Crunch Time: Why Kerry Must Win

In the two months that I have been writing this blog, I have tried to talk about John Kerry's record in a positive way, in the process bringing to light much that is hardly ever mentioned in the media. The BCCI case, the Iran-Contra Affair, dedication to the environment, a courageous challenge to official complicity in narcotics trafficking -- these events hardly even scratch the surface of the Kerry Record. I have not even mentioned the extraordinary lengths to which Kerry went to search for surviving POWs in Vietnam, and the role he played in bringing about the normalization of US-Vietnamese relations. I hope that any reader of this blog will look into Kerry's record for him or herself. John Kerry's lifetime is one of virtually unique public service. Suffice to say, I believe with all my heart that we Democrats have not in my lifetime been presented with an opportunity to elect a more outstanding candidate for the Presidency, and we must not allow that opportunity to slip away.

As I have written these blogs, I have often asked myself, which is more important: electing John Kerry or defeating George Bush? Fortunately, I do not have to answer that question, as we cannot do one without of necessity doing the other. Yet, as Election Day draws ever nearer, I have forced myself to look out into the abyss, and contemplate the meaning of a Bush victory.

We Progressives have our own version of the "F" word: it is Fascism. We throw the word around too much, usually without justification and without meaning. I therefore approach what I am about to say with a great deal of trepidation.

I believe that what we have gotten during Bush's first term -- and may it also be his only term -- is a whiff of fascism. What do I mean by that? Democracy in America still exists, there is a rule of law, there is still a constitution. But it is beginning to look less like an edifice and more like a Hollywood set; the appearances are there, but the substance is mighty thin. But what is most important of all is the fact that there is no enthusiasm for the reality of Democracy in this administration; on the contrary, there is clear hostility to Democracy, which is consistently rising closer and closer to the surface. Consider some of the signs:

-- Who would have thought that they would ever hear a democratic American government mincing words about the use of torture as a matter of official policy? That's what we've gotten from this administration. The Bush/Ashcroft Justice Department wrote a casuistic memo trying to justify what went on at Abu Ghraib, and military and intelligence officials put that memo into effect at Abu Ghraib and probably elsewhere. It's looking more and more as though the little maggots who did the actual torture at Abu Ghraib are going to be justifiably punished, but the blame won't go any higher. More ominously, Seymour Hirsch has commented that he has received reliable reports that what has been going on at Guantanamo makes Abu Ghraib look like a nursery school. Do you think for a moment that anyone in the Bush Administration cares? Do you think that if Bush were re-elected, we would ever know?

-- The Bush Administration's condonation of torture is consistent with legal positions it has uniformly advanced in carrying out the so-called war on terror. The Bush Administration has attempted to justify in arguments before the Supreme Court the government's power to incarcerate both citizens and non-citizens alike indefinitely and without charge, without counsel, and without access to judicial relief, based solely on the Executive Branch's unreviewable designation of detainees as "enemy combatants." Could an administration that has the slightest appreciation of the concept of Due Process of Law possibly espouse such a position?

-- A story appeared in last week's New York Times -- almost entirely ignored in all other media -- that the IRS had begun an investigation of the NAACP challenging its tax exempt status. The openly-stated impetus for the IRS investigation is the fact that NAACP Chair Julian Bond has recently made statements sharply critical of many of the Bush Administration's policies. Apparently, the IRS believes that this means that the NAACP is a partisan organization that no longer qualifies for tax exempt status. Defending against this IRS investigation, regardless of its ultimate success, will be extremely costly to the NAACP. To my knowledge, the IRS has not opened up such an investigation of the Catholic Church, notwithstanding the fact that several bishops have stated that any Catholic who votes for Kerry will go directly to hell. Those who remember Watergate will recall that Nixon got into deep trouble merely because he attempted to look at the tax returns of political enemies. The Bush Administration makes no bones at all about its use of the IRS to wreak vengeance upon its opponents.

