Tough times for Kerry

A rough couple of weeks for Kerry. Bush has challenged him to say whether, "knowing what we know now"--no WMDs, I guess no real ties to Al Qaeda, Iraq a poorly armed country that was not threatening any Americans in March 2003--Kerry thinks the U.S. was right to invade. Kerry has finally, it seems somewhat reluctantly, agreed that this was the right thing to do. (Via Instapundit). Bush's question, framed in Bush's terms. Again, there's nothing wrong with the Bush team as a political organization.

On this issue, Kerry is a Massachusetts head on a dog being wagged by a cracker tail. He's reacting, coming from behind, trying to prove he's tough enough to defend Americans. Bush has proven this kind of credential several times over, and therefore, I think, has more flexibility to negotiate or back down.

In this context, the "Swift Boat Vets" make their most dramatic appearance yet. It would seem that no matter what they say, reminders of the different choices of Kerry and Bush in the Vietnam years will make Bush look bad. But Republican fund-raisers have paid to have these charges circulated: some at least of Kerry's decorations were based on lies, cowardly acts, etc.

There are still details to sort out: who saw the most, who actually served with Kerry at all, whether in the same boat or in one that was nearby at crucial moments, who served with him the longest and saw the most, etc. One person looks awfully bad, however, and he is a lynch-pin of the anti-Kerry stories. Retired Navy captain George Elliott

had previously defended Kerry ... when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush.

This year, as part of the Republican-funded anti-Kerry campaign, Elliott signed an affidavit saying Kerry was dishonest in not admitting that this decoration came from shooting a wounded, fleeing (teenage) Viet Cong in the back. When questioned by the Boston Globe, Elliott said signing that affidavit was "a terrible mistake probably." Then he signed a second affidavit, offering what he called an "immaterial clarification": "I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." The official citation for the Silver Star doesn't even mention this killing--it praises Kerry for attacking rather than fleeing from at least two ambushes. The "old" Elliott stressed that this was a brave thing to do, even if there were very few of the enemy carrying out the ambushes.

It seems pretty clear that Elliott is a despicable scum, who has been bought off to say whatever his Republican paymasters tell him to say. Shades of Troopergate in the Clinton years. The last anti-Clinton trooper has now been charged with lying, so it seems to be official that there never was any Troopergate, in the sense of wrongdoing by Clinton. There was just a pack of lies bought with Scaife money. (Link via Atrios).

Glenn Reynolds says the problem for Kerry is not so much whether specific charges are true, but that the Kerry operation seems so unprepared for them. I guess there is something to that. Reynolds has also focussed on Kerry saying he was serving in Cambodia around Christmas of 1968 when President Nixon lied about U.S. troops being in Cambodia. Problems? Nixon wasn't yet president at the time, and Kerry (apparently) never saw action in Cambodia.

UPDATE Aug. 17: Kevin Drum has now focussed on the testimony of Douglas Brinkley, who wrote a biography of Kerry. Brinkley confirms that Kerry was in Cambodia in January or February of 1969, not December of 1968, and that he was ferrying CIA agents--which was dangerous work. So Kerry seems to have been wrong about some details, but the story as a whole confirms his courageous military service in a shooting war. How is this going to help Bush?

Instapundit has not given up. He links to people saying Kerry should release all his records, as Bush allegedly has, and that major media should be all over this, as they allegedly have been in Bush's case. The most dramatic line is that "there are far more legitimate questions about the latter [Kerry's service] than the former [Bush's service]." Really? When months of Bush's service are simply missing in any detail, and it has never been explained how exactly he flunked a physical and was prevented from flying? Was he drunk all the time? Did he spend the months in Alabama partying and passed out on a motel room floor? Isn't it the case that the forces were prepared to lose track of him, yet still keep him on the books, because they were concentrating on getting people out of Vietnam, not sending people in? Isn't this just another example of Bush's good luck?

UPDATE Aug. 20: Mickey Kaus has joined the ranks of those who, based precisely on defences of Kerry, doubt whether Kerry was ever in Cambodia at all. What makes this significant is that in 1986, speaking in the Senate, Kerry said that his experience in Cambodia, when no U.S. troops were supposed to be there (he said Christmas 1968, but apparently he has already given up on that date), was "seared" into his memory, and changed his entire view of the U.S.

Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:55 pm MST by robertll | Email Article |

Return to Main Page

Tough times for Kerry