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-

[highlander_UW]

What I still don't understand is that if he's admitting to being an eye witness to war crimes, and he didn't attempt to stop any of them (and the implication was this was more than once occurrence) then does that not make him at minimum an accessory to those crimes? I, for one, do not think we need an admitted war criminal for president.

[Smartaleck]

Sure that's not John Elway? LOL

[Mr Rogers]

Depends on who is talking. If GWB argues Kerry's Purple Hearts were awarded to a well connected political type who, in 2/3 cases didn't miss any work due to his 'injuries'...he'll get clobbered! GWB's service was adequate, but Kerry faced more danger overall (and my Dad flew F-102s, among many other planes).

On the other hand, if I point out Kerry's injuries were, IMHO, well below Purple Heart status, and that he immediately applied for a return trip home after the third...well, let's just say my co-workers today were as disgusted as I was.

We need to distinguish between arguements GWB should use in commercials, and arguements we can use with co-workers.

[antivenom]

Look at the guy next to Kerry...I think he is doing a doobie...damn shame he wasn't passing it to Kerry!!! LOL

[Smartaleck]

BUT......he was passing it to him. Kerry was too stoned to know?