As I reflect on the results of last week's Democratic Convention and the campaign that John Kerry is running it seems that it comes down to this, "I served in Vietnam so you can trust me with national security". At the same time there's a group of Kerry's comrades that say he's unfit for office. Of course there has been the rumblings from various Democrats about Bush not serving in Vietnam. ENOUGH!
What has John Kerry or George W. Bush done to indicate they have a good idea on how to protect America? I don't see much on the Kerry side and see a president that is proactively trying to get terrorists. I can also look at Kerry's stances in the Senate on defense and communism and safely say that he was on the wrong side of history then. I still don't know if he was right or wrong on Iraq because he's taken both sides (one side for 2002 election reasons and another side to combat Howard Dean). When it comes to war I don't want our leaders to see which way the wind blows.
This blog will try and keep with what is relevant for this presidential election. Vietnam became a non-issue in 1992 when a clear draft-dodger was elected over a man who served with distinction in WW2 and then in 1996 when the same draft-dodger beat a man permanently disabled in WW2. One thing I would ask of Kerry, does he still stand by the accusations of American servicemen that he made in 1971? I believe he owes many Vietnam Veterans (and especially his Swift Boat comrades) an apology. If he does then it should be dropped as a issue. Kerry needs to quite exploiting his service and just be humble about it.
Good or bad I wouldn't want someone to judge my work skills based on what I just did 15 years ago. How have I grown and what can I do now based on recent evidence. Do I make the same mistakes now that I made so long ago? Same for our presidential candidates.
Posted by Tim at August 5, 2004 01:06 AMWe need a candidate who fought not in Vietnam but at the US/Mexican Border. This election should be about fighting physical terrorism from radical islam and economic and cultural terrorism from illegal immigrants.
Posted by: Glenn at August 5, 2004 01:40 PMListen to Hannity and Colmes tonight. There will be both sides represented. Several Viet Nam vets on the radio today had a much different account of what Kerry did there and will be on tv tonight.
Posted by: sue rogers at August 5, 2004 03:08 PMThe best thing (and really the funniest thing) for us Dems about this pack of scoundrels smearing Kerry is that the most respected politician in the country, Republican Senator John McCain, got the headlines, not them. Like this from the Washington Post today:
"Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well. The White House declined."
Senator McCain was one of the few bright spots in President Bush's balky reelection campaign, and now he's out speaking up for Kerry. And the hapless White House declines to jump in on the obvious right thing to do. You wanna guess who those swing voters will listen to? War hero John McCain or a bunch of no-name political hacks. Point, set, match---for Kerry.
But Tim, your point is excellent re: "Good or bad I wouldn't want someone to judge my work skills based on what I just did 15 years ago." I hope you link or read Max Boot's column in the LA Times today. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-boot5aug05,0,1146704.column?coll=la-news-comment
And I say that even if Boot is a thinking conservative and I'm over with the Lib Dems.
I struggle with your point too. Does Senator Kerry's Vietnam experience matter? I think there's something to knowing war first-hand.
Suppose you were trying to find a leader for your church. If one of the candidates was a Christian missionary who put his faith to real test by going as a young man to the most desperate, poverty-stricken part of the world to help the sick and hopeless---would that be of value to you? (I may be clumsily stumbling here in drawing a parallel, but I'm sincerely trying to think this through in terms we maybe both can grasp.)
Posted by: Tom at August 5, 2004 07:19 PMI don't think a man's service in the military hurts at all but it doesn't make the man necessarily a better candidate. He could have been the greatest soldier ever, but that doesn't mean he'd be a good president. I feel Kerry has been so wrong on so many issues that I don't think he'd be hunting the terrorists with the objective to eliminate them.
Posted by: trogers at August 5, 2004 08:56 PMre: "...He could have been the greatest soldier ever, but that doesn't mean he'd be a good president...." I think you're right, so maybe I'm focusing on---all things equal---does on-the-ground military experience assist the Commander In Chief job? I mean the CIC part of the President's job versus all the other roles of a President? Which is a hugely important part right now, obviously.
For instance when the Soviet threat built up during the 1950s, and Stevenson ran against Eisenhower, was there something inherently more beneficial for Americans in a vote for Eisenhower? (And realizing of course Eisenhower's war record was so much more immense than Kerry's, so this isn't the best comparison).
Posted by: Tom at August 6, 2004 06:19 AMIf I had the choice of wishing if President Bush had combat experience v. not having some I'd much rather prefer he had it, for sure. It's just not the only qualification.
Posted by: trogers at August 6, 2004 06:35 AMI'm not sure I agree with the notion that Kerry needs to apologize to his swift-boat comrades. Kerry's condemnation was not intended for his boat-mates; his self-reprisal during his testimony back then might help to plead his case on this point.
I too wish our current President had combat experience; however trite it may sound, it does certainly help to lend perspective on war.
re: Tim's note "If I had the choice of wishing if President Bush had combat experience v. not having some I'd much rather prefer he had it, for sure. It's just not the only qualification."
I heartily agree. I think we're both saying with all things being equal, at least in our opinions it's preferable for a Commander In Chief to have combat experience. And that it's certainly not the only qualification. (Or as the cliche goes: "We'd be finishing up the second term of President Bob Dole right now if military service was the most important qualification to Americans.")
Posted by: Tom at August 6, 2004 01:20 PMI would have much preferred McCain or Dole on that carrier stating, 'Mission Accomplished!'. I hate having to constantly hear about how the 'chickenhawks' do this or that all the time. Whether one served in Vietnam or dodged Vietnam by serving in the Air National Guard, it shouldn't make a difference because Vietnam was a bright spot in our history. It's like stating with pride, I served in the Spanish-American war, and am damn proud of it!
I think w're generally saying the same thing: Kerry served, we wish Bush had served as well instead of kinda dodging Vietnam- that way, no significant comparison could be made. I guess I understand what Bush might have been thinking back then- certainly if I had the influence to avoid going to Vietnam, I would have used it. Not many people get that opportunity.
Posted by: bushcheney04 at August 8, 2004 11:55 PMI can understand your frsutration; however, the reason Vietnam matters in this election is because John Kerry has made it so.
John Kerry wants us to skip his dismal Senate record and focus instead on his questionable four months of service in Vietnam.
John Kerry devoted much of the convention to his Vietnam record and very little to his years and years in the Senate.
It is our duty to challenge him on that.
Posted by: Ryan at August 10, 2004 08:27 PM
