Link to Original Testimony
http://www.democracynow.org /2004/2/20/john_kerry_then_ hear_kerrys_historic

A New Winter Soldier Speech Regarding Healthcare
By Tom Wieliczka

I've revised Senator John Kerry's 1971 Winter Soldier Speech to Congress, from being about The Vietnam War to being about Healthcare.

I simply took Senator Kerry's words:  

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake."

and converted that portion of his speech into one concerning healthcare and and people that get red-flagged or go through rescission with their health claims.

These are the revised last five paragraphs of that original speech.....

How easy it is to throw stones at others and blithely ignore our own shortcomings.

It is easy when you are Ari Fleischer and you said anything that was on the Bush-Cheney menu for the day.  As Fleischer and other neocon allies point fingers at Obama and proclaim that his weaknesses caused the current Iran election vote scandal to materialize, it is necessary to see where the Republican right has stood on democratic electioneering.

This is the same Ari Fleischer who was laughed off his own podium and out of the White House press room after steadfastly declaring that the Bush-Cheney administration did not make decisions based on politics.

A subject that is too tragic to laugh off is how Democrats actually won the last five presidential elections but were not given official credit for two victories.  Fraud coupled with political opportunism robbed Democrats of legitimate victories in 2000 and 2004.

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Campaign 2008 reminds me of something former New York Yankee and member of the baseball Hall of Fame, Yogi Berra once said: "It gets late early around here." The jostling, pandering, fundraising and lying are well underway in both parties for the most wide-open presidential campaign in over a half-century. And it's only February 2007.

Yet as we focus on individual candidates, their platforms, tactics and even how they look in a bathing suit, it's instructive to contemplate what these campaigns say about our culture.

It was 1948 when British author George Orwell's alarming view of life in the future was presented in the chilling novel "1984."  Orwell inverted the last two numbers as he wrote about a society existing 36 years into the future.

Robert Kane Pappas brings the story forward 20 years to 2004, when his penetrating documentary "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" was released.  This is the year of a presidential contest between two former Yale University Skull and Bones members that resulted in what serious experts who have carefully studied the November presidential election concluded was a stolen result.

It is to be noted that rigged elections have been an active part of election machinery in dictatorships.  Pappas' film represents a stern warning about what would culminate that November, followed quickly by Skull and Bonesman John Kerry conceding to George W. Bush, later explaining that he did not want to be perceived as a "sore loser."  

The Kerry "explanation" reeked of absurdity on its face.  Four years earlier two deciding votes of the Federalist Society wing of the U.S. Supreme Court "installed" Bush as the nation's chief executive after thousands of African Americans in Florida had been denied the right to vote and Al Gore had secured more popular votes than his rival.  

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

I admired John Kerry prior to his voting for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. The early years of his senate career were terrific. During his first term, Kerry went to Nicaragua and his determined pursuit of the truth resulted in the first exposure of the Iran-Contra scandal.

His Senate elders didn't appreciate being upstage by the upstart Kerry and they refused to give him a seat on the joint House/Senate congressional committee that investigated the affair. Kerry didn't make friends easily in the Senate but he did good work.

The topic below was originally posted in my blog the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Working through whom to support for president in 2008 has been cathartic for me. Typically I try candidates on for size by writing hypothetical speeches in their voice and occasionally post the results. I did this with Russ Feingold several months ago and liked how it felt but alas he isn't running. Recently I did the same for Barack Obama and enjoyed the challenge but it required writing in heavy religious overtones and felt uncomfortable. As I review the prospective field in the Democratic Party I neither see nor feel a president among Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Tom Vilsak.

Each has merits and flaws. From my vantage point however, the right candidate must combine maturity, gravitas, experience, intellect, authenticity, foresight and desire to serve a cause bigger than themselves. Al Gore has flaws of his own but is best suited for the job. We don't need a nominee who sticks their finger to the wind and follows the politics of expediency. Now is also not the time to nominate a pretty face or sound bite machine with a glass jaw. The real question is will Gore run? So I decided to compose a hypothetical announcement speech in Gore's voice and try him on for size. Looking at 2008 I like how Gore fits.

The diary below was originally posted in my blog the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 was arguably the most odious piece of domestic legislation the previous congress passed. President Bush and his party typically cited it as among their "accomplishments" and the media seldom questioned whether it was a good idea.

This "accomplishment" amounted to nothing less than class warfare waged on behalf of the super rich against the little guy. Indeed, it illustrated the sheer indecency of the Republican Party machine and pervasive influence of banks, credit card companies and the financial services industry as a whole.

George Bush, how desperate you, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney are as this bitter and divisive 2006 campaign season draws to a close.  

When all else fails, as your mentor Rove knows, following lessons from his political patron saint Richard Nixon, when all else fails hurl all the mud possible at your opponents and hope enough sticks to achieve some slimy political victories.

Now John Kerry is the convenient target after making a comment relating to getting a good education or getting stuck in Ira    q.  Immediately you used words like "sickening" and "disgusting" pertaining to a comment you claimed denigrated the educational levels of fighting men and women in Iraq.

