Kerry's Medals Strategy: Why Democrats are attacking George Bush's Vietnam service.

The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal ^ | February 9, 2004 | Editorial

[quidnunc]

In case you've been busy making a living, the Presidential campaign is in full swing, and it's already getting nasty. Likely Democratic nominee John Kerry set the tone for his autumn candidacy yesterday by disparaging President Bush's military service.

"The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be? I don't have the answer to that question," the Massachusetts Senator declared at a news conference while campaigning in Virginia. "Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question."

We assume Mr. Bush can defend himself on this point, since it's been raised many times before. As he noted yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press," his military service records are open and the press has combed through them going back to his first campaign for Texas governor in 1994. Mr. Bush flew jets for the Texas Air National Guard in the early 1970s, and while his unit was never dispatched to Vietnam, flying any fighter aircraft is not exactly a risk-free exercise.

The far more intriguing story here is why Mr. Kerry is playing this Vietnam-service card. This is the same John Kerry who declared in 1992 that Bill Clinton's draft avoidance record should be out of political bounds. His precise words, defending Mr. Clinton against an attack from fellow Democrat Bob Kerrey at the time, were that "We do not need to divide America over who served and how." Why does he now want to assail Mr. Bush for service that was far more extensive than Mr. Clinton's?

The transparent answer is that the Senator is trying to use his Vietnam biography as a political shield against his national security voting record. …

-snip-

[FRgal4u]

Time for the GOP to get tough. Strange as it may be, the toughest challenger on this Kerry canard is none other than Dole or McCain.

Dole has the humor to debunk all this crap and slinging back at Clinton's record - If the American people would choose their Presidents based on previous military service, should BOB DOLE be the one win in 1996 then? Heck, how about McCain in 2000.

The real strategy is not to play offense in the normal way, in this case, a defensive strategy is what works - the strategy should be - praise Kerry on his service in 'Nam, citing he served his country then, have a great story to tell, BUT, this election is about the American people's future, not something happened in Vietnam or WWII. Keep this rhetoric in every turn, make people sicking tire of the Vietnam/Kerry crap, the strategy is to get a Kerry in Vietnam fatigue syndrome. This election will be decided on voters turnout of the two parties and the 10% (at most) middle independents. Key is to make the 10% middle voters so sicking tire of the stories that they will move on to other critical issues. Kerry is a cold, aloof senator and he is nothing appealing when his Vietnam shield is off. Time to be smart, get Dole out yak and yak in different circles about military service. Maybe the wit, humor of Bob Dole is the perfect antidote of the cold, hard, aloof image of Kerry.

[CedarDave]

I read earlier today that George Bush's active duty time comes close to exceeding the total of Kerry and Gore COMBINED!
(sorry, I don't have the thread reference)

[Afro_conservative]

Yeah but active duty as a national guardsmen is different than active duty as a marine in the jungle.

[Afro_conservative]

We need to promote this war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Stay away from 'Nam. 'Nam is only a negative for Bush. We all know a lot of people didn't want to fight that war it was bloody and bloody worthless to many. So if we try to go back to it, it will only backfire. Look Ahead.

[ntnychik]

Oh, that's beautiful! If you find a link, please ping.

[annyokie]

[Jeff Chandler]

My strategy would be to expose Kerry's liberal record through television and radio advertisements in swing states. I would start hitting him now.

[Afro_conservative]

I agree, but we need to stay away from 'Nam and focus on today. I see a lot of people trying to do a Kerry - Fonda thing on this board and the truth is that a majority of Americans are probably sympathetic to those who fought in 'Nam and won't take criticism of a person who fought and got some medals so it will look bad on TV.

[T. Jefferson]

Yeah but active duty as a national guardsmen is different than active duty as a marine in the jungle.

There are over 2,000 national guardsmen in Iraq on the battlefield. There is no difference.

[Jeff Chandler]

All they have to do is focus on his reacord in the senate.

[Afro_conservative]

National Guardsmen of today are more apt to be sent to combat than during the Vietnam war. Again stay away from this subject as it will look bad for us.

[longtermmemmory]

The Democrat convention will have huge video pictures of the medals. This is no different than clinton taking the west lawn, bombing the asprin factory, Bosnia in the 90's.

How about the picture of clinton with JFK (by accident) that was used over and over?

Here is the differnce. Kerry was embarrased by his military service until it was a political tool.

GWBush has always used his Guard Service as a point of pride ever BEFORE his involvement in politics.

Kerry is under the delusion that his military service immunizes his anti-war stances.

[BenLurkin]

Serving in war and then backing the enemy is a whole other ball game. That's how monuments like this get built:

[highlander_UW]

If Kerry wants to make his service a presidential issue, let's look at it...

It's true that Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry was in combat. Indeed, his boat had been fired upon by the enemy. Kerry beached his boat and an enemy soldier broke and ran. Tom Belodeau, one of the boat's gunners, admitted this enemy soldier was wounded in the attack. Lt. Kerry then chased the wounded man behind a ''hootch'' where he ''finished him off.'' It was for this action that he was awarded the prestigious Silver Star.

There were some who felt this act was not deserving of such an honor. Dan Carr, a Marine who served 14 months in Vietnam, questioned whether such an honor should have been bestowed on a man who killed a retreating and wounded enemy soldier.

When young Kerry returned to the States, he began protesting against the Vietnam War. On April 23, 1971, Kerry testified before Congress about atrocities he had allegedly seen and heard about. He testified that American soldiers ''raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, [had] blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.'' He stated there never was a communist threat in Vietnam. source: http://www.ircpolitics.org/news/articles/2004/IsJohnKerry.html

If Kerry witnessed rape and other atrocities and did nothing to stop them then he's an admitted war criminal. He should be imprisoned, not elected.

[CedarDave]

Is that a real picture of Kerry behind Hanoi Jane, or a Photoshopped one?

[KQQL]

check for yourself @ the site....they claim it's real from 1970

[CedarDave]

I believe it was on that very long Sunday Morning thread. The pertinent discussion already started before this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1073827/posts?page=1462#1462
Comment on both Bush and Kerry's service record continues following it, and I think someone added up the service time for Bush, Kerry and Gore and came up with the remark I quoted.

Two things pointed out in the Dallas Morning News article were that Bush was the only National Guard officer pilot trainee in a class with regular officers from other branches of the service, and he applied for service in Southeast Asia but didn't have enough flying hours to qualify.