The Huffington Post is reporting today that Sen. John McCain has hired Bud Day, from the 2004 group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to "truth squad" attacks on Sen. McCain's service record. 

In hopes of nipping any criticism in the bud, the campaign brought on board a man quite familiar with how these types of attacks gain legs: Bud Day, a fellow POW who was part of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth squad that had worked so hard to defame Sen. John Kerry's own Vietnam record.

On the conference call, Day - in addition to the other participants - decried comments made by Gen. Wesley Clark over the weekend, in which he questioned whether McCain's war experience really qualified him to be commander-in-chief. Defending McCain's service, Day was quick to personalize his remarks.

"Things were very difficult for [McCain]," he said. "He was horribly wounded in his extremities, and it was questionable if he would survive his experience. He set a high standard for himself because the Vietnamese tried to release him and he showed courage by refusing that to come about. We had an opportunity to watch a president in office, a Democrat who was extremely ineffective during those years. [McCain] learned an awful lot from that... General Clark spent a month in Vietnam, got badly wounded and was evacuated, that was his experience. I say let's hold the two of them up and compare them."

That Day would politicize Vietnam in his defense of McCain is not surprising. During the 2004 campaign, he said of Kerry: "My view is he basically will go down in history sometime as the Benedict Arnold of 1971." And after appearing in a national advertisement for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, Day formed the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, an extension of the Swift Boat effort.

Asked to compare the attacks he helped launched against Kerry in 2004 to those being waged at McCain today, Day said the defining issue was truthfulness.

"The Swift Boat attacks were simply a revelation of the truth, the similarity does not exist here. What the Swift Boat campaign was about was to lay out John Kerry's record. John Kerry has never produced any evidence to deny that. We are producing the evidence of these attacks right now to show that those remarks were completely inaccurate."

The irony of it all is that McCain publicly deplored the Swift Boat ads back in 2004, saying they were reminiscent of the smear campaigns launched against him during his initial White House run in 2000.

"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," said the Senator.

Not willing to let the irony go unnoticed, Kerry lashed out at McCain, on Monday, for using the same smear merchant he once decried.

"Colonel Day's comments today only further highlight the McCain campaign's disregard for a new kind of politics," said Kerry. "John McCain condemned these kinds of attacks in 2004 when he called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 'dishonest and dishonorable.' Senator McCain should condemn these remarks and cut ties with the Colonel and anyone else connected to SBVT. Day's comments only serve to disparage all those who served on swift boats in Vietnam."

 

The South Carolina primary in 2000 was a nasty affair that had some Republicans using smear tactics against fellow Republican John McCain.  Senator Kerry strongly condemned these sleazy attacks and joined with 4 other Vietnam veterans in the Senate to write a letter of support on Senator McCain's behalf.  As the online magazine Salon noted in 2000,

Then the five Vietnam veterans in the Senate -- Max Cleland, D-Ga., Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., John Kerry, D-Mass., Chuck Robb, D-Va. and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., four Democrats and a McCain supporter -- fired off a letter to Bush calling on him to "publicly disassociate" himself from the "false" allegations.

"We believe it is inappropriate to associate yourself with those who would impugn John McCain's character and so maliciously distort his record on these critical issues," the letter said.

 

It is inappropriate for Senator McCain  to associate himself with those who would impugn John Kerry's character and so maliciously distort his record on these critical issues. It was wrong in 2004 and it is wrong today.  Bud Day may not know this, but John McCain should.

Yesterday, South African president Thabo Mbeki met with the leaders of the clashing political parties in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai. It is hoped that the local influence of President Mbeki can mediate the conflict surrounding the country’s election process.

Since the March 29^th election, which Tsvangirai and the Movement for Democratic Change party won, there has been an escalating debate over the possibility of fair elections. Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party have been blamed for the violence and arrests surrounding election issues- including intimidation, violence against political activists, kidnappings, and killings. Several of the opposition party’s leaders have also been arrested. While the UN, along with several African leaders, has called on Robert Mugabe to cease these violent acts and ensure a fair election, Mugabe’s party has placed blame for the violence on the opposition.

