My Photo

Core topic

« Festina lente | Main | Half the story »




Why should Bush condemn the Swifties when Kerry gave a free ride to the groups slagging Bush?

As to the grenade, the claim is not that he shot himself with it to get a Purple Heart, but that he LIED about the events that led to his shooting it, which are certainly possible, and thus not "absurd on its face".

As to "reopening wounds that took a long time to heal".
1. Kerry did that with his "I was in Vietnam" mantra (clown couldn't even spell it right). What did he expect when every Viet Nam era vet knows the lies he spread about that war.

2. The events of the last week shows that the wounds DID NOT heal. But maybe burying Kerry will bury those wounds with him.

on the point about " how about doing a better job of the multiple wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere that we're fighting right now? " I agree completely.
If the anti-war Dems had not picked Kerry because he was "electable" we would MAYBE be arguing about the issues rather than ancient history. They picked him, and he told folks that wanted to complain about his service to "bring it on". Well it has been brought on, and the botox poodle can't stand the heat.

That right there susggests that Bush would make a better leader: he has ignored the Bush=Hitler and other trash thrown at him. apparently Kerry's amore propre won't let him do the same.


More on the "absurd on the face of it":

This link is of interest:">

Money quote:

"And questions keep coming. For example, Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2nd, 1968. But an entry in Kerry's own journal written nine days later, he writes that, quote, he and his crew hadn't been shot at yet, unquote. Kerry's campaign has said it is possible his first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound."

So the Kerry campaign has backed off on Christmas in Cambodia, and now this; yet you think the SwiftVets are"cynical, unfair, deceitful, and just plain stupid"??


It was never wise for Kerry to put his highly decorated but fairly slender military record at the heart of his campaign. His youthful heroics in Vietnam were followed by an impassioned opposition to the war, that at this distance is easy to portray as less than patriotic. Coming up with some sound policies and selling them hard might have been a better idea.

Some of my Republican friends are already re-scripting the war in Iraq as a war that failed in its objectives not because it was a badly chosen theatre or a misguidedly un-American imperial adventure but because of “the stab in the back” from the liberals back home. That’s the bit of Vietnam mythology that haunts this election.


I just can't believe that you'd put the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth on the same moral plane as, say, or People for the American Way. These groups strive to be factual when they criticize--as do the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and other think tanks or advocacy groups on the other side of the political aisle. The Swift Boat crowd isn't like the Nixonian dirty tricks crowd--they are same people, at least in one case. O'Neill started his anti-Kerry antics under Charles Coulson in the early Seventies, and hasn't found civic religion since.

What I'm looking for is a "Sister Souljah" moment. I applauded Clinton when he turned to a rabid loon and said, "Knock it off. You're doing a disservice to your country." Given the press attention to the Swift Boat accusations, which are demonstrably false, and ultimately pointless (how many decorations do you have to earn, and how many more days in Vietnam do you need to have served?), it's time for Bush, when asked the question, to answer it. Not dissemble, not spew a formless mass of words that don't say anything, but say something like:

"I know Senator Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. And he honorably dissented after he returned. Both were acts of courage. I know that, if circumstances had been different, and my life had been in jeopardy while the two of us were serving in my unit, Senator Kerry would not have hesitated to risk his life to save mine, as he did with his crewmates in reality. I hope he would believe the same of me.

"Meanwhile, these baseless, untruthful attacks on his record are doing a grave disservice to American veterans, the American people, and the Republican Party. We can win this election on the issues. We didn't ask for your help, we don't need it, and we certainly don't want it. I therefore call on the Swift Boat Veterans to do the honorable thing, and stop nitpicking Senator Kerry's record. Whatever factual to his military record you might be able to chisel off, a far greater boulder of solid, unwavering service to his country lies beneath."

That's something closer to what Bush should have said. As for the "attacks" on Bush's record in the Texas Air National Guard, the people I've read on the issue have been trying to establish the facts--when and where did he actually showup for duty--and have not been inventing ridiculous stories like the "Kerry's self-inflicted wound" rubbish. They're also looking for credible sources of information, like actual documentation or people who served with Bush, not people who were in his unit at a different time and heard about him, or were in a different place altogether when a particular mission happened, or who earlier said they didn't even know him.


Plus, there's the core argument in this post which you're missing altogether, Oscar: what are we NOT discussing in the public square while we waste time deconstructing a firefight that happened decades ago, and has no bearing on whether Kerry actually volunteered, whether he actually served in Vietnam, and whether he actually saved the life of a comrade in arms?


Yes, you are right, Kerry has painted his 4 month period in Viet Nam as his main argument for being President in a very perilous time. But we should take him at his word on this, while we should not take Bush's on his record 30+ years ago. Now Bush isn't running on his record during the Nam years, only Hanoi John is. SO when you explain to me why that is not a gross double standard on the part of the Toxic left, then I will be happy to move on and examine why Kerry's years in the Senate make him a more dangerous choice for president that Aaron Burr would have been.

The comments to this entry are closed.