-- Consider the manner in which the Bush-Cheney campaign has been conducted. I previously wrote a blog about Susan Niederer, who attempted to ask Laura Bush why her son had been killed in Iraq and why Jenna and Barbara had not volunteered for duty, and found herself not only without an answer, but placed under arrest for her troubles. This is only the tip of the iceberg of what the Bush-Cheney campaign has been doing. The Bush campaign's use of loyalty oaths to screen attendees at rallies has been widely documented. An excellent description of some of these campaign atrocities is contained in the TRB column in the October 25, 2004 issue of The New Republic. (I have been put off by the rightward tilt of TNR in recent years, but it has been a rock in its opposition to Bush in this year's campaign; this confirms my view that no one bearing a sound mind and any semblance of integrity could possibly support Bush). For example, Nicole Rank, an employee of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, attempted to attend a Bush rally in Charleston, West Virginia with her husband while wearing a t-shirt reading, "Regime Change Starts At Home." Bush staffers approached her and told her that she had to remove the t-shirt or leave the rally. When she refused, Ms. Rank and her husband were handcuffed by the local police and taken to prison. A few days later, she was told that she was dismissed from her position at FEMA. Notably, Bush gave a speech at the rally in which he touted his administration's devotion to freedom and democracy and proclaimed, "Free thought and free expression, that's what we believe." As documented by TNR, Ms. Rank's experience is by no means unique.

-- It is self-evident that the right to vote is the sine qua non of democracy. Yet, the Bush campaign has made no secret of the fact that it intends to use every manner of obstructionist tactic, legal or illegal, to suppress voting in districts likely to favor the Democrats (it goes without saying that these tactics will be targeted primarily against African-Americans and other minority groups).

-- Those of us who live in New York City will never forget this year's Republican Convention. Huge nets were used literally to scoop protesters off the streets so that they could be taken to jail (these indiscriminate nets also scooped up plenty of innocent bystanders who were not even involved in any protests). Arrested protesters were taken to a detention facility near the Hudson River, and held for up to 72 hours without any access to the courts, a blatantly illegal practice that has subjected the City of New York to huge contempt fines. The scene was frighteningly reminiscent of the movie Missing, in which opponents of General Pinochet's coup in Chile were rounded up and housed in a soccer stadium, frequently never to be heard of again.

If you think that I'm trying to scare people by talking like this, you're right. I'm plenty scared when I think about what the Bush Administration would try to do in a second term. But as scared as I am, I am also heartened. Democracy is tough stuff. I will never stop believing that the will of the people will triumph over the wilfulness of small men like George Bush. In this year's election, we have seen the beginning of an uprising of real democracy in this country. This weekend, I participated in a volunteer get out the vote effort organized by moveon in Philadelphia; similar volunteer activities have been going on all around the country. Democracy is on the move. It will not be stopped. John Kerry must be elected.

Somebody I Can't Stand: Ed Koch

I recently read that Ed Koch, not surprisingly, has been stumping for Bush, seeking to use his purported credibility with Jewish voters in Florida to draw recruits to the GOP. (As discussed in an earlier blog, the notion that Jewish voters would react to the GOP with anything other than extreme revulsion is hard to fathom). I say this is not surprising because for years now Koch has been making a good living by going around making political ads that say, "I'm Ed Koch and even though I'm a Democrat I'm supporting..." Fill in the blank: Al D'Amato, George Pataki, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, George Bush, etc. You name the Republican, Ed Koch has supported him. So far as I can tell, Koch has not supported a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, and I don't really have any empirical evidence that he supported him.

It seems pretty self-evident to me that in order to call oneself a Democrat, one ought to occasionally support Democrats, at least every once in a while. Koch's credentials as a Democrat are, to put it mildly, pretty stale.

This is really an issue of deceptive advertising. The FCC or the FTC or somebody ought to have a rule that prohibits bozos like Koch from calling themselves Democrats even though they consistently support Republicans. Koch, of course, has a perfect right to go on making commercials for Bush, but what he should be saying is, "I'm Ed Koch and I'm a Republican Party hack and I'm supporting Bush." It wouldn't have quite the same ring to it, but at least it would be accurate. But then again, what am I talking about -- Bush hasn't made a single accurate advertisement during the course of this campaign, so why should his presentation of commercials featuring one more lying shill be any different?

The Kerry Record: The War On Drugs

Every politician in Washington claims to be a proponent of the war on drugs. John Kerry is about the only one who has had the courage to tackle a particularly troubling aspect of the drug trade: the complicity of American intelligence agencies in international narcotics trafficking in order to achieve political and military objectives.

By way of background, the involvement of American intelligence agencies in drug trafficking is not the creation of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists. It is a matter of historical fact. Some outstanding works on the subject include The Politics of Heroin by Alfred McCoy, Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin, and The Crimes of Patriots by the late Jonathan Kwitny of the Wall Street Journal. Such involvement includes collaboration with Corsican heroin dealers in the 1950's in order to undermine Communist influence in French labor unions, assistance to the opium smuggling/heroin processing operation carried on in Burma and elsewhere by Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang, and promotion of poppy growing by Afghan warlords in order to finance the Mujahedin resistance to the Soviet invasion.

