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

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. …

Monsieur Jean "Bring It On" Kerry

Measure Number: H.R. 3396 (Defense of Marriage Act) Kerry (D-MA), Nay

"I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism.
SC Dem Debate 01/29/04

Kerry opposed the death penalty until 2002 , voted against military action in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and voted to freeze defense spending.

Bank records would later show that Kerry's Chinese campaign cash came from $300,000 in overseas wire transfers sent to Chung on orders from the chief of Chinese military intelligence, Newsweek reports.
NewsMax 02/02/04

U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday said Pope John Paul II ``crossed the line'' by instructing pols to block legalization of gay marriage.
Boston Herald 08/02/03

During the height of the Cold War, Kerry opposed the entire strategic modernization effort proposed by President Reagan — the Peacekeeper, B-1 and B-2 bombers, the Trident submarine and D-5 missile, opposed the non-strategic modernization of the defense budget as well, and the deployment of the INF missiles in Europe.
Washington Times 01/04

To: Afro_conservative
I think you're totally missing the point.

You said "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.".

That might be true, IF the person who fought in Viet Nam didn't come back and call US soldiers there "war criminals", consort with Hanoi Jane, organize anti-war protests and organizations, use fake "veterans" as evidence of said war crimes, throw "his" medals over the White House fence then later admit they were someone's elses medals and his are on his office wall, lie about running for congress to get out of Viet Nam then NOT run... should I continue? The hypocracy of John Kerry is overwhelming and needs to be brought to the light.

I think we have one of Moby's trolls here.

42 posted on 02/09/2004 11:08:01 AM PST by TruBluKentuckian First and foremost I am not a troll, second you spelled hypocrisy wrong, and third 'Nam was 30 some odd years ago. A lot of people today don't remember that much especially if they where a gen-xer. So bringing up Jane Fonda and other stuff like that won't have any bearing on people of that age group because we either don't remember or are too ignorant to look it up. Believe me that message is to complicated to package up and send out. We need easy simple messages. The easiest message we can come up with is to talk about the future, the war on terror, etc. Not back stepping to some war that happened in the 60's. Let Kerry look like the weirdo caught in Vietnam and Bush look like the President that he is.

Speech of John F. Kerry - Page S2479 Congressional Record
Rush Limbaugh ^ | February 27, 1992 | John Forbes Kerry

Posted on 02/04/2004 8:05:39 PM EST by windchime

Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary.

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam? Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the Presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.

I thank our distinguished manager of the bill and the Senator from Delaware.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.