Amazon.com Widgets

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Christmas in Cambodia hits the MSM in today's Boston Globe, but not as a news item, instead it comes in the form of an Op-Ed from Kerry partisan, Joan Vennochi, who urges the Senator to speak out for himself. The trouble is, Vennochi demonstrates why this is such a radioactive subject for Kerry - it's almost impossible for Kerry to sound good, because it's becoming increasingly clear that there is no good explanation for Kerry's prevarications. Even this piece that purports to defend Kerry's record doesn't come out helping him much in substance.

Boston Globe: Speak for yourself, John Kerry:

THROUGH SURROGATES, George W. Bush is trying to discredit the story of John Kerry, war hero. John Kerry should not leave his defense to surrogates.

Actually, it's John Kerry's past that created those men, the SwiftVets. George Bush hasn't had to lift a finger. They're not fabricated surrogates. They are real flesh and blood veterans - over 250 of Kerry's former peers - who don't like him much, and would rather oppose him than see one of their own become President.

Regular readers know I do not appreciate Kerry's nuance regarding Iraq, his fence-straddling on issues like gay marriage and his recent effort to finesse a career of pro-choice votes by now stressing a belief that life begins at conception. It adds up to an unseemly effort to side-step the label that best describes his voting record: liberal.

Now you're talkin'! Own it.

Kerry should focus more on the lessons of Vietnam, and less on his heroics in Vietnam. If he were true to those lessons, he would not be telling voters he would have voted to authorize war with Iraq knowing all that we now know.

You know, I have to say I think that's one of the few things Kerry has been consistent on - remember, Kerry never really meant that we should actually invade Iraq (Well, he did, but this is his story now.), he only meant the vote as a threat, but George Bush 'effed' it up and went and actually attacked! Who could know?

But criticizing him for political expedience is different from calling him a liar. That's what the Swift Boat Vets for Bush are doing. By questioning Kerry's version of events during his tour of duty, these veterans are helping Bush plant seeds of doubt about Kerry's truthfulness.

They're not only for Bush...scratch that...they're not so much for Bush, as they are AGAINST (all caps) Kerry. And they know whether Kerry is telling the truth or not. They were there.

There is something ridiculous about a president without credibility attacking his opponent's credibility.

There would be if that were true, but of course it isn't The President making these accusations - something no amount of hand waving should distract the reader from - and need I mention that The President's integrity remains intact, thank you very much.

But ridiculous as it may be, Kerry ignores the attack at his peril. If Bush and Kerry are both liars, it gives voters a reason to rationalize sticking with Bush.

Bush is the known purveyor of false information. He is the president who convinced a nation to wage war because, as he told us, Iraq represented an imminent threat to America....

Vennochi is lying here. George Bush said no such thing. In fact, he said the opposite. More distracting hand waiving...

He is the president who invaded another country on the basis of bad intelligence or bad faith -- it doesn't really matter which.

It doesn't? You mean it doesn't matter whether he made his decisions in good conscience based on the best and widely available and accepted information, processed under decision-making conditions that resulted in conclusions many accepted as a worthy course of action - as opposed to simple outright manipulation, prevarication and flip-flop...something a Kerry Presidency is looking more and more likely to guarantee? I believe it does matter, and I believe it is going to matter to the voters - most of whom will come to the correct conclusions.

Either scenario explains why people don't trust the administration's terror warnings. Bush's current state of political vulnerability is a direct product of the nation's collective skepticism about him and his administration. Based on their track record, there is precious little reason to trust them on anything.

A feeling lying, hand-waiving journalists are only too willing to feed into and foster. With pundits like this helping us make sense of things, no wonder we barely have enough sense to get in out of the rain - or heed the terror warnings of the people who we employ to protect us.

Kerry offers the promise of a credible voice speaking truth to Americans and the world. Therefore, Bush's one hope for reelection rests in changing that perception about Kerry. The incumbent must somehow turn this election into a choice between liars. That's what the Bush campaign is doing via the book, "Unfit for Command," written by the Vietnam veterans who question Kerry's actions in the war, and via a Willie Horton-like television commercial by those same vets that has been denounced by Democrats and Republicans alike. However, having surrogates denounce an ad and question the motives of the attackers does not necessarily diminish their effectiveness. There are two lines of attack: the first is that Kerry does not deserve his war medals; the second raises doubts about past statements Kerry made about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968.

Thank you, thank you, for bringing these issues into the pages of the Boston Globe. Now maybe people will become curious. Where's that little Starship Troopers hyperlink, "Want to Learn More?"

One of the things that made the Willie Horton ads infamous, BTW, was their apparent play on racial fears. There's quite a bit more substance to the SwiftVet accusations - a whole book's worth.

It's unlikely voters will be swayed much by questions about Kerry's specific acts of heroism. For every charge about what he did and under what circumstances, there are crewmates who passionately vouch for his bravery. Besides, many voters will conclude that simply by being in Vietnam, Kerry put his life on the line; who are they to judge what makes a hero? (Clearly, "modest hero" will not be his epitaph, but that is another issue.)

True, but it's not unlikely that voters who would have given Kerry credit for his service, and looked the other way on what he did when he came home, will find his tall-tales a bit more than can be overlooked and excused.

Kerry's statements about Cambodia do have traction for opponents.

Do they ever! Because it's an issue of substance being put forward by people with the credibility to make the issue stick. Writing them off as "Bush supporters" (is that really expected to work?) and otherwise cheap attempts to wave shiny objects in front of voters, just won't work.

He has referred to spending Christmas or Christmas Eve 1968 in Cambodia and coming under fire. At the time Cambodia was neutral and supposedly off-limits to US troops. "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia," Kerry said in 1986 at a Senate committee hearing on US policy toward Central America. "I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there, the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."

The Kerry campaign now says Kerry's runs into Cambodia came in early 1969. "Swift boat crews regularly operated along the Cambodian border from Ha Tien on the Gulf of Thailand to the rivers of the Mekong south and west of Saigon," Michael Meehan, a Kerry adviser, said in a statement last week. "Many times he was on or near the Cambodian border and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia at the request of members of a special operations group."

Answers like that aren't good enough. Kerry put his Vietnam service before voters as the seminal character issue of his presidential campaign. He should answer every question voters have about it -- and he should answer them himself.

Thank you, thank you, again, for bringing this issue into the pages of the Boston Globe. There's a growing problem for Kerry. He can't speak out in defense of himself on this issue, it increasingly appears, because...well...he has nothing to say, and even his supporters - or 'surrogates,' to borrow a term - risk making things worse by bringing this issue - an issue of undeniable substance - to an increasing number of people.

Update: Patterico makes short work of today's LA Times' Kerry advocacy handling of the issue, and Beldar has a lengthy fisking.

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Is Vennochi trying to float or sink Kerry?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/2983

» Kerry's Cambodia Story Update at the blog New England Republican

There was some movement on the Christmas in Cambodia Story yesterday that I wasn't able to get to. Plenty of good bloggers were all over the developments though so I will just summarize and provide links. Read More

1 Comment

Good Fisk on this column. I found some of Joan's rhetoric offensive, especially "He is the president who invaded another country on the basis of bad intelligence or bad faith -- it doesn't really matter which". This is just a plain dumb thing to say, since this only is a matter of indifference to the liberal media.

I feel you have to give the lady some credit, though. Her last 3 paragraphs are dead on. Compare that with the LA Times "story" that has far more spin than substance. In my blogged opinion, Joan is like the canary in the mine. A leading indicator who will say things people are thinking while the Liberal Media remains silent and self-censored.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Search


Archives
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]