WSJ'S LATEST ATTACK ON KERRY: CLOSE BUT, AH, NO CIGAR

The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page thinks they can label Kerry a hypocrite by printing his 1992 speech decrying fellow Democrat Bob Kerrey's attacks on Clinton for not serving.

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 we now, 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.

Kerry closes by saying:

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.

I'm sure the WSJ thinks that this will help fuel the "unprincipled waffler" meme on Kerry. I'm sure Drudge thinks so too.

Trouble is, to compare Kerry's 1992 comments to what he's saying now is simply not useful or relevant.

John Kerry is not attacking Bush's avoiding the Vietnam war by getting a spot in the Texas Air National Guard (with an assist from daddy and Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes, mind you). John Kerry, like me, is attacking Bush for the following sequence of choices:

1) Avoiding his National Guard duty in late '72, and perhaps in early '73 as well, by simply blowing it off.
2) Lying about it.
3) Refusing to release his full records.
and particularly,
4) Flaunting his National Guard service for electoral gain, through both his biography and the U.S.S. Lincoln "mission accomplished" festivities.

(I'm starting to notice that I enjoy labeling things numerically)

#1, in and of itself, is not that big a deal, but #2, #3, and #4, each to a progressively larger degree, make it a real issue. It's Bush's choices that have allowed his Guard service (and lack thereof) to linger as a campaign issue. This, as with many other issues like WMD, the 9/11 commission, and all these rosy economic projections, cut at the heart of Bush's character and credibility.

Once again, John Kerry criticized Bob Kerrey for making Bill Clinton's Vietnam decision on the merits a campaign issue. Now, John Kerry is criticizing George W. Bush for skipping out on his decision to serve in a branch of the United States Armed Forces, and then stonewalling and lying about it, and then flaunting it. If you don't see the difference, as the WSJ apparently doesn't, then you're being, um, strategically ignorant.