slightly misleading thread title, since it refers to 1992. I wonder, does he still feel the same way? from opinionjournal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004645 -- The Columbus Dispatch reports that in 1992 Kerry took to the Senate floor where he "assailed critics of President Clinton's lack of military service, saying, 'We do not need to divide America over who served and how'_": Kerry compared Clinton's critics to "latter-day Spiro Agnews" by playing "to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America. Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?" "The race for the White House should be about leadership and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them," Kerry said at the time. The Washington Post published Kerry's speech as an op-ed on Feb._28, 1992; it's not publicly available online, but we found it on Factiva. "I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign," Kerry said. "What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict."
Clinton didnt serve because he was AGAINST the war and did not want anyone dying over there. George Bush had no problems with the war, but fortunately had a congressman for a dad, and he got ahead of 500 others to get in the guard, and then missed a year of duty. In 92' it was about draft protesting, now its about how George Bush used privilege to escape the war and cover up any wrong doings in the process. George Bush makes this a story because of the comparison between how he got a free ride in the national guard during Vietnam, and how men and women now in the National Guard seem to be on year round duty overseas having bullets fly over their head and some even dying. and because of this...
Another coordinated story with the RNC, basso. Thanks for the link, btw. I thought I'd post the first paragraph from the article for those who may not look. I'm sure this doesn't reflect any bias on their part... (and I've got that bridge to sell you!) John Kerry is the all-but-certain Democratic nominee. The haughty senator, who by the way served in Vietnam, easily won three of five primaries yesterday, trouncing second-place Wesley Clark by 43% to 27% in Arizona, Joe Lieberman 50% to 11% in Delaware, and John Edwards 51% to 25% in Missouri. The French-looking Massachusetts Democrat also won deux caucuses, in New Mexico and North Dakota. I also checked out the Dispatch article, which, interestingly enough, doesn't give the Kerry piece, just some excerpts. I don't see any controversy there. I think Troy McClure summed it up pretty well. It's like comparing apples and oranges, or maybe oranges and tangerines.
Do you know what irks me? The way Kerry pronounces Vietnam. He will be rolling along in a sentence at a normal pace, then when it is time to say the word Vietnam, he speeds it up. It's like he is attempting to pronounce it as the natives would. This really gives me a chuckle. Is Kerry french by the way? He obviously looks like a wimp and has an aloof manner, but I just wanted to confirm.
Yes those wimpy French who wanted to make sure about WMD before going into Iraq. That makes them wimpy... and it makes them right.
i didn't include the "haughty, french-looking" stuff because i didn't think it was germaine to the issue, that is Kerry's own word on whether service in Vietnam should be an issue in the campaign. in any case, for those who don't regularly read opinionjournal, it's a running riff in the column, "John Kerry, the haughty, french-looking democrat, who, by the way served in Vietnam" and referrs to a snotty comment his wife made about Bush not speaking French and Kerry's constant reference to his Vietnam service. in any case, below is the full text of Kerry's speech in 1992, as well as a link! while i haven't heard Kerry make a "bush was AWOL" reference, if he brings it up, it'll be interesting to hear how he finesses these comments. -- Lead, Don't Divide "I am saddened that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign." BY JOHN F. KERRY Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. (Editor's note: Sen. Kerry delivered this speech on the Senate floor Feb. 27, 1992. The previous day, Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, spoke in Atlanta, where he criticized fellow candidate Bill Clinton for his lack of military service during Vietnam.) Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia. I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning. What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion. What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not. What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country. What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary. The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation. We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are wenow, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations? Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam? Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition. But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time. I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home. We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country. Mr. Kerry, who served as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam, is a Massachusetts senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
It is honorable to refuse to fight in a war you think is wrong. It is honorable to fight in a war that you have misgivings about because you believe in the higher principle that in a democracy elected leaders make the decision of when and where we go to war. It is honorable to fight in a war, realize the war was a mistake, and come home and fight to stop the war. It is not honorable to support a war, take advantage of special privilege to avoid fighting in that war, and then shirk your duty while fulfilling your minimal committment.
didn't think it was germaine to the issue, that is Kerry's own word on whether service in Vietnam should be an issue in the campaign. I don't know that it was really an issue pre-9/11. But today, people do want someone with military credibility, because its absolutely certain (with Al Queda, at the very least) that the President from 2004-2008 will be engaged in military conflicts. That was not nearly as likely in 1992-9/11/01. I would assume he, like most Americans, would have changed what he wants to see in a President.
Look, Kerry is smart enough not to make this an issue. Face it, the evidence that Bush didn't show up just isn't that strong. He was honorably discharged as well. The case just isn't solid enough to make a big part of Kerry's campaign. It comes across as negative campaigning, which doesn't go a long way towards convincing indepedents. Clearly, the public has shown that military exploits which are 30+ years old do not carry as much weight as what the candidate has done since. If that were not true, Bob Dole would have steamrolled Bill Clinton in 1996.
LOL, what about 8 years as CIC, two wars won, and the successful destruction of Iraq's WMD facilities? Bill Clinton, come on down.
does four years as CIC,a dn two wars won, count? Yes, and I think that the military experience will be less of an issue in 2004 than it would have been in 2000, had 9/11 happened prior to that. That said, it does have impact in the Democratic primaries, and it would have relevence in the general election were the Democratic candidate to not have military experience. I don't think the military argument will be "I'm better suited in this field than Bush" so much as "I'm as good as Bush in the military realm, and I'm better for the economy, education, the environment, etc". It will be to neutralize the strength the Republican party (right or wrong) has in public perception of national defense issues.
A bit pre-emptive on this, basso. So far Kerry has not talked about Bush's sevice record or lack thereof. Last I read, when asked dircetly about it, he said he didn't know the facts, it's not for him to say. However, it would indeed be hypocritical if he played that card against Bush when he used that argument to support Clinton back in the day. We'll have to see how he plays it. TJ is right, he should just steer clear- I wouldn't be surprised if he remains silent while his allies continue to bombard the current president on the issue.
