Are we taking the wrong path by comparing Kerry's military record?

[Bullshot]

Look at the last four presidential elections. George HW Bush in 1992 and Robert Dole in 1996 had heroic military records and lost to Bill Clinton, who received a deferral to avoid the Vietnam War.

Although the military records were not as much of a factor, Al Gore served in the military, while Dubya was presumed to have served in the TANG. Dubya is in the White House. Whether he won the election is debatable.

Today, Dubya's military "record" looks treasonous compared to John Kerry's. And it seems to be working against Kerry.

By touting a candidate's military record, are we only appealing to a small segment of the voting population that really considers this issue when voting for President?

Does Kerry need to sell the country on economic and domestic issues and get away from military-type issues?

[LiberalBushFan]

1. definitely

Anyone who cares about the current issues so little is going to vote for Bush anyways.

[wurzel]

2. Why not compare Cheney's "Military Record" with Bush's?

Bush and Cheney have no "military records" to compare with Kerry. Cheney was a platinum plated draft dodger. Bush was National Guard AWOL. That is where the only possible "comparison" is.

[jean]

3. well, since bush is running ONLY on his prowess as a warrior prez

Kerry does need to out-prowess him, convince voters he can command and secure the country.

bush's testicles and his claim as a war president will be crushed once his awol status and wearing medals he didn't earn (and whatever other weinie, cowardly, criminal stuff) finally hits the fan and the big media.

So in deconstructing bush we're left with our champion who showed up for duty and did his job honorably.

[alcuno]

11. * is a coward who hides behind others.

There is a pattern and it does involve his service. He hid out in Vietnam, he hid out while others attacked McCain, he hid out on 9/11, he has blamed everyone else for the problems he has caused, and he hid behind the swiftliars.

He is a coward, pure and simple. Always getting others to do his dirty work and taking no responsibility for his failures.

[punpirate]

4. I'm of two minds about this....

I think Dubya has managed to whip up more than a fair amount of militarism, jingoism and xenophobia in past three years, and waging a couple of wars on brown-skinned people certainly helped with that. So did the incessant "I'm a war president" and the commander-in-chief routines--this guy's got more uniforms, er, costumes, than the Village People.

That said, one has to accept that a significant part of the public is equating military service with toughness, and while most here know of the falsehood of Bush's professed military record, a lot of the public doesn't. In a way, Dubya's led Kerry into having to play up the military angle.

If Kerry wins, that may come to haunt him. He may get castigated in the press if he uses diplomacy to short-circuit a problem, instead of rushing in the troops.

I'd like to see him go for some solid information on how to correct the last 3-1/2 years' domestic problems, but, the military aspect, now that's it's on the table, will continue. If there'd been no SBVT, it probably would have receded, but Kerry is going to have to find a way to submerge their boat. Otherwise, he'll have to live with the impact of their ads every couple of weeks.

Both Bushes, I & II, have convinced a significant amount of the public that "ain't war grand?" and we have to live with the consequences of their actions. So does Kerry.

To my mind, he's got a natural analogy to today's events, if he would only use it--his speech before Congress in 1971. Then, he railed against the dishonesty of the government in prosecuting a senseless war. Bush's wars have been exactly the same thing, dishonest and senseless, but Kerry won't go there. And I don't think he will, in large part because the press and the pundits will eat him alive, if he does.

In a way, it's a no-win situation, politically. He's going to have to do something to counter the Bushies' portrayal of Dubya as the "commander-in-chief" and their continuing smears. He's also got a healthy enough ego to want to defend his own good military record. That will occupy precious time.

Kerry's mistake in this was trusting Bush to do the right thing when voting for the Iraq war resolution. Kerry knew who was behind Bush, in the background, and he probably knew he had no reason to trust either them or Bush. But, he did. That's come back to bite him. He's now got to play it out.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

5. I think he needs to do both

As long as people like SBV"T" are out there smearing him on one aspect he can't just let it slide - we've already seen what can happen when smears like that get out there. Whether to counter with truth about his own record or truth about Dubya's (and Cheney's, et. al.) or both, I'm not sure.

