Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Answering My Own Question

I recently asked in a reply to a previous post why doesn't Bush stand up and discuss his war record since his party is making such a point of trying to pick apart Kerry's, seems that opposing comparison would be a good way to Distinguish himself (unless of course, there isn't any such record to speak of).
While this article doesn't address that directly, it does make a good point as to why Bush himself doesn't discuss things, and has other people do his dirty work for him.


Jeffrey Hill said...

No mistake with the N. Korean link. It’s called humor. I think Kerry had about as much say in Il’s comments as Bush had with the Swift Boat ads. Simply put: none.

Why is going after Kerry’s war record considered dirty and shameful? After all, it is the foundation of his foreign policy credentials. And it’s fellow vets that are going after it. Is his service really above questioning? Please notice that I have been pretty quiet regarding the medals. I’ve been keeping up on the chatter and I believe that the anti-Kerry vets are legitimate, (i.e. not a pawn of Bush’s) but ultimately that part of the argument is destined to become a Rashomon-esque fog of conflicting stories. I prefer focusing on the confirmed lie: that Kerry was in Cambodia, Christmas 1968. He’s had to back off that claim, but in so doing, he now says he ferried SEALS and hatless CIA operatives and weapons to Cambodia several times. I suspect he is lying again. His claims about being in Cambodia are significant because he is the Vietnam vet candidate. His relation to that war, by his own choosing, is relevant.

As for Bush and his National Guard duty, that’s already been covered twice over and it didn’t find traction among the people simply because he didn’t use it as a cornerstone of his political persona. It’s clear that Bush didn’t do anything back then to distinguish himself. Big deal. If the democrats want to annoy the voters with that issue again, so be it.

I believe Kerry chose to put his war record front and center in this campaign because he believed it was untouchable. He was wrong. And now his campaign is beside itself trying to figure out how to handle this affair. First, Kerry invited Bush to discuss Vietnam with his overly-quoted “bring it on,” tag line. Now, barely 2 weeks later, he’s asking Bush to denounce the ads and get back to the current issues. He’s also crying to the FEC to stop the ads and trying to get book retailers to block the book. There’s free speech for you. The press corps following Kerry’s campaign are now grumbling that they can’t get within ear shot of him and he’s got biographer working on an alternate story.

And what can Bush do to stop the ads? Perry has already donated his $100K. Since then, over a million has been raised by the Swifties and they don’t seem inclined to give up.

Dude said...

Well, I for one, believe that any re-organization of the CIA should provide increased funding for hats for CIA operatives.

Kerry is a big boy. He's running for president, he knew Bush or Bush supporters would try to smear him in some way. From my view, W.'s experience in the '88 campaign taught him how to keep his hands clean while hitting hard, a la Willie Horton. I can't prove it, that's just my read.

If this swift boat stuff sinks Kerry's campaign, it's his own fault for not countering it more effectively.

Bush's National Guard service against Kerry's combat service is as legitimate a question as Clinton's draft dodging in light of Bush 41's combat service.