Kerry brings a very personal viewpoint to the war on drugs which, as is the case of so much in his life, was influenced by his experience in Vietnam. Kerry has spoken very movingly about having watched too many of his fellow soldiers in Vietnam turned in zombies as a result of heroin addiction. Kerry was also acutely aware of the widespread reports that the CIA offered the smuggling services of its Air America front operation to Hmong heroin dealers in Laos in exchange for their assistance against the Communists. These were the sensitivities that Kerry brought with him to the Senate.

In 1988, after being passed over for membership on the Select Committee on the Iran-Contra Affair (see earlier blog), Kerry conducted hearings through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations into allegations of CIA complicity in Central American cocaine trafficking. Kerry conducted a painstaking, thorough investigation, carefully rejecting many of the more far-fetched claims that had been made about the CIA's role in the drug trade. Nevertheless, Kerry's Report reached the documented conclusion that the Reagan and Bush Administrations had deliberately condoned drug dealing by its allies in Central America in order to pursue their political and military agenda. Kerry was among the first to condemn the fact that the CIA had "turned a blind eye to the corruption and drug dealing" of Panama's Manuel Noriega in exchange for Noriega's support of Reagan Administration policies. Kerry's Report also condemned the Nicaraguan contras -- whom Reagan and Oliver North had heralded as "freedom fighters" -- finding that "individuals who provided support for the contras were involved in drug trafficking and elements of the contras themselves received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers." Kerry's Report further concluded that the evidence established that the CIA and the Reagan-Bush State Department were well aware of these facts.

Kerry's Report initially drew little attention in the media, and prompted the Washington press corps to continue to dismiss Kerry as a fuzzy-headed conspiracy buff. A few years after Kerry's Report was issued, however, the CIA's own Inspector General issued a report sharply criticizing the Agency for its toleration of drug trafficking, and effectively confirming all of Kerry's conclusions. According to Thomas Blanton, Director of the National Security Archive of George Washington University, "Kerry's proven conclusion was that the government, especially the CIA, looked the other way. The Kerry Committee findings hold up."

In this election, we are not only faced with the absolute necessity of removing someone who is not remotely qualified to be President, but we are also presented with the great opportunity of electing someone who is uniquely qualified for the job. I have only two more words to say about the rapidly-approaching Election Day: carpe diem!

Breaking News: Why Bush Has Not Yet Withdrawn From the Race

In my last blog, I expressed my anticipation that Bush would have no choice but to withdraw from the race in light of the revelation that 380 tons of lethal explosives known to be stored at the Al Qaqaa facility in Iraq had simply been mislaid during his watch. It turns out that I was wrong and Bush is not at fault at all. Bush has now come up with solid proof that Cheney's dog ate the explosives. This will be widely reported by Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News, etc., but will undoubtedly be covered-up by the Times. I guess this is just another one of those clear-cut cases of the liberal media trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

A Correction: Why Is Anyone, Including Someone With The Surname "Bush," Voting For Bush?

Just when you thought that the record of the Bush Administration could not possibly get any worse, they surprise you and achieve dramatic new lows. Today, October 25, 2004, the New York Times reported that the interim Iraqi government had reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency that approximately 380 tons of extremely powerful explosives known as HMX and RDX were simply "missing" from a huge Iraqi military facility known as Al Qaqaa. According to the Times, the missing explosives could fill a fleet of forty trucks. The explosives can also be used to detonate a nuclear weapon, and again according to the Times, the missing amount would be sufficient to function as the triggers for 380 atomic bombs.

This really happened. 380 tons -- missing. Poof! Just mislaid, disappeared. D'oh! Whatta ya know?

I fully expect that George Bush will convene one of his extremely rare press conferences tomorrow and announce that he is endorsing John Kerry for President. Bush will declare that even he is disgusted by the disastrous record of his own Presidency.

