(click above for outside source)
The Setting:
George Bush has never once questioned John Kerry's military service record. In fact, he has commended it, even above his own, stating on August 28th, "[Kerry's] going to Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets. He was in harm's way; I wasn't." Only 5 days prior to that statement, when asked whether "Kerry lied about his war record," he had responded, "I think Senator Kerry served admirably. He ought to be proud of his record." Such sentiments were echoed by both Vice President Dick Cheney and White House political strategist Karl Rove, both of whom not only refused to attack Kerry's service, but even supported his position and commended him for his heroism in Vietnam.
President Bush went on to denounce all 527s--independent "soft money" groups dedicated to supporting one candidate or attacking another, but supposedly without any connection or coordination with that candidate's campaign--including the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He called on John Kerry to support him in his denunciation of these 527 goups, and to join him in attempting to get rid of them and their unfortunate and unintended role in the American democratic system.
The Scene:
Apparently, none of this was good enough for John Kerry. Despite the completely opposite, and even opposing, position that Bush has taken with perfect consistency to the Swift Boat Vets, Kerry charged Bush and his campaign of being behind the Swift Boaters' attacks on his service. He demanded with indignation that Bush denounce the Swifties. And denounce he did, in response to a reporter asking him to specify which ads exactly he wanted to stop. "All of them," he said. "That means that ad [by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth], every other ad. Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527s." But John Kerry wasn't satisfied. He, along with most of the media, managed to find a way to insist that George Bush had refused to condemn the Swift Boaters. How does it work? I'm not sure, because I can't seem to follow the logic of it, if there is any. But if I understood correctly, it was that Bush didn't specifically say, "I denounce the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as liars and slanderers and support John Kerry on his war record." Instead, he denounced all 527s, including the Swift Boat Vets' ad.
In those days following Bush's statement, John Kerry and the media proceeded to lay the heat on the President, day after day, for "not denouncing" the Swift Boat allegations. Kerry continued to label the Bush campaign as a negative, smear campaign, using Bush's supposed "refusal to deny" as support for this claim. They pointed out an overlap in personnel, and despite that person's immediate resignation from the Bush campaign, claimed it as proof that the Bush campaign was behind the Swift Boat Veterans' attempt to attack Kerry's record and destroy his reputation and credibility. This is rehash for all of us; we all saw it on TV, because it was all over the media.
The Story:
Back the truck up, zoom out, rewind. Say, six months or so. That's how long John Kerry has been personally attacking President Bush's service record. As early as February of this election year, John Kerry began questioning Bush's service. ""Was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be?" he demanded. "Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question." (As a completely irrelevant side note: Can the oh-so-intelligent students who post flyers on college campuses mocking Bush's grammar and language spot the error in that sentence?) And he continues to do so. And it was in this context that, about a month ago, he demanded that Bush denounce those who were questioning his own record.
Return to the present. A new 527 group called Texans for Truth has come out very recently, accusing George Bush of being AWOL and disobeying orders while in the Texas Air National Guard some thirty years ago. And so, as is only fair, the White House suggests that the Kerry campaign might be in some way coordinating with this group. Yes, fair. True? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we'll never know. But definitely fair. For if Bush can be accused of being behind those who would challenge Kerry's service, even while the President personally exerts the exact opposite and rejects the attacks against Kerry, then the same accusation can certainly be made of John Kerry, who's own assertions agree perfectly with the charges made by these Texan slanderers.
Finally, CBS produces documents, four of them, supposedly proving the veracity of these charges about Bush's service in the Guard. Purportedly written by Colonel Killian, young Bush's commanding officer, they claim that Bush was out of order, AWOL, etc., and that the colonel felt pressured to "sugar coat" Bush's record because of Bush's political connections. Within hours of release, the legitimacy of those documents had been questioned. Now, a few days later, they have been completely discredited as fraudulent, forfeited documents. CBS stands by the documents and the story based upon them, but two of four experts used by CBS have revealed that they warned CBS of the questionable nature of the documents, while a third has stated that though he vouched for the signature, he had refused to verify the documents, since they were copies.
The Plot Twist:
Here's the irony and hypocrisy you were promised at the top of this page. To date, John Kerry has refused to condemn either the Texans for Truth or even the clearly fraudulent CBS documents. He has also failed to respond to Bush's call for his help in denouncing all 527s. And while there has been more than plenty of media response to CBS's irresponsible journalism, and to the disaster and folly that Dan Rather seems to intent on embracing, not a word has been said about Kerry's response (or lack thereof) to this attempt to discredit the President's service. And John Kerry and his campaign continue to accuse the President of running a negative campaign.
Whose job was it to denounce the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad attacking John Kerry's heroic service in Vietnam? Apparently Bush is supposed to denounce these charges against Kerry. Kerry isn't supposed to refute them. Usually, the seriousness of a charge warrants investigation. But apparently this charge is so serious that it rises above needing to be disproved, and must simply be dismissed. And that responsibility has fallen to the President. Why is it that John Kerry never allowed his military records to be released? Isn't there an old saying to the effect that those who hide must have something to hide from?
The Predictable Ending:
Let's put things in perspective here. Let's set up a few contrasts, and see where things stand.
