|
John Kerry's military service should be a much bigger asset than it is, but he hasn't made the most of it. The parallels between Vietnam and Iraq in terms of lack of preparation, ill-advised tactics and penalities to our service-people are overwhelming.
Kerry, by virtue of having been sent on one of the most ill-advised missions of the Vietnam War, the Swift Boat patrols, is in the position to argue that he knows a bad plan when he sees one, BECAUSE HE HAS LIVED IT. And, Kerry should argue, the other guys didn't recognize the gaps in their plan (they "miscalculated," in Bush's own words), because they have no military experience.
"I served, and they didn't," is a good start. But Kerry needs to explain what his service would mean, or would have meant, for the war we're now in. Make the link directly, and state that Bush/Cheney's lack of military experience clearly led them to endorse a disastrous military plan.
The fact that Kerry served in Vietnam 35 years ago is being used by the opposition to minimize the relevance of his service to his fitness to serve as commander in chief. Racicot on CNN today said Kerry keeps making the same mistake, using "four months" many years ago to "cover up for his record since."
This is an attack they will continue to use, because it's working. Kerry needs to develop new lines of attack of his own, and turn the conversation from, "I served in Vietnam and they didn't," to "Why my service makes me more fit to be a commander in chief in these times than my (chicken hawk) opponents."
|