This is just the latest in a series of lies that you and your Republican partners in crime and destruction have unearthed.  The first thing one does in evaluating any comment is to place it in its most reasonable context.  Kerry has been supporting America's troops while lamenting the policies that put them in harm's way, attributing them to poor judgment, i.e., demonstrating a need for additional education.

Isn't it enough that this Republican Administration got us into Iraq?

Isn't it enough that it is now provable there never were those "weapons of mass destruction" that launched us into this bloody spectacle?

Every congressman should be required to have knowledge of the historical background and irrefutable proof of the nation they want to war against as an "imminent threat" to the U.S.A.

Otherwise innocent men, women, and children will be killed in a slaughter spree.

This diary was originally posted in my blog the Intrepid Liberal Journal on February 26th.

My favorite newspaper is The Onion because their satire typically nails truth's core in a manner the "respectable" media simply can't. My favorite article from them was a couple years ago about a husband and wife in Montana that divorced because they felt "threatened" by gay marriage. In their inimitable manner, The Onion illustrated just how asinine the debate over gay marriage truly is. The notion that one can feel "threatened" by gay marriage or equal protection under the law for an entire community is utterly moronic.

This is directed at anybody who thinks that their vote will not be important in the next election for whatever reason. It doesn't matter whether you are a Green disgusted at what you see as a lack of spine by the Democrats or a former Hackett supporter disgusted at what you see as an insular establishment who determines the candidates for Senate in smoke-filled backrooms. You are missing the key point as to why it is so important that you go to the polls and vote for a Democrat. You forget that a vote for a Democrat for Senate or the House is a vote for John Conyers as chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

Dennis Kucinich was written off by the mainstream media as an outside the mainstream candidate with insufficient support to mount a serious challenge to George W. Bush.  

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, while concededly capable of raising large sums of money on the Internet while attracting large numbers of volunteers, was too unstable and politically unseasoned to successfully contest Bush in a presidential race.

The mainstream media was uncomplimentary to both candidates because they were raising issues that caused concern to regulators of the status quo on the one hand.  

On the other there was a pervasive fear that, with both candidates coming from unconventional circumstances outside the traditional Washington power structure and unbeholden to lobbyist influence, a Pandora's box could be unleashed in the system if essentially unregulated candidates were thrust into the presidential picture.

As the first crucial test of the 2004 Democratic presidential primary season approached with the Iowa Caucuses the mainstream media continued chipping away at Howard Dean's credibility as a candidate in two ways, through making him appear irresponsible and erratic on the one hand and unelectable on the other.

When Dean with his populist message delivered from outside the orbit of the regular Democratic establishment began to resonate the media coined a name for his grassroots followers.  They called them Deaniacs.  

With labeling such an important and closely watched element in this technological era with its emphasis on spin control, users of the term surely recognized the similarity between the label Deaniac and that of maniac.  It dovetailed with the image presented of an angry warrior eager to return to the wrestling mat he frequented years before in his school days.

Because Dean had been the frontrunner from the outset of his campaign based on an early start coupled with his ability to raise funds over the Internet while attracting large numbers of volunteers, the mainstream media adopted a coy tactic.  As Iowa campaigning activity heated up with organizational concentration intensifying on behalf of all candidates, a tactic was employed that put Dean at an unfair disadvantage.

As the 2006 campaign season beckons one important element must be confronted.  Let us call it the 6 percent factor.  While this term might sound like something more akin to Ian Fleming or John Le Carre international intrigue novels, it relates in this case to national intrigue and behind the scenes legerdemain.

Analyze the 2004 presidential election cycle as well as the 2002 mid-term elections and the number assumes momentous significance.  

As has been pointed out by mathematicians such as Dr. Steven Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania and Kathy Dopp of Utah as well as certain pollsters, 6 percent was the disparity level between the result forecast in the race between John Kerry and George W. Bush and that ultimately posted as official.  

Anyone closely watching activities in and around Election Day of 2004 observed a virtual state of panic on the part of Republican commentators, notably Robert Novak, who looked and sounded as if his whole world had been destroyed when he spoke on CNN that fateful evening, over the prospect of a looming Bush loss.  Ohio, Novak reported, which was a necessity for victory, was seemingly doomed.  

I'd just about completed my musings on an issue that I'd had with the President's State of the Union speech, when I stumbled across an op-ed piece in the Minnesota Daily which began:

I am a soldier in the U.S. Army Reserves. I enlisted because I support Operation Iraqi Freedom and wanted to do my part to help. I am sick and tired of anti-war liberals who are outspoken against the war, but also claim they support the troops. That is really starting to piss me off.

My diary was to open with the following words:

The President and his party continue to do it. They tell us to Support the Troops, proclaiming that their way of supporting the troops is superior and unimpeachable. But one look at the actions that follow their words exposes a hollow, self-serving, and dangerous type of support. Their empty rhetoric and insipid deeds do little to concretely help our returning veterans and their families - and they do even less to tangibly support those still wearing the uniform in combat.

More excerpts of this soldier's letter, as well as my debate with him below the fold...