Monday, September 13, 2004
Memogate, Vietnam service, and a question for the debates
John Kerry made Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign, and Democrats launched a major campaign on the night CBS News aired the forgeries to attack Bush on his National Guard record, and sent out a mailing that very same night to millions of people telling them Bush lied about his National Guard record, prominently mentioning these documents that we know now are probably faked. (links in original, some links omitted)
To be clear, I deplore the current state of this presidential campaign, in which both candidates are torturing documents and 30-year memories to establish the character or incompetence of the other guy. It is, however, obvious that this has been a central strategy of the Democrats from the very beginning. And not just the senior leadership, but all kinds of local types. Remember Howard Dean, the unambiguously anti-war candidate who was unambiguously in the lead for the Democratic nomination a mere nine months ago? The party faithful, from the very top to the rank and file, were terrified that Dr. Dean would not be "electible," so they turned to John Kerry, who had been bleating about his valor in Vietnam throughout 2003. The entire party signed up for Kerry's proposition that his personal military record, which was not exactly equivalent to say, Washington, Taylor, Grant, or Eisenhower, somehow established that he would be a good commander-in-chief.
Then, the Democrats and their allied 527s spend a good part of the late winter and early spring hammering on Bush's Guard record. This was supposed to prove that Bush was not competent as a commander-in-chief, which is weird because there is plenty of more current and more probative evidence to support that proposition (calm down, there is also evidence to debunk that proposition -- point is, the Democrats could have had plenty to say about the mistakes in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which are legion).
So the Democrats had a lot to say about the Vietnam-era service of both candidates long before anybody ever heard of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, or even a swift boat.
Now, back to Memogate, a scandal rich with irony. Why are the Democrats flogging Bush's Guard service, repeating charges derivative from those memos even after there were serious questions raised about their authenticity? The entire world, including every soldier in the United States military, knows that Bush was a well-connected unambitious goofball until around twenty years ago. What new debating point are the Democrats trying to score? Unlike many of Jimmy Carter's constituents, Bush went into the military, but fairly obviously structured his career to avoid Vietnam. Since there was already compelling evidence that Vietnam was a mismanaged fool's errand, this bit of low-grade cowardice was a completely standard baby-boomer dodge, and one I'm reluctant to criticize. Indeed, it may very well be the case that Bush -- like so many of his generation -- was influenced by the very arguments that John Kerry made upon his return from Vietnam. Bizarrely, that's an argument that neither candidate can afford to make. But it does suggest an extremely interesting question for the presidential debates this fall: "Today, given the significance of Vietnam-era service to both presidential campaigns, do you believe that Jimmy Carter did the right thing when he pardoned the draft dodgers from that war?"
2 Comments:
By 
DBK, at
Mon Sep 13, 03:01:00 PM:
The media, and now you, apparently, make these minor things the center of the discussion. To me it is one more reason to not trust George Bush. He has a pattern of not fulfiling his obligations or completing tasks. Afghanistan is a more recent instance, but his failure to complete his guard service according to contract is part of a long-term pattern. In the world of character issues, that's a biggy to me, at least. Some one who has no stick-to-itness is not someone you want working on world problems.
The claims of the document being forged, by the way, on the grounds of typeface or typewriter features have been debunked pretty thoroughly at this point by numerous people, and not anonymously.
To me, and to you as you seem to say, the latest documents are very minor. No, he didn't fulfill his obligations. However, to me, and apparently not to you, that says something significant about Bush, because the pattern of behavior has not changed appreciably over the years.
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Sep 13, 05:41:00 PM:
I'm with Frogsdong on this. (I never imagined myself allying with amphibian genitalia, but politics makes for strange bedfellows, eh?) The issue is Bush's credibility.
I'm surprised that anyone is buying the 'forgeries' meme put out by Scott McClellan and Right Wing Echo Chamber.
For thorough Debunking of the 'forgeries!' silliness try the following for starters...
dKos archive links to thorough dBunkin':
1) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/11/85456/6513
2) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603
Atrios archive links to further dBunkin' w/healthy dose of snark:
1)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp
2)http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_atrios_archive.html#109501519641851090
3)
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_atrios_archive.html#109500435830652601
4)http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_05_atrios_archive.html#109484049593405384
5)
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_05_atrios_archive.html#109482155763658088
