August 23, 2004

Suggestion for keeping the peace
Posted by Dale Franks

In order to move the presidential campaign away from what happened or didn't happen in Vietnam 35 years ago, I offer a suggestion. Since the Kerry camp wishes to argue that official Navy records are conclusive proof that Kerry served honorably and with distinction, I suggest that those of us opposed to Kerry offer to accept that argument, as long as the Kerry people accept the logical corollary: the official Air Force records indicating George W. Bush was honorably discharged from his service is conclusive proof that he properly met his obligations as well.

Perhaps then we can move forward to matters more relevant to Mr. Kerry's record, such as his support for the Sandinista's in the 1980s, or his 20-year record of voting to cut military and intelligence funding. Or, why Sen. Kerry voted for the Iraq War, and maintains that he would've done so even if he had known there were no WMDs in Iraq, but George W. Bush was wrong for actually doing what Sen. Kerry authorized him to do.

So, how does that sound to everyone?

TrackBack

Comments

What I don't understand is that Kerry could make this all go away by releasing his med & service records!!!
Since he has so far refused, it leads me to this thought........
If the records on file do not support your statements from the past..... WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU BE STUPID ENOUGH TO USE YOUR RECORD AS A CORNER STONE OF YOUR PLATFORM!!!! Jeeeez
The people in Kerry's camp could not be this stupid in thinking this would not be brought up. Then again.....

Posted by: Bill from NYC at August 23, 2004 11:11 AM

Since the Kerry camp wishes to argue that official Navy records are conclusive proof that Kerry served honorably and with distinction, I suggest that those of us opposed to Kerry offer to accept that argument, as long as the Kerry people accept the logical corollary: the official Air Force records indicating George W. Bush was honorably discharged from his service is conclusive proof that he properly met his obligations as well.

Fine, but this doesn't let him off the hook for Cambodia...

Posted by: shark at August 23, 2004 11:13 AM

or for his comments regarding where he was when Bobby Kennedy was killed...

According to John Kerry's web site, he (aboard the Gridley, to which he was assigned) returned to the United States from Vietnam on "June 6, 1968 the day after Senator Robert F. Kennedy is killed in Los Angeles". While there's no mention of this being 'seared' into his memory, it did make it into a Globe story written by Michael Kranish, "his ship returned to its Long Beach, Calif., port on June 6, 1968, the day that Robert F. Kennedy died".

Very touching. How then to account for the fact that according to the USS Gridley web site, the ship returned to "Long Beach 8 June to prepare for future action"?

for the full post: http://thoughtsonline.blogspot.com/2004/08/according-to-john-kerrys-web-site-he.html

Posted by: steve sturm at August 23, 2004 12:54 PM

There is a huge difference. Bush has not made his service even a tiny part of his credentials. For Kerry, it is everything. He is using Vietnam to distract from his Senate record. And, since the kind a Naval officer he was is supposed to be indicative of the kind of president he'll be, isn't his service then subject to examination? If all but one of his fellow officers support his candidacy, doesn't that say something?

Posted by: Rob Mandel at August 23, 2004 01:05 PM

I hate to burst bubbles, but McCain-Feingold has enshrined into Federal elections law what had been happening informally for many election cycles. To wit:

Presidential campaigns no longer control, and have precious little influence, over the actions of their active supporters. 527 groups, BY LAW, can't coordinate their activities with the campaigns. One look at the financial status of Kerry supporting 527 groups makes clear that Kerry has control over a small and dwindling fraction of the money that his "fellow travelers" control.

In short, any such "truce" would be meaningless, because the 527 groups won't / can't be bound to it. Kerry might be wise to offer such a truce, but since Bush hasn't been a party to the conflict, he would be unwise to act as though he had.

MG

Posted by: MG at August 23, 2004 02:02 PM

This is a terrible idea.

An alternate proposal: Bush has already released all records of his National Guard service. Make Kerry release all records of his military service. When all information is out, let the public decide. Period.

Posted by: Redman at August 23, 2004 02:41 PM

I think a "moment of truth" has come for the Kerry campaign as well. They should specifically condemn ads by moveon.org, the media fund, and left wing 527s. And Kerry should condemn the $100 million dollar documentary, Farenheit 9-11.

Michael Moore is also planning to release a book of anti-war letters from soldiers Oct 5th, and a dvd release of his film in October.

John Kerry should specifically ask Moore not to release the book and the dvd release until after the election. Now this is a moment of truth for the Kerry campaign.

Posted by: Cog at August 23, 2004 04:09 PM

Dale... are you saying that only his Senate record should be up for discussion, or are his anti-war days with VVAW still on the table too?

Posted by: Watcher at August 23, 2004 04:22 PM

You nuts, man.

Kerry has positioned himself, his credibilty, and his campaign on one thing: "I was in Vietnam."

Conversely, President Bush is running on the issues.

The Democrats were gleeful because they found a daring war hero (read hero worship) to demonstrate they are not such wussies. Unless Kerry and the Dimocrats decide to completely change their strategy (78 days left and counting), and run on the issues and Kerry's Senate record (not pretty), your proposal unduly advantages the Dims.

Most importantly, you assume you and the Bush Campaign can represent the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. You don't; they don't. The SBVT has its own agenda: they don't want Kerry as Commander in Chief. And, they have a great deal more stored in their arsonal.

Consequently, your proposal is bogus.

P.S. The bullet on the delusion "Bush was AWOL" has already been fired and it can't be put back in the chamber.

Posted by: Capt America at August 23, 2004 04:33 PM

Apparently, Dale, the answer is NO TRUCE! The Bugler has already called Deguello, and all who survive will be put to the sword.

Thank you, Terry McAuliffe, and especially YOU, Senator Kerry, for pulling out the sutures and ripping off the scab. Very cathartic.

--furious

Posted by: furious_a at August 23, 2004 04:47 PM

Apparently, Dale, the answer is NO TRUCE! The Bugler has already called Deguello, and all who survive will be put to the sword.

Besides, Senator Kerry and Chairman McAuliffe have already peed in the pool. We'd have to drain and scrub it first (whatever the electoral equivalent of that is), to get out the stain.

--furious

Posted by: furious_a at August 23, 2004 04:49 PM

Bill from NYC asks:
        "If the records on file do not support your statements from the past..... WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU BE STUPID ENOUGH TO USE YOUR RECORD AS A CORNER STONE OF YOUR PLATFORM!!!!  Jeeeez"

      I've been thinking on this, and I have a tentative conclusion: when it comes to other people's opinions on defense, Kerry never got it.

      There are substantive differences between the two sides on all national security issues. Kerry was unable to take seriously any opinion that differed with his. Since he couldn't see how any reasonable person could disagree with him, he decided it was all hype and symbols: act 'patriotic,' and the boobs will vote for you.

Wrong.

Posted by: Stephen M. St. Onge at August 24, 2004 02:12 PM

I'd like to see both sides admit that their candiate is a liar who is unfit for command. They they can get back to lying about the issues the way they are supposed to be doing. No matter which one wins, that's what 49.5% of the country is going to believe anyway.

Posted by: Gary Boatwright at August 29, 2004 02:10 PM