On the other hand, he also needs to start driving the discussion towards the real issues, the ones that Dubya can't compete on. It really seems to me that almost all of the debate is about crap like SBV"T" instead of real issues. The whole reason for SBV"T" and crap like that is to keep the public from really looking at Bush's horrible record on all fronts.

[creeksneakers2]

6. Bringing up AWOL just brings up Vietnam again

I think almost everyone is sick of hearing about Vietnam. There are lots of better issues to get Bush on that are more current.

[jean]

12. but you can segue from Vietnam to Iraq - I heard General McPeak

do just this on Majority Report on AAR the other night.

They were discussing Kerry and Vietnam, and McPeak said Vietnam was a distraction from the real war - the Cold War.

He said Vietnam was a mistake and cost the US lives, money and time. It diverted us from fighting the Cold War, which went on longer than it should have.

Then he said - this is just like Iraq - Iraq is a mistake and a diversion from the real war - the war on terror.

We're doing the same thing in Iraq - wasting lives, money and TIME. The war on terror will go on longer, be more expensive (lives and money) because Bush pulled this diversion of attacking Iraq needlessly and stupidly.

I think you could also segue bush's involvement - in Vietnam he specified he did NOT want to serve overseas and moreover, was AWOL in his NG service. NOW, bush is AWOL in his duties as president. He did not pay attention to the war on terror, did not even read his presidential daily briefings until it was too late. And then he launched a stupid war in Iraq - ignoring the war on terror.

[seabeyond]

7. we have a war going on. quagmire

kerry experience is so relevent. and bushies knows it. the only thing bush is running on is cant change in middle of war, cant depend on kerry to do right thing in war. what better than to have someone courageous enough to be able to do war.

whether we want kerry's military to be a factor or not, it is what the election is about. iraq. terrorism

bush's imcompetence in the execution in war just has to be seen again. people saw it a month ago, and have forgotten since swiftboat. that got replaced in the brain

[Awsi Dooger]

8. We handicapped a military background as critical in '04

Incorrectly, I've always maintained. Kerry's ascension and Clark's candidacy were driven by the theory a military resume was vital after 9/11, and with an ongoing war. The worst handicapping suggested Kerry could significantly dent Bush's edge among veterans, or even win that vote.

In the fall you need to win the war of words and appeal. And the candidate with the best words can survive any scrutiny of his resume. Regardless of this year's outcome, we need to remember this segment of the campaign and how vital it is to have someone with the verbal skills and instincts to dictate the message, and fight. My acknowledgment there aren't many Big Dogs out there. We were indeed spoiled.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Vietnam was not a glorious war that liberated an oppressed people

Trying to sell the Vietnam "hero" thing is like selling the heroism of the French Foreign Legion in the Algerian war or in Vietnam. It won't fly with the Left, and it is not a topic that many people want to talk about.

The best thing Kerry did in Vietnam was not an act of war, and it was not his antiwar activities when he returned home from the war.

The best thing Kerry did were his trips to Vietnam, such as the one he made in May 1991, and the work he did on the POW/MIA issue. Kerry was the key to President Clinton's normalization of relations with Vietnam. I am surprised that these significant accomplishments have been generally overlooked by the campaign, as if they were ashamed of them.

Vietnam War, Peace Pivotal in Kerry's Life

By Edward Walsh
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 3, 2004; Page A01

In November 2000, the twilight of his presidency, Bill Clinton traveled to Vietnam, a place that he and thousands of other young Americans tried to avoid in the 1960s. He spoke at the Vietnam National University of Hanoi, and among those in the audience that he singled out for recognition was a tall man from New England who had been to Vietnam many times before.

His name was John F. Kerry, and he had played a key role in bringing about the first visit to Vietnam by an American president since Richard M. Nixon briefly met with U.S. troops there in 1969.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50479-2004Jan2?language=printer

[leetrisck]

10. Anyone in the Guard today would be in jail if

they did what bush did then - that is the comparison