RE: [A-List] Reply to Kerry and Skull and Bones

["Craven, Jim" <JCraven@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Bon moun" wrote:

I completely agree with all Jim Craven's comments.  My only point was
that the attacks from the POW-nuts are coming in a form that will take
issue with the one, small, principled thing Kerry ever did, even though
he did reneg, and in fairly short order.

Bush was questioned today in his interview on MTP about Skull and Bones,
but then the interviewer helped get him off the hook by making a joke of
it.  More of the courageous capitalist press.


Response Jim C: Thanks. Actually your response was exactly the type I
was hoping for. This background and these connections need to be
exposed--espeically for the benefit of those for whom this was one more
thing not in the history books and who were not old and/or connected
enough to see it happen.

Actually, I never bought Kerry's stuff. His role in VVAW was that mainly
of an asserted personality and I never saw any evidence of serious mass
work, organizational work etc on his part. There were many in VVAW who
did some serious mass work and were never featured as "speakers" and
certainly never wound up in front of congressional hearings. Kerry, like
Clinton, dreamed of becoming president in high school according to his
own accounts and began to position himself early. He became connected
with Skull and Bones through his first wife as well as through his
second wife, he volunteered to go to Vietnam (part of the S and B "Three
Ordeals" of Prep School, Business and War) and when he took his
"anti-War" position he was planning to run for office in a constituency
in Massachusetts that was largely antiwar.

I once took the position that VVAW should merge with other organizations
for the following reasons: a) Still the focus is on veteran's status and
on implicitly elevating it; b) the title VVAW meant Vietnam Veteran's
Against THE War, THIS War, not ALL War, and besides that, I personally
am not against ALL War as a I support JUST and REVOLUTIONARY war if
there is no recourse; c) there was too much focus on the salacious
details of war and not enough on the origins, nature, interests
involved, consequences etc of the war and there is only so far one can
go with how horrible war is by focusing on personalities, personal
rembrances, anecdotes etc;


Jim C.