Kerry: With great outrage and indignation, he demanded that Bush denounce those who were attacking his war record, his valor, honor, and heroism. He built his bid for the presidency upon events thirty-plus years old, while Bush never cared to relive the past, and prefered not to talk about it, until forced to do so by John Kerry. At that point, he did just that, but Kerry distorted his words to make it sound as though he had refused to denounce the Swifties. But while Kerry was demanding that Bush validate his military service, incensed that anyone should even dare to question it, he was busy attacking Bush's own service. Now, after having insisted that Bush speak up against those who attacked his record, he has failed to return the favor by speaking out against those who question Bush's. (Perhaps because in so doing he would be forced to denounce himself?) In fact, while Bush was praising John Kerry for his service, Kerry was questioning Bush's. He has even failed to condemn the slanderous CBS forged documents.
George Bush: He has never had any desire to rehash the past. He has never brought up his time in the Guard, except to mention in passing the mere fact that he had served. And he has never felt the need to examine Kerry's service in Vietnam. Indeed, he preferred not to even talk about it, because he simply felt that it wasn't relevant to this election. It wasn't until Kerry insisted that he do so that Bush weighed in on Kerry's service. And when he did, he praised Kerry for his heroism, readily admitting that Kerry's service was more admirable than his own. He denounced the Swift Boat ad; when he said he wanted to stop all 527 ads, including "that ad, every other ad," "that ad" indisputably referred to the Swift Boat ad. He has consistently taken the moral high ground throughout this issue, and even now that his own service has questioned, he has preferred not to address the issue, still believing it to be unimportant and irrelevant, not even worthy of acknowledgement. Unlike his opponent, he has not called on Kerry to denounce those who question his record. Which is probably for the best, since Kerry has not showed the same respect to Bush concerning his military service that Bush has consistently given him.
The Media: Kudos for so diligently and fervently addressing all aspects of the CBS debacle. Have a cookie. But where's the outrage towards John Kerry? When Bush made his statement, the media conveniently joined John Kerry in finding a way to overlook those two words--"that ad"--with which Bush denounced the Swift Boat ad. Instead, they insisted that Bush had gone only so far as to speak out against all 527s, but had fallen short of singling out the Swift Boat ad. And there was plenty of coverage of Bush's supposed refusal to denounce the Swifties, day after day after day. But they've never mentioned that even while he called the President to defend his service record, Kerry was attacking the President's own record. And now that the tables are turned, and the President's service in the Guard is being attacked from all angles, the media has suddenly lost its voice. Where is the outrage at John Kerry's failure to denounce the Texans for Truth? And there are still those that refuse to admit the liberal bias of the media?
The Moral of the Story:
From day one, John Kerry has run on a two-pronged platform:
1.) I hate George W. Bush, and you should too, and that's good enough reason to vote for me.
2.) I am a Vietnam war hero, and that's why I would be a better president than George W. Bush.
Has anyone considered what effect the Swift Boat ads might have had on Kerry had he not based his entire campaign on the medals he threw away? Perhaps a little. Nowhere near as much. The response would have been, "That's nifty. Who cares? We've got a thirty year political record to evaluate him by." (I'm not sure if that would have been better, but at least these attacks on his honor would have basically blown over.) But John Kerry ran on that platform, which left him open to attack in that area. People only care because he first made it an issue, even the issue.
Having made it an issue, only to see it backfire in his face, Kerry called on Bush to defend his service. Meanwhile, he attacked Bush's service. But now, given the opportunity to come to the honorable defense of the President's service record, in the same way that the President came to his own, Kerry has fallen short. His campaign says "this is different." According to the Washington Times, the democrats make the following claim:
The "real difference" between Democrats' claims and those from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is that documents support Mr. Kerry's war record, while undercutting Mr. Bush.
So there you have it. The documents support Kerry. Of course, it would be helpful if we could actually see those documents. But John Kerry refuses to authorize their release. I guess we'll just have to trust that they really do support him.
But whatever the case, the documents "undercut" the President. Oh, you mean the ones produced by CBS, that were supposed to corroborate the claims against Bush regarding his service in the Guard (or supposed lack thereof)? Oh, the forged ones? Well, that's no big deal, because even if the documents were forged, they represent the sentiments of the man who didn't actually write them. What further evidence do we need? Schedule the court marshall!
Here's a picture for you:
That's an ad by MoveOn.org, equating President Bush to Hitler. Far more serious allegations than those made against Kerry regarding his service in Vietnam. Did Kerry denounce this ad? Of course not. Or how about Fahrenheit 9/11? The film accuses Bush of knowing about 9/11 before hand, along with countless other charges equating Bush to a war criminal, a terrorist, and an evil dictator. Did John Kerry denounce the message of that film? Of course not.
John Kerry has still not responded to the President's call for him to join in denouncing all 527s. Don't hold your breath, either. It's not going to happen. Why? Because at the time that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had spent $200,000 for their first ad, other 527s had spent approximately $40 Billion in ads attacking George Bush, many in much harsher terms and with mush harsher allegations than those brought by the Swifties. John Kerry wanted Bush to single out the Swift Boat ad, but he couldn't denounce all 527s, because their work in attacking Bush is too valuable to him. George Bush didn't just do as Kerry had asked by denouncing the Swift Boat ad. He raised the bar, he took the most respectable and noble position, and he asked John Kerry to do the same. But Kerry refused.
The moral of the story? John Kerry mounts the most negative campaign I've ever seen out of one side of his mouth, and accuses Bush of mounting a negative smear campaign out of the other. He demands respect from Bush that he refuses to return. And all the while, the media joins him in crying foul against George W. Bush, despite the President's efforts to do well by Kerry, while they let Kerry off for far worse than Bush is falsely accused of.
This isn't really a "flip flop" though. Because in this case, John Kerry holds both positions at once, rather than the one after the other. This is having his cake and eating it, too. John Kerry is a very lucky man.
The End