1140Z TUE 24AUG04. Wall Street Journal.
John Kerry's focus on his 4.5 months on Vietnam soil at the DNC, following his questioning of Bush's service record, has boomeranged on him.
John Kerry picked this fight when he said, on 08 FEB 04:
"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."
This was back when the pro-Kerry 527s were bashing Bush's military service in the NG, and the left-leaning media was more than happy to publish their allegations. Michael Moore called him a "deserter." John Kerry made no demand that these negative ads stop (as Edwards now demands Bush do specifically re. the SBVfT ads).
NY Post
Compare this to President Bush's statement yesterday that Kerry should be proud of his record of service (his high road position ALL ALONG). Bush wants the voters to compare his positions and actions to John Kerry's voting record, and could care less about the debate over Kerry's embellishments and Bush's privileged assignments and AWOLs [SIC].
But now, after joining in the attack on Bush's service, and then saluting at the DNC and making his Vietnam heroics his main justification for being the next CinC, and then welcoming a debate on Vietnam service, using Bush's words "Bring it on!"; John Kerry is now crying for someone to MAKE IT STOP!
The WSJ puts it this way:
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.
The article ties Kerry's "war crimes" accusations to his ability to fight the War on Terror (radical Islamics):
The "war crimes" canard isn't so easily handled, however. It relates directly to our current effort in Iraq, where U.S. constancy is as much an issue now as it was in Vietnam. Mr. Kerry's denunciation of the U.S. at that time presaged a career in which he has always been quick to attack the moral and military purposes of American policy -- in Central America, against the Soviet Union, and of course during the current Iraq War that he initially voted for. It's certainly fair to wonder if Mr. Kerry will have the fortitude to fight to victory in Iraq if he does win in November. Or will he call for retreat the way he and so many other liberals did when Vietnam became difficult?
Fox News is reporting John Kerry called Bob Dole on the phone to complain about Dole's statments yesterday, saying he did bleed. He didn't tell Fox how many drops.
President Bush (isn't he supposed to be the "simpleton" of the two?), has answered the Bush/Edwards demands that he denounce the SBVfT ads by denouncing ALL soft money ads. As Polipundit notes; in doing so he has set yet another trap [remember the trap Kerry stepped into in saying he'd attack Iraq even knowing what we know now?] which the Kerry camp doesn't seem to see under foot with their next step. They are caught in a pincer movement with no good way out.
If you ask ACE:
Like an earlier ACE post said, he (verbally) slapped Bush in the face with his napkin, and now he's calling Marshall Dillon (the FEC) to help avoid a duel. There's a word for behavior like that, but I'll not use it, as a certain senator used to to incorrectly describe Cheney's obtaining a deferment (as many decent people, and some not-so-decent ones, such as Bill Clinton, did at the time).
Some Leftist Dens need a dictionary. One is not "lying" if one expresses what one believes is the truth. One is not being a "coward" in not volunteering to fight in a war, just as one is not being a "crook" for hiring a CPA to minimize one's taxes. If that were the case, any healthy person under the age of 35 who has not volunteered to fight in Iraq could be called a coward. Certainly some Americans could be more brave and self-sacrificing for the good of their country, but I would not call them cowards because they are not.
Recent Comments