August 24, 2004

Make. It. Stop.
Posted by McQ

The WSJ notes that back in February, John Kerry felt it was perfectly fine to question the service of his opponent:

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. . . . Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question. --John Kerry, questioning President Bush's military-service record, February 8, 2004.

Well fair enough, it is a presidential election which means everything is going to be scrutinized.

But wait. After going after Bush and using his Vietnam service as the centerpiece of his campaign we have Kerry and company playing the vicitim of, you guessed it, the ubiquitous "Republican Smear Machine", or for the older folks, a revival of the "dirty tricks" department first made famous under Nixon.

The Swift Boat Vets couldn't possibly be principled people who find Kerry's behavior during and after the war to be suspect and scurrilous. They, instead, must be a bunch of liars who've been put up to this by Republican political operatives. Or so the story goes on the left.

As the WSJ points out:

A good rule in politics is that anyone who picks a fight ought to be prepared to finish it. But having first questioned Mr. Bush's war service, and then made Vietnam the core of his own campaign for President, Mr. Kerry now cries No mas! because other Vietnam vets are assailing his behavior before and after that war. And, by the way, Mr. Bush is supposedly honor bound to repudiate them.

"Bring. It. On." has become "Make. It. Stop".

What the left won't face is this isn't about Bush, the Republicans or the Democrats:

In any case, anyone who spends five minutes reading the Swift Boat Veterans' book ("Unfit for Command") will quickly realize that their attack has nothing to do with Mr. Bush. This is all about Mr. Kerry and what the veterans believe was his blood libel against their service when he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the spring of 1971 that all American soldiers had committed war crimes as a matter of official policy. "Crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" were among his incendiary words.

Its about words and actions taken 35 years ago in which the real "smears" and "dirty tricks" took place. It is about that account finally coming due. Now you have two choices here. Understand what really is driving this, shrug off the "dirty tricks" canard and take an honest look at what these veterans are saying and decide for yourself, or adopt the victimhood argument of the Kerry campaign and whine about how its your opponent's responsibility to stop this examination.

But again, remember ... it was Kerry who questioned Bush's service and it was Kerry who made his 4 months in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. Its hard to find any "victimhood" available to Kerry in light of those two facts.

TrackBack

Comments

What gets me is that Kerry demands, demands, that Bush denounce the swift boat vet ads. Much of the media go along with the game. Funny, though, I seem to recall that Michael Moore was at the DNC convention and even sat with Jimmy Carter. Has Kerry denounced moveon.org? Hardly.

When the McCain Feingold bill was passed it seemed obvious to me that nothing would really change, that the money would just go in a different direction. It's like that kids game whereby you hit one and another pops up. Utterly predicatable.

Kerry made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign, and said it is his main qualification to be president. He cannot then say that noone should examine that record.

Also, he and his type denounce the Vietnam war as being immoral and unjust, and then criticize Bush and others for not having fought in it. Huh? This makes no sense whatsoever. Which is it, guys? If it was immoral and unjust, shouldn't one be praised for not having volunteered to fight in it?

Posted by: Redhunter at August 24, 2004 04:45 PM