I haven't found anything by googling though. I did find something interesting though - which was an article on Peretz and Cookie Roberts and their stupid idea that being anti-war would hurt the Democrats in 2006. They were living in fear of a return to the 60s. (I disagree with the author that a super anti-war Kerry could have won. He likely got every anti-war vote and many that were pro-war but agreed it was badly managed. I don't get where the more votes would have come from.) This does show that Peretz is a committed neo-con.
Here is a link to that:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/07/peretz/index.htmlMore interesting - but not about Peretz was an article in response to that one. What is interesting is that with people's eyes open to the wrongs done by Bush et al the problem the author sees that Kerry had in explaining the common thread of his war and anti-war activities in 2004 will be easily resolved. Adding the links of fighting the Reagan administration's illegal actions in Central America and BCCI shows that Kerry continued the fight.
Unlike the author, I think Kerry did connect the motivation in his acceptance speech, on his web site,and in Going Up River and Tour of Duty - he explained both as service to his country and its values. I think that he can be more explicit now.
Here are the 2 paragraphs about Kerry:
"The Kerry campaign, with it's attempt to celebrate the candidate's war record while studiously ignoring his service in the trenches of the anti-war movement, is a prime example. It seems impossible that anyone with a modicum of political sense wouldn't have understood that this was a recipe for disaster. By failing to identify the values that led him into combat service as being the same values that motivated his antiwar activism, Kerry created a perceptual dichotomy that was quickly expoited by the GOP. Kerry could either be Rambo or he could be Jane Fonda's boyfriend. He could not be both.
People tend to put this colosal blunder down to the personal failings of the candidate. There's truth in this but it isn't the whole truth.
The main reason for this failure lies in the fact that Kerry could not draw such connections without reviving the critique of the reactionary imperial ambitions which underlay them. Of course, the unrestrained use of military force in pursuit of such ambitions is the raison d'etre of the Neo-Con theology. Raising a critique of so fundamental an aspect of the Neo-Con project in the context of a Presidential Campaign was something the aparatchiks were'nt going to sign off on."
http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/07/peretz/permalink/9067c203848421db77379ac0b00b93ac.html