It is hard to know where to begin in contemplating the monumental catastrophe that this revelation entails. First, there is the question of why the facility at which these explosives were stored was never secured by U.S. troops after the invasion. This matter becomes even more inexplicable when one considers that the Al Qaqaa installation was, in the past, also the principal location of Iraq's nuclear weapons research facilities. Supposedly, this war was fought because the Bush Administration believed that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. One would have thought that having U.S. troops secure a facility such as Al Qaqaa would have been the top priority. We all know, however, what was the top priority of the invading forces: securing the offices of the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

Second, there is the matter of how the information about the missing 380 tons of deadly explosives has suddenly come to light. Apparently, Condoleeza Rice knew about the missing explosives sometime earlier this month (notably, the Times points out that it is not even clear that anybody even bothered to tell Bush about it). However, the information was not made known to the American public by our own government. Instead, the information came to light because the Iraqi government was required by UN resolutions to report such information to international weapons inspectors.

The description in the Times article about the reaction of Bush Administration to the news of the missing 380 tons is reminiscent of an Inspector Clouseau movie. They don't seem to have the foggiest idea what happened to these deadly weapons. We all recall that when Iraq was plagued by rampant looting after the invasion, Rumsfeld said that this was simply the flower of liberty, commenting, "stuff happens." 380 tons of lethal explosives: that's a hell of a lot of stuff.

It seems almost too horrifying to state the obvious, namely, that the 380 tons of deadly weapons are not only in the possession of the Iraqi insurgents who are killing our soldiers, but are probably now in the hands of Chechen murderers, Palestinian suicide bombers, and perhaps, even the successors to Mohammad Atta now planning a reprise of 9/11. And the Bush campaign has the gall to claim that their policies have made us all safer?

Anybody taking bets on when Bush will hold his news conference to announce his endorsement of Kerry?

The Kerry Record: The Real Environmental President

John Kerry enters this race with one of the most impressive records on the environment ever presented by a Presidential candidate. Kerry has been endorsed by a wide range of environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters. The League of Conservation Voters has frequently given Kerry a 100% rating on environmental issues, and his overall lifetime rating is 96%, the highest rating that the League has given to any Presidential candidate. The websites of these organizations offer a comprehensive analysis of Kerry's outstanding environmental record. The following are some of the highlights.

Clean Air and Water: Kerry has long been one of the leaders in the Senate in promoting Clean Air and Water legislation and in opposing efforts by Republican administrations to loosen regulatory standards. In his first term in the Senate, he sponsored legislation to reduce pollutants that cause acid rain, an issue he had previously highlighted as Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor, serving as co-chair of the National Governors Association's Acid Rain Task Force. More recently, Kerry has led Senate opposition to the Bush Administration's "Clear Skies" initiative, which will significantly weaken current air pollution standards. Kerry is a cosponsor of the Clean Power Act of 2003, which would significantly tighten pollution standards for power plants. Kerry was one of the leaders in the Senate in successfully opposing the Bush Administration's efforts to alter Clean Water standards so as to permit increased levels of arsenic in drinking water.

Oil Drilling: Kerry has been, in the words of the League of Conservation Voters, "a key player in the Senate against Republican attempts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling." Kerry has successfully sponsored legislation to prevent the Bush Administration from altering long-standing policies restricting oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of New England and in environmentally-sensitive areas off the Florida and California coasts.

Fuel Efficiency: Kerry co-sponsored, with Senator McCain, legislation, strongly opposed by the Bush Administration, that would have required dramatically higher fuel efficiency standards for all passenger cars and trucks. Kerry has also cosponsored legislation that offers tax credits to consumers who purchase fuel-efficient vehicles.

Global Warming: Kerry served on the Congressional delegations to the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, and the 1997 and 2000 climate talks in Kyoto and the Hague. Kerry introduced legislation, opposed by the Bush Administration, to "speed national action to address global climate change."

Renewable Energy: Kerry has supported legislation, which passed the Senate, that increased Federal funding for research into renewable energy programs. Kerry has also proposed legislation that would require that by the year 2020, 20% of all electricity produced in the U.S. come from renewable sources such as wind, geothermal, solar, and biomass.

International Trade: Kerry supported legislation, opposed by the Bush Administration, that would override any trade agreement that had the effect of undermining any environmental or public health protections. Kerry has stated that as President he would veto any provision in a trade agreement that had such an impact.

Toxic and Nuclear Waste: Kerry has supported a return to the "polluter pays" system of financing Superfund clean-ups of toxic waste sites and has co-sponsored legislation to implement this. Under the Bush Administration there has a 60% reduction in violation notices and a 28% reduction in fines against polluters, resulting in a dramatic reduction of toxic waste clean-ups. Kerry has also been active in leading Congressional opposition to the creation of a massive nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV.

