Far too long and coherent to make it into the Wall Street Journal

In the interest of fairness and the truth, I find it necessary to address the many errors of omission in Mary Anastasia O'Grady's condemnation of John Kerry's stance on the Sandinistas ("With Friends Like These?" WSJ, July 30).

Without a trace of irony, she damns the Sandinistas for their use of secret police and "no small measure of brutality" in trying to maintain power. Yet nowhere does she refer to the four decades of unmitigated terror perpetrated by the Somoza family dictatorship and the unparalleled savagery of Somoza's National Guard. (Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega was one victim, tortured for seven years in a Somoza prison.)

Furthermore, O'Grady conveniently fails to mention the gross human rights abuses of the "anti-Sandinista forces" -- remember the Contras? -- she praises. Americas Watch, a nonpartisan human rights group, documented the ruthless acts of violence committed by the Contras, which included kidnappings, torture and murder of unarmed civilians. Many veterans of the wildly unpopular National Guard wound up in the ranks of the Contras, hardly endearing the Contras to most Nicaraguans. Plus, the Contras proved ineffective militarily. By 1984, they had received $150 million from Washington and taken control of exactly zero villages.

By 1985, it was becoming clear that the Contras were fighting a losing battle. Their blatant disregard for human rights appalled John Kerry, just as it appalled church leaders and other decent Americans who were paying attention to Nicaragua. But these abuses evidently don't appall O'Grady. To her, human rights take a back seat to "U.S. security interests." She's wrong, of course.

But O'Grady is right on one count. Revisiting Kerry's views on the Sandinistas does tell us a lot about his judgment. Kerry was right in 1985 on an issue that, with the benefit of nearly two decades of hindsight, O'Grady is still wrong on today.