the President is trying to claim he had no idea until it showed up on TV.

This can only mean one of two things: 1) he knew about the abuses, did nothing about them, kept the info secret from Congress, and now is lying to cover up that fact, or 2) everyone around knew except him.

If the latter were the case, he would unquestionably immediately fire everyone who kept this from him. He would be so furious they let this happen without his knowledge they'd already be gone.

The reality is that President Bush didn't deal with this issue, didn't consider it a major problem worthy of immediate action, and, in fact, was more concerned with keeping a cover on it - as you hear Bush/Limbaughians assert CBS should have - for the sake of not getting bad PR. President Bush doesn't have the same inherent opposition and fury with regard to human rights abuses during time of war.

Any chance of winning the will of the Iraqi people of President Bush's watch is gone now. In fact, any new President would have a tough time every winning the trust of the Arab world - or the rest of the world - again.

Except for John Kerry, that is. He has shown time and time again in his life that he will break the code of silence, that he will keep an eye out for and take a stand against human rights abuses under cover of war. Only John Kerry can speak credibly to say he will do everything possible to ensure this doesn't happen on his watch.

The rest of the media covers the elections with a naivete and childishness that denies the simple reality: that people, in the end, choose the man. They learned nothing from the primaries.

It is not about polls at this point, it is not about who uses what phraseology, it is not about what right-wing attack seems to be working or what issue people seem to lean toward this week or that.

In the end, the people simply look at the two men before them and decide who they trust more and who they think the nation needs more as President.

Howard Dean could raise all the cash he wanted, run all the ads, his massive throng of active followers could write all the letters and e-mails and make all the phone calls in the world, but in the end, the people decided the nation needed someone who had experience in time of war, a war hero who not only was brave enough to serve, but moral enough to stand up against what he saw was wrong both with the war and the actions of his fellow soldiers.

This election will not be a close one. John Kerry will win by a landslide. Just as the press kept Dean up top long after we told you he had not chance, they will keep Bush up there.

But the American people's stomachs have turned. Economically, they are nauseous. From the deaths in Iraq, they are nauseous. And now with this horrible torture scandal they feel truly sick.

The American people don't like to have to worry. We are a happy people by nature and don't like to have to think about politics or problems in the world. Simply, we want whoever we can trust to fix things and take them off of our mind.

President Bush has nothing to offer to help comfort them, as all of this has happened on his watch, and he has not record at any point in his past to show he can fix any of the above situations. His an agitator, not a soother. He is not a diplomat, he is a warrior. And he is not a strident moralist, he is a machiavellian, and the people all know this. In the past they had embraced it thinking it was the best way to go in the War on Terror.

Now such a man is the acid that makes their stomach turn. They know we desperately need someone who understands the terrors of war and the importance of diplomacy. And they know that, more urgently than anything else, we need a man who we can trust to make sure human rights are being respected whether in war or peace.

And it is not a complex equation for the American people to figure that John Kerry is such a man while President Bush is not.

Republicans have challenged John Kerry to run on his record. Well, unfortunately for them, he will. And unfortunately for them, their attacks on his outspokenness against abuse during time of war will now backfire right in their faces. Quite simply, America will not trust the Bush/Limbaughians who attacked John Kerry for standing up against abuses during time of war to honestly deal with problem, as they seem inclined to be the type to just want people to keep their mouths shut and look the other way.

John Kerry is the right man with exactly the right record and the right mindset for America at this juncture. If the American people tried to design a person who fit exactly what the nation needs - in particular after this torture and abuse scandal - they would design John Kerry. He has taken the stands and is someone who is strong and tough enough for them to put their trust in.

So forget all the stupid back-and-forth, horse race nonsense you will read in the rest of the media. As things stand now, this election will be a massive landslide victory for Kerry.

HELPING M/I EXPAND

Many of you have expressed an interest in helping The Moderate Independent grow. 
If you wish to contribute to help M/I grow, click the button below.