|
Edited on Sun Feb-08-04 11:51 PM by salin
is different than it was in Viet Nam. Kerry is correct that those opting the Guard during Viet Nam were selecting an option that gave a very small likelihood of ever going to Viet Nam. That is point one. Point two are the questions about Bush's absenteeism during that service. Both points are legitimate.
The original post is also correct that this is a silly dodge attempt, and I hope that we don't see it repeated by the media, but if we do - then Kerry should use it as well. The service situation today vs then are very different. Today, with an all volunteer army, the reserves, are just that - on reserve and ready to serve, and in times of war very likely to be called up. During the draft period in Viet Nam, this was not the case. It is also a dodge in that it wants to make the case focus on Guard vs Service (as it did with Dan Quayle, and didn't cause too much damage) - to try to divert the conversation away from bush's awol/absenteeism. So will the media respond and go with the implicit smear on Kerry (bush's claim that the discussion is a maligning of members of the Guard), or will they follow the diversion (and just talk about Guard duty), or will they stick with the story.
If Kerry doesn't already, he should use "Fortunate Son" as a theme song for some of his campaign stops. Helps make that distinction symbolically.
|