I was right. Kerry is trying the old switcheroo. Prominent Democrats spent weeks falsely trashing President Bush's ANG service, and prominent Republicans responded by truthfully pointing out that Kerry slandered the entire US military, and lied to Congress, when he got back from Vietnam. Now Kerry is claiming that the President is "using surrogates to attack his military service in Vietnam and his subsequent activism against that war."
Oh, we can make up associations and conspiracies without evidence now? Good. Then I can start saying that Kerry has been falsely accusing Bush of being AWOL from the ANG, through surrogates. Now that I look at it, Kerry seems to have a goodly history of slander, from that point of view. Heh.
In a letter to Bush, Kerry wrote: "As you well know, Vietnam was a very difficult and painful period in our nation's history, and the struggle for our veterans continues. So, it has been hard to believe that you would choose to reopen these wounds for your personal political gain. But, that is what you have chosen to do."
Oh, so Bush is reopening the wounds of Vietnam? Forgive me for mistakenly thinking that Vietnam veteran Kerry (who, by the way served in Vietnam), has been running on his Vietnam record and nothing but his Vietnam record, for months. Forgive me also, because I've never wanted to punch a Vietnam veteran Senator, particularly one who served in Vietnam, before. It conflicts so heavily with my sense of good civics. But it does make me yearn for the days when these things could be settled with a duel. Pistols at 40 paces, on the Ellipse, at dawn.
Look, anyone gets a lot of respect for being a decorated veteran. It's hard to lose the respect that comes from that. Throwing your medals on the steps of the Capitol might just do the job, but I'll give him a pass for even that. Wounded, decorated veterans get respect. Period.
But legislators have responsibilities too, and they cannot be ignored just because the ignorer has got a Silver Star. John Kerry has a long, long history of voting to axe intelligence budgets, and slash defense budgets. In 1994 he proposed a $1,000,000,000.00 cut in the intelligence budget. In 1995, he proposed a $1,500,000,000 cut in the intel budget.
“Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel … the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system. He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet.” (Brian C. Mooney, “Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One,” The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)
If you've ever read a Tom Clancy book, you know that every single one of those systems is integral to America's ability to make war in the remarkable way we do today - with minimal casualties, combatant and non-combatant, and with overwhelming force. Without those systems we would still be flying the exact same jets that flew in Vietnam, and a whole lot more people would have died liberating Afghanistan. Those jets are why nobody has put planes in the air against our forces in decades. Those Aegis cruisers are why not even the biggest fool would consider putting warplanes anywhere near one of our fleets.
Even worse, Senator Kerry voted to authorize the liberation of Iraq, and then voted against funding the effort when troops were already in the field. We could discuss learning the lessons of Vietnam right here, but we won't. I don't want to be up all night.
"Saxby Chambliss, on the part of the president and his henchmen, decided today to question my commitment to the defense of our nation," Kerry said in Georgia...
I'm sorry Senator. I thank you for your wartime service, and for your heroism, but your voting record speaks for itself. What you did as a Lieutenant cannot protect you from what you have done as a senator. I'm afraid I do question your commitment to national defense. In fact I think, and your voting record supports me well in this thought, that you have a long-term commitment to weakening America, both militarily and diplomatically.
(And I will repeat my standard warning. I am not given to violence, but anybody who calls me a chickenhawk risks getting punched in the nose.)
UPDATE: OxBlog came to the same conclusion at about the same time.
Comments