Reply #120: Kerry's team the day after the book came out

[karynnj]

gave the media 36 pages that documented lies and inaccuracies in the book. This incidentally was the same first step Obama took with his Corsi book. Kerry also sent surrogates out to speak about it. This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. (Like Kerry, Obama used surrogates against Corsi rather than respond himself)

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright?

Many Democrats, including Edwards who was asked to, did little. It wasn't that tey had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

The video I pointed you to (the one with the Kerry picture) essentially calls them liars and points out that the Navy gave him those medals.

I really don't think Kerry needed to spend a half an hour going through each lie they said - note that Obama didn't with the lies in the Corsi book either, nor did he do so with Ayres - other than to answer (well) a question in the debate. My point was that there were people on this board saying Kerry never said they were lying - and he does here. The fact, is that the media ignored sailors who were there who INDEPENDENTLY came forward and backed Kerry's story coverage. (The only one who did get coverage was a Chicago Tribune editor who was one of Kerry's peers on one of the boats when he got the Silver Star. This was reprinted in a few newpapers, but was given little play on cable - even though it blew the SBVT out of the water and he was not a Kerry ally - but a conservative Republican.

The difference with the Wright thing is that Obama DID go to that church and the minister was outside the mainstream. He need to provide context and understanding. In Kerry's case - it was not "his" story against the liars, it was the "Navy's official record" against the liars. Sitting and going through each lie (and their lies even contradicted each other) was no more needed than Obama answering every accusation in the Corsi book.

Kerry was not given coverage of his NYU Iraq speech, his University of Pennsyvania speech on non-state terrorism, his health care speech or his alternative energy/environment speech - that people from HRC and McCain have copied. Why do you think he would have been given a half hour to counter the SBVT - and if he did, you would have complained that it was too much Vietnam. As to issues - Kerry's Iraq, terrorism, health care and especially environment issues were, if anything, more defined than Obama's.