On April 30^th, the senate passed John Kerry’s resolution calling for Robert Mugabe to accept the election and step aside. It was co-sponsored by Senators Obama, Isakson, Coleman, Dodd, Clinton, Biden, Leahy, Cardin, Feingold, and Durbin.  It called on Mugabe to accept the results of the March 29^th election and begin the transition of power, and condemned Zimbabwe’s ruling party for manipulation of the political process and the use of excessive force. The full text of the resolution is available here:  http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=296753

It remains to be seen whether the June 27^th runoff election will run smoothly. Few are optimistic since the aftermath of the first election. Mugabe has even made statements that some have interpreted to mean he will hold onto power regardless of the election’s results. This is a difficult period for the people of Zimbabwe, and politics actions taken now may have a major impact on the region’s political precedent for years to come.

 --  Frederic Jennings

Fred Jennings is Senior at The George Washington University in Washington, DC.  He is majoring International Relations at the Elliott School. He also writes on international relations at his own blog at blog.simnatic.com.

It's Time to Talk to Syria
By JOHN KERRY and CHUCK HAGEL

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, President George H.W. Bush did the improbable and convinced Syrian President Hafez Assad to join an American-led coalition against a fellow Baathist regime.

Today, these leaders’ sons have another chance for a diplomatic breakthrough that could redefine the strategic landscape in the Middle East.

The recent announcement of peace negotiations between Israel and Syria through Turkey, and the agreement between the Lebanese factions in Qatar – both apparently without meaningful U.S. involvement – should serve as a wake-up call that our policy of nonengagement has isolated us more than the Syrians. These developments also help create new opportunities and increased leverage that we can only exploit through substantive dialogue with Syria.

Syria’s leaders have always made cold calculations in the name of self-preservation, and history shows that intensive diplomacy can pay off. Secretary of State James Baker made more than a dozen trips to Syria before Operation Desert Storm, and remember President Assad’s price: U.S. support for Syrian dialogue with Israel. The ultimate challenge – moving Syria away from its marriage of convenience with Iran – will certainly not happen overnight. But it’s telling that Iran lobbied Syria not to negotiate with Israel and that Syria decided to proceed regardless.

To support Israel and isolate Iran, President George W. Bush should offer direct support for the Israeli-Syrian initiative. Promoting peace between our ally and its neighbors has always been a bipartisan cornerstone of our foreign policy. Syria views peace talks with Israel as part of a broader rapprochement with America, and its strong desire for U.S. involvement can work to our advantage. We know that high level, direct talks will require a sustained and credible American role, just as they did in 2000, when President Bill Clinton met repeatedly with Mr. Assad in bringing Syria and Israel to the brink of a deal. With so much at stake, it’s in our interests to come to the table again.

The agreement by the Lebanese parties provides another opening. Syria must respect Lebanon’s sovereignty and end its deadly meddling. But the fact that Syria’s ally, Hezbollah, secured much of the political power it sought should remove Syria’s excuse for failing to open an embassy, normalize relations, and finally demarcate the border with Lebanon. Hezbollah must eventually be disarmed, as United Nations Resolutions 1559 and 1701 require, but its agreement not to use force internally could be used to push Syria to shut off the supply of weapons.

Dialogue can open the door for greater cooperation on Iraq. Top Syrian officials have argued that Syria shares America’s interest in a stable, secular Iraq and does not want a strongly pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. Our partnership with Sunni tribes against al Qaeda may have further aligned our interests. As U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker has noted, Islamic extremists also threaten Syria.

While Syria must crack down on the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad claims positive steps have not been rewarded. We should test whether offering tangible benefits brings better results, starting with providing more humanitarian assistance for the nearly 1.5 million Iraqi refugees Syria has absorbed.

