Both parties and candidates are engaged in a tricky contest of patriotism

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-phillips29aug29.story
History Haunts Bush and Kerry
Both parties and candidates are engaged in a tricky contest of patriotism and memory.
By Kevin Phillips
Kevin Phillips is the author, most recently, of "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush."

August 29, 2004

WASHINGTON — Few assumptions are more precarious for Democrats than the one that November's presidential election is John F. Kerry's to lose. <snip>

Still, as the Republican convention opens this week in New York City, a site chosen to resurrect the psychologies and applause lines of the months after Sept. 11, both parties and candidates are engaged in a high-stakes and tricky contest of patriotism and memory. Not only what happened three years ago is involved, but also what both contenders were doing — or lying about or shirking — some three decades ago in the Vietnam era.

With Iraq and terrorism combining into a potent national security issue destined to dominate the election debate, both Kerry and Bush face close scrutiny of their military and patriotic outlooks during the Vietnam years, and both are at risk. Slowly, Vietnam and the two U.S.-led wars in Iraq have blended into a linkage of foreign-policy and national-security errors that has drained U.S. credibility and prestige.

<snip>As for the poorly thought-out invasion of Iraq, a cavalcade of conservative commentators and politicians have lately come forth to call the decision a fundamental mistake. Two stand out. One is Pat Buchanan, an old GOP foe of both Bushes. In his new book, "Where the Right Went Wrong," he that "listening to the neoconservatives, Bush invaded Iraq, united the Arab world against us, isolated us from Europe, and fulfilled to the letter bin Laden's prophecy as to what we were about. We won the war in three weeks — and we may have lost the Islamic world for a generation." The other is retiring Nebraska Rep. Doug Bereuter, the Republican vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. In a letter to his constituents, he wrote that, "it was a mistake to launch … military action " and that America's "reputation around the world has never been lower."

<snip>One can only speculate, but Kerry's timidity in criticizing the invasion of Iraq and the mismanagement of its aftermath may stem from his own sense of vulnerability for what he said and did 30-odd years ago. If so, that only strengthens the GOP argument that he lacks some of the qualities necessary to lead. The United States cannot afford a president whose youthful antiwar activities make it impossible for him to criticize 25 years of flawed U.S. military and national security policy in the Persian Gulf. His continued reticence may spoil his election chances.

The election is thus not necessarily Kerry's to lose. He still has to show leadership and toughness to win it, including a willingness to risk bloodier injuries (political, to be sure) than the nicks and bruises for which he got Purple Hearts in Vietnam.

On the other hand, what Bush was doing from 1966 to 1974 falls into a period he has cagily described as, "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." During the Vietnam years, he was periodically absent from his duties with the Texas Air National Guard — some Democrats say AWOL — and lost his flying classification after not taking a required physical that included random drug tests. It would be ironic if the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads finally forced the Massachusetts senator to prove his toughness by a newly vigorous pursuit of the president's own record.
<snip>