There is a surprisingly good article on John Kerry considering the source. The Chicago Tribune has an article on John Kerry, tying in his opposition to the Iraq war to his previous fight against the Vietnam War:
He was a seminal figure as the Vietnam War spiraled downward, just as the generals and the politicians were starting to acknowledge that the war was a failure.
Young, lanky and highly decorated from his service commanding a Navy swift boat, John Kerry sat before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and famously said, “How do you ask a man to be the last person to die for a mistake?”
Few living American politicians have had their lives so defined by war as Kerry. His wartime service and wartime protest stoked his political career in Massachusetts. His military background burnished his credentials among Democrats seeking a nominee to run against an incumbent president during wartime in 2004. And now, in a quieter time, his hair gray and reading glasses perched on the bridge of his nose, he finds himself again opposing his government’s conflict.
John Kerry is back in the Senate, this time as a Senator, but with the same question:
On the Senate floor recently, Kerry recalled his famous question before the Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.
“I never thought I would be reliving that question again. I never thought I would have parents of young Americans killed in Iraq look me in the eye and tell me: Senator, my son died in vain,” said Kerry, quickly adding that no death is in vain when it is in service of the country.
While a briefer explanation than I would provide, the article even provides an accurate account of Kerry’s vote on the war, which has been distorted by many sources:
To be sure, Kerry voted to authorize the war in Iraq. But he said at the time that he was doing so purely to give Bush the clout he needed to pressure Saddam Hussein’s government. Nonetheless, as he repeatedly criticized the war while running for president, Republicans portrayed him as a flip-flopper of the worst kind.
Update: Kerry A Year Ahead of Fellow Democrats on Iraq Withdrawal Proposal
Growing up in the Chicago area in the 1950s and 1960s, I knew the Tribune as very conservative even then. On the surface, this is a fairer article than most I have seen in the supposedly liberal New York Times. There are some sneaky little RW barbs.
There are some problems – for instance the writers need to list the untrue accusations made by the National Journal caller – without indicating they WERE false or repeating how Kerry responded – other than saying he refuted them. Kerry’s responses were short and they could have been summarized – ie he DID release his records.
Had they put this in correct perspective, I would agree with you that the article was positive, but that paragraph would have been jarring to someone who hadn’t seen the CSPAN show (most of the world) and who did not already know the truth.
I think the problem is one of length. For those of us who know much more about Kerry there are many things we’d add throughout the article. I agree it would have been better if there was more debunking the Swift Boat Lies, but at least the article does state that Kerry “rebutted each of her accusations.” While not as good as providing more evidence that the charges against Kerry were untrue, at least the article didn’t suggest the claims were true as the conservative media generally does.
It would have been better if this paragraph was either left out, or if more was posted in Kerry’s defense. Besides notiing that Kerry had released his records, they could have noted that the military records have verified Kerry’s account and the Swift Boat Lies have not held up.
I agree – and it does a better job than supposedly neutral sources, such as the AP, which has an infuriating habit of describing the SBVT as “questioning his service record”. It also, as you say, does say he rebutted each of her questions.
I do agree with you that this is a very significant – and positive – shift for a very conservative newspaper. The important thing is that it is actually reporting in a sympathic way Kerry’s frustration in not being able to budge a subborn Bush from his wrong headed policies.
Seeing Kerry’s 2007 actions in a fair light is more important than whether they can make the leap in logic that his 1971 actions were as well intentioned and right. This is asking them to question long held beliefs on what happened in this country in the 1960s and 1970s.
In fairness, they did have the earlier paragraph that described his Senate testimony in a very positive light by concentrating on the question that many (including possibly the writer) on Iraq. It is also fair to say that this action has left him with some people who still hate him for telling the truth.
In the light of day, I do agree with you that this is a surprising good article – and it likely suggests part of why Kerry is not running. Just as in 1971, he knew (per the Morey Safer interview) that speaking out might make it impossible to make enough people happy with him to lket him be President, taking the lead on Iraq in 2005 – 2007 likely would make it harder to win a general election if he succeeds in his efforts now.
At this point, it is Kerry, more than anyone else, who has led people to actually seriously consider that a withdrawal is a good idea. This will give whoever the President is the ability to make that choice far more easily than had he not convinced people that it is the right idea.