Bob Novak reported this week that John Kerry’s constant references to his heroic military service during the convention leave the Bush gang with little choice: Kerry’s decorated service will be an area for GOP attack.
Kerry has opened a door that could prove troublesome for him…. Until now, Bush campaign strategists have given Kerry a pass on Vietnam. Conceding a record of bravery and ignoring his role in the extreme anti-war movement, Bush attacks — especially during the convention week — have concentrated on his Senate record. Because Kerry will not be engaged on the subject, the Republican attacks have been ineffective.
So, Novak explained, they’re going to change course: BC04 is now going to go after Kerry’s Vietnam record.
As I read this, I kept thinking, haven’t they been doing this all along?
I know it irks Republicans to no end, but John Kerry was the recipient of three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star for gallantry in action, a Bronze Star for heroic or meritorious service, a Combat Action Ribbon for ground combat, and a Presidential Unit Citation Ribbon for heroism of a unit in combat, among other honors. He saved the lives of his fellow troops and killed enemy soldiers. Kerry is, as Time magazine recently noted, “one of the Senate’s most decorated veterans.”
Novak argued that, up until now, the campaign has “given Kerry a pass on Vietnam.” How incredibly generous of them.
But while Bush has gone easy on the hero from the war Bush chose to avoid, Bush’s allies have found it appropriate to attack Kerry’s military service for months. There have been suggestions that Kerry didn’t deserve his Purple Hearts, that he threw medals instead of ribbons, that he wasn’t injured in battle to conservatives’ satisfaction, and that his criticism of the war in Vietnam was “nothing short of aiding and abetting the enemy.”
If BC04 was giving Kerry a “pass,” they were the only Republicans in America doing so.
Salon’s Joe Conason, who has done fine work chronicling the attempted right-wing smear of Kerry’s Navy service, wrote a couple of months ago how truly outrageous the attacks have been.
For George W. Bush’s surrogates to question John Kerry’s war record, as they have continued to do in recent days, requires a special Republican brand of super-high-octane gall. Why would the president want to draw additional attention to the most unflattering contrast between him and the Democratic challenger? Why would his flacks reopen the painful issues of that era by questioning Kerry’s undoubted heroism? If anyone ever earned the right to talk about what he had seen in Vietnam and why no more Americans should kill or die there, it was the young, highly decorated Navy lieutenant who had volunteered for duty.
Or, as Wesley Clark put it:
Although President Bush has not engaged personally in such accusations, he has done nothing to stop others from making them. I believe those who didn’t serve, or didn’t show up for service, should have the decency to respect those who did serve — often under the most dangerous conditions, with bravery and, yes, with undeniable patriotism.
Novak suggests the difference between the previous attacks on Kerry and the new round that may begin soon is that criticism of Kerry’s record will come directly from the campaign, instead of Bush surrogates. If true, it would bring new meaning to the word “chutzpah.”