The U.N. tribunal investigating the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which may soon issue indictments, is also creating pressure on the regime. If government officials are implicated, Syria could face increased international sanctions. The tribunal’s pursuit of justice must never be a bargaining chip, but it adds an incentive to improve relations that we should capitalize on.

Tough economic times in Syria also create leverage. Although domestic oil production accounts for 60%-70% of the country’s exports, Syria became a net oil importer in 2007. With a growing population, greater integration into the global economy and an easing of sanctions could be powerful incentives.

Make no mistake: Cooperation with Syria rests not on shared values, but on shared interests. Syria’s pursuit of a suspected nuclear program underscores why any agreement must be verified. While many doubt Syria’s intentions, we have real leverage and some inducements that have more value to Syria than cost to us. There is no guarantee of an agreement, but the potential payoff is huge, and our current policy is failing.

Israel’s government has concluded that, rather than rewarding bad behavior, dialogue with Syria is the best hope for changing it. As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, “the chance overrides the risk, and with this hope I am going for a new path.” We should do the same before the opportunity slips away.

Mr. Kerry, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Massachusetts. Mr. Hagel, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Nebraska.

###

by Michael DeRamo

 I remember what environmentalism meant years ago, when I bought a certificate entitling me to one acre of rainforest, thereby protecting it from deforestation or conversion into grazing land. I remember learning that through the small contributions of everyday people, we could affect the future even of something as massive as the Amazon, something as precious as the planet Earth. In those days, it seemed that the countries directly in control of the most fragile ecosystems didn’t know how to manage them properly, and that the United States needed to urge them to adopt new and greener policies. I worried that Brazil would realize too late that the “lungs of the world” were more valuable than the simple sum of their lumber and acreage.

Fast-forward fifteen years, and the picture has turned upside-down. Brazil has taken the lead in greening its economy, successfully scrapping petroleum-based fuels in favor of a cleaner, home-grown ethanol derived from sugarcane. For our part, the United States has fallen behind the international environmental movement of Kyoto and beyond. Now it seems that the rest of the world is looking to Washington to adopt greener policies and reclaim the lead in scientific and industrial innovation.

The bill currently before the United States Senate may be our next great chance to return to the forefront of the green revolution. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act proposes a sweeping cap-and-trade system designed to lower greenhouse-gas emissions gradually over the next four decades. Like most legislation, the bill is certainly imperfect: Senator Kerry, a strong environmental champion, himself admitted weaknesses he hoped to address in the coming days. But, as Senator Warner said today on the floor, “the value of this debate is to have some exchange between us.” Many in the press are already describing the bill as doomed. Yet even if it does not pass, the Senate and the nation will be better-off for having deliberated one possible solution to climate change.

If only the G.O.P. were willing to take advantage of the opportunity for discussion. Watching today’s floor debate, one can’t help but notice the picture of disarray painted by the fumbled talking points of the Republican members. Senator Inhofe indicted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as “the ones who started this,” and disparagingly referred to “that science-fiction movie” better known to the world as former Vice President Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Senator Barrasso lambasted the bill for not containing a definitive guarantee that every Wyoming coal worker would be awarded a new job in the renewable energy industry, never mind that the bill actually does contain provisions for training green-collar workers. (I wonder whether he truly would support a piece of legislation that mandated which American citizens were to work for which companies.)

And how about when the same Senator Barrasso predicted that without the burgeoning coal industry, the entirety of rural America would be without electricity? Even a fellow Republican caught the sheer absurdity of that claim: within minutes, Senator Grassley was speaking on the floor about the fantastic wind-energy sector thriving in his rural domain of Iowa.

Senator Lieberman made the point early in the afternoon that the name of the Climate Security Act is apt because it “is not only an environmental protection bill, not only an economic growth bill: this is a national security bill.” Climate change threatens the stability of our food supply, the survival of our coastal cities, and so much more. Why does it seem like Senate Republicans are so unwilling to have a productive discussion about change?

###