Wildlife: Kerry is the author of the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994, the author of legislation to ban the use of drift nets that endanger dolphins and other marine mammals, and is the principal sponsor of the Sustainable Fisheries Act.

Public Lands: Kerry has consistently voted against subsidies for logging in national forests and has opposed subsidies for timber road building. Kerry has also supported legislation that would require mining companies to pay royalties for minerals extracted from public lands and to pay for the costs of toxic waste clean-ups on public lands.

In John Kerry, voters concerned about the environment can elect a President who is not merely better than Bush, but one who has the pre-eminent record on environmental issues over a career spanning several decades.

Is Somebody Up There Tampering With This Election?

I highly recommend "Without A Doubt," Ron Suskind's (co-author, with Paul O'Neill, of The Price of Loyalty) piece on Bush that appeared in last week's New York Times Magazine. I usually avoid the magazine section, but I was drawn to read Suskind's article by an excellent analysis that appears on the current www.consortiumnews.com entitled "Bush Beyond Reason." The article analyzes the pervasiveness of messianic thinking that goes on in the Bush White House. While they don't really come out and say so, it is pretty clear that Bush and his bunch believe that God has chosen Bush to be President.

This got me to thinking. Suppose they're right? Suppose that we really live in a Universe in which an all-powerful God sits up in heaven saying, "Yup, George W. Bush -- that's the guy I want to be President." God, being God, could pick anybody to be President. God wouldn't have to be concerned with things like electability or name recognition or stuff like that; God wouldn't even be constrained by the Constitution, since He could amend it at will, and He could pick a President who is under 35 or who is not a native-born American. He could pick Stephen Hawking or Larry David or Bruce Springsteen or Dr. Ruth or David Ortiz, or even some 15-year old kid living in Central Africa who is an undiscovered genius. Yet, in spite of these limitless choices, according to the Bush folks, God has decided that George W. Bush is the one man for the job.

If this is so, then it's apparent that this God guy is a pretty unstable fellow. Fortunately, I have checked, and it turns out that God is not registered to vote in this election. It looks like the election is just going to be decided by ordinary people, and not by supernatural beings.

The Kerry Record: The Iran-Contra Affair

John Kerry played a key role in uncovering one of the most important scandals in modern history: the Iran-Contra Affair. Kerry opened the initial Senatorial probe of the affair that led directly to the revelation of Republican lawlessness involving the illegal sales of weapons to Iran and the illegal diversion of funds to the Nicaraguan Contras.

Kerry was first elected to the Senate in 1984. Parenthetically, to anyone who questions Kerry's strengths as a politician, it is noteworthy that Kerry won his first term in the Senate in the face of Reagan's landslide, which even carried Massachusetts. Kerry immediately made known his interest in foreign policy, and was able to secure an assignment to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a rarity for a freshman Senator.

Kerry was one of the few members of the Senate at the time to express any concern about the Reagan Administration's bellicose policies in Central America. Kerry immediately wanted to bring his prosecutorial skills to bear in conducting an investigation of Reagan's covert operations in the region. Kerry viewed Reagan's policies in Central America as a reprise of Vietnam: unquestioning support for unpopular local dictatorships driven by fanatical anti-Communism. Moreover, although various statutes enacted by the Democratic House of Representatives restricted the use of U.S. funds for military purposes in Central America, it was becoming increasingly clear that the Reagan Administration was intent upon moving in the direction of military intervention in support of the Nicaraguan Contras and in opposition to the El Salvadoran rebels. Reagan, however, was at the height of his popularity and Kerry found little support in Washington for his efforts to challenge the drift towards war in Central America.

Kerry found an unexpected ally in opening up an investigation of potential misconduct by the Contras: right-wing Senator Jesse Helms, Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry's staff had come into possession of information that several Contra leaders were involved in cocaine trafficking (Kerry's record in investigating official complicity in drug dealing is the subject of a future blog), and Kerry was able to persuade Helms that no matter how much he disliked the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, drug dealers were worse. Helms authorized Kerry to initiate an investigation. Kerry's skill at working with Helms bodes well for his abilities as a future President in steering legislation through a Republican Congress.

At first, Kerry's investigation of the Contras brought him little more than ridicule. The Washington press corps wrote off Kerry as "silly," a publicity-hungry naive liberal who was being duped by the Communists. Kerry, however, pressed on, issuing numerous subpoenas and taking testimony from several CIA officials, grilling them about their knowledge of illegal U.S. military aid to the Contras.

