Look, the proposal was put to a vote.
It was not some hothead proposing it and getting shouted down or reviled. The group changed their meeting place three times to avoid surveillance in order to discuss and take the vote.
And Camil (who came up with the idea) has been invited to join the Kerry campaign.
Also Kerry lied for years about not being there. It's not like the meeting was dreamed up by right-wingers. It was discussed in books and such with always the point being stressed Kerry was no longer a member and so on, and then lo and behold, that was false.
I'm all for going after Kerry on "the issues", but I most certainly find this topic fascinating and intend to discuss it.
Also Kerry lied for years about not being there. It's not like the meeting was dreamed up by right-wingers. It was discussed in books and such with always the point being stressed Kerry was no longer a member and so on, and then lo and behold, that was false. I'm all for going after Kerry on "the issues", but I most certainly find this topic fascinating and intend to discuss it. Discussing it is fine. Kerry's antiwar activities and views are clearly legitimate issues, and ones he is vulnerable on.
What I object to are the efforts to characterize Kerry's actions as criminal when clearly they were not. It's an enormous over-reaching, and it simply reduces the credibility of Kerry's attackers while allowing Kerry to denigrate legitimate arguments through guilt by association.
Bush-haters loved it when Democrats accused Bush of desertion and going AWOL from the National Guard, but I think it ultimately undermined their credibility with the swing voters who will decide this election. Similarly, charges that Kerry was involved in a criminal conspiracy may excite Kerry-haters, but I believe they will prove counterproductive among swing voters.