While official Washington sneered, Kerry's investigation drew a different kind of attention in another quarter. In fact, virtually all of the allegations that Kerry was investigating were true, and no one was more acutely aware of that than the largely unknown Lieutenant Colonel who was running the covert Contra supply operation directly out of the White House -- Oliver North. North's diaries of the time reflect a veritable obsession with Kerry, as North watched a parade of intelligence officials commit perjury before Kerry's Committee, falsely denying knowledge of the covert arms shipments to the Contras.

North enlisted his right-wing allies to launch an attack directly against Kerry. Rev. Moon's Washington Times ran a story, planted by North, accusing Kerry's staffers of having attempted to suborn perjury. At North's insistence, the FBI opened an investigation of Kerry and his staff.

However, North's covert enterprise unraveled on October 5, 1986 when a plane owned by a CIA front operation, Southern Air Transport, was shot down in Nicaragua. The pilot and sole survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, admitted that he had been smuggling arms to the Contras.

Kerry's response to the Hasenfus shoot-down was characteristically bold. Kerry promptly summoned Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, a notorious neo-conservative ideologue and architect of the Reagan Administration Central America policy, to testify before his Committee. In response to Kerry's interrogation, Abrams repeatedly gave false testimony denying any knowledge of North's illegal funding of the Contras.

The last piece of the Iran-Contra Affair fell into place a few weeks later when a Lebanese newspaper revealed the covert arms sales to Iran, the principal source of the funds for North's arms shipments to the Contras. Unfortunately, when Congress undertook a formal investigation of the affair, Kerry, the Senator who had done the most to uncover the scandal, was considered too controversial for appointment to the investigating committee. Having been passed over for participation on the Iran-Contra Select Committee, Kerry instead launched the money laundering investigation that would lead to the demise of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI; see earlier blog).

The legacy of the Iran-Contra Affair was a mixed one. On the one hand, as a direct result of Kerry's investigation, North's illegal attempts to fund the Contras collapsed and support for military intervention in Central America evaporated. Kerry did achieve his goal of avoiding a repeat of Vietnam. Nevertheless, the formal Congressional hearings achieved little. While several criminal convictions were obtained in the case -- including a conviction of Abrams for lying to Kerry's Committee -- President George H.W. Bush granted pardons to virtually all of the defendants as one of his last acts in office.

There was nothing mixed, however, about Kerry's legacy. As a new Senator, Kerry showed extraordinary courage in taking on a popular President and in pursuing his investigation in the face of great pressure to stop. Kerry gave important testimony in the perjury prosecutions of several officials in order to establish the materiality of their false testimony denying knowledge of North's illegal operation before his Committee.

In the Iran-Contra Affair, we can see the precursor of the recklessness and lawlessness that have characterized the foreign policy of the current Bush Administration. As has so often been the case on the major issues of our time, it was John Kerry who was there standing up for what was right.

Democratic Pride

Last night, John Kerry made me proud to call myself a Democrat. Even more importantly, Kerry made me proud to call myself an American.

The sad part is that I haven't felt that way lately. While trapped in this desert that we have come to know as the Second Bush Years, I have found myself more often than not ashamed of my country, even a bit angry at it. When you think about Abu Ghraib, and the Joseph Wilson/Niger forgery fiasco, and Colin Powell feeding misinformation to the UN, and the thousand coffins coming back from Iraq that Bush won't even acknowledge, and Tom DeLay and his boys voting to repeal every handgun regulation in the District of Columbia, and on and on -- how can you feel otherwise?

But not last night. John Kerry stood up there looking and sounding like Lincoln himself, telling truth after truth until even the most outrageous right-wingers on Fox News had trouble covering up for Bush anymore. It was like a cold splash of water in the face, a reminder that there is another America out there. It's the America that John Kerry is fighting for, and he reminded us that it's worth fighting for, and that the fight is far from over.

It's very easy to become impatient and disillusioned with the Democratic Party. So often they seem too cautious, too willing to compromise. But remember one thing: the Democratic Party is the only thing standing between us and -- God knows what. On second thought, I do know what -- remember those pictures of Abu Ghraib?

John Kerry is out there fighting for our America twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. And it's almost impossible to imagine what he's up against: trying to get out the truth in the face of an opponent with unlimited resources and a willingness to do or say anything to win and a news media that is at best obtuse and at worst despicable.

Last night, John Kerry showed us that he will not let us down. We cannot let him down. Let's get off our tails and win this damn thing!