Redstate

Which brings me to the second observation, namely that it appears to me as though the Kerry campaign has just been played like a finely tuned instrument.  I could be wrong, but I suspect the Mad Genius at work here, and if so, Camp Kerry may have just walked into a trap.

Are you saying that the Bush folks are behind the ad?

Me, I'm not so sure that I -- I mean, Karl Rove, controls everything.

However, agreed on the tactical utility of what's happening here.  Well put.

Perhaps it is. I suspect however the mastermind is simply O'Neill. He's applying trial lawyer tactics in a political situation, and the cumulative effect of stories and complaints about Kerry may prove corrosive.

His calm demeanor on talk shows stands in stark contrast to the screaming Democrat party regulars (or even the hosts, as on Hardball). It does make one wonder whether there is already a third step, a fourth step, and more, just waiting to be revealed, each more damning than the other.

Is O'Neill, or anyone, that smart and resourceful?

I had forgotten this story from April. How dare you attack my military record! George Bush, on the other hand, is fair game.

Kerry, described by aides as fuming over Republican attacks on his Vietnam service and antiwar protests, unleashed one of his most pointed attacks against Bush, as the presidential campaign and debate over national security issues past and present turned personal.

"This comes from a president who can't even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the National Guard," Kerry said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "And I'm not going to stand for it."

Kerry was responding in part to criticism Sunday from Bush adviser Karen Hughes about whether he tossed away his service medals to protest the war in 1971. Kerry was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts during two tours in Vietnam.

And,

He charged Bush and the GOP of trying to discredit him with a "phony controversy." Then Kerry, who has avoided talking about the questions over Bush's National Guard service, said: "George Bush has yet to explain to America whether or not to tell the truth about whether he showed up for duty."

Nah, not really.  It;s just simple attack politics, and Kerry's being dumb enough to fall into it.

Lyndon Johnson, of course, is the author of the line that makes this technique famous: when he suggested advisors begin spreading rumors that one of his early political opponents had 'carnal relations' with barnyard sows, he responded to concerns about the truthfulness of the rumor with 'of course it's not true, but let's make the son of a bitch deny it."

The more time Kerry has to spend answering the SBVT attacks on his record, the less time he has to get his message out.  It's a time-honored campaign strategy, not some Machiavellian plot formulated by geniuses for this election.

My general experience has been that most traps are generally more a function of luck that than planning, but I certainly agree that Kerry's done a good job of poorly positioning himself.  Good analysis.

to ensure we don't argue the real issues that bind us.  Issues like this don't convince the base, they go after the mostly-disinterested "paper or plastic... I can't DECIDE!" voters.

it's a clever trap to have us talk about an old controversy that generated a lot of light and even heat but which is safe from the status quo perspective.  Whatever we decide doesn't affect current policy, and doesn't risk the base.

Talking about China, North Korea, the Economy, etc. etc. are far more risky.  

so yeah, it's a clever trap to entertain us without giving us anything worthwhile to solve.

....with this:

Whatever we decide doesn't affect current policy....

On the contrary, our views of what happened post-1970 in Vietnam are extremely relevant to the present war in Iraq.  And will become even moreso if John Kerry wins.

Wether it's old hat or not, it still qualifies as a trap in that it is a strategy employed specifically to entangle an unwary opponent, which the Kerry campaign has proven by their reaction to be.  If they had seen the trap and devised an appropriate response, as Tacitus suggested, the issue would already be dead on the shelf.  The swifties did not have enough money available to escalate the confrontation on their own.

As for importance of historical events, too many people have overlooked an important reason the Cambodia concoctions were so odious. Not only was Kerry dissembling about his "Christmas in Cambodia," he was doing so in order to attack U.S. foreign policy in Central America. In 1986, he was making things up and fabricating personal authenticity to lend support to Communist dictatorships. Just as he did in 1971.

Matters a lot, I think.

A couple of links I neglected in this version of the piece.  I added them to the version at my site, but they deserve to be posted here as well since the discussion is ongoing.

The first is the Second Swift Boat ad.  Very powerful, and worth watching.  It's a well crafted piece of work, probably one of the best commercials of the season in its pacing and delivery.

The second is the transcript of Kerry's testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971.  This is the infamous occasion referenced in the second ad and the real source of veteran discontent with Kerry.

Ah!  Now that would be an interesting discussion... what happened in Vietnam after we withdrew.

That would be something worth discussing... we could then also reconsider the war in light of that.  We could compare the opinions of the candidates as they weighed in on the remifications of this decision WITH the benefit of hindsight.  

We could take a lesson from history.  We're not talking about that.  We are debating the validity of battle decorations!  We are entertaining a debate brought in no small part because of resentment for Kerry's statements as a protester --- without reconsidering the question of the war itself... should we have withdrawn, ... if we had it to do over again ...

Now, I understand that strategically maybe this is the stuff that will win or lose this election, by definition that makes it "important"... but just in the "distracting firework show" sense.

There is little chance that Kerry will change his tune once elected and will advocate the kind of absolute withdrawal he did as a VVAW protester.

We could take a lesson from history.  We're not talking about that.  We are debating the validity of battle decorations!

"We" collectively are doing both.  I am doing the former.

There is little chance that Kerry will change his tune once elected and will advocate the kind of absolute withdrawal he did as a VVAW protester.

I agree he won't change his tune.  That's his tune already.

Agreed entirely. "Unfit to Serve" addresses the issue -- Kerry suggested it might be necessary to resettle 3,000 or so officials, IIRC, who might suffer retaliation. He didn't mention re-education camps.

Meanwhile, from Slings and Arrows, The Winter Soldier in downloadable format. A copyright violation, no doubt.

 a reduction of troops more akin to Nixon's plan than the VVAW.  Seems like current posisitions are telling us more than these other debates.

Do you think that Bush's history regarding Vietnam tells us what he's going to do?  Not really.  In fact, it would be pretty misleading to look to Bush's action then to figure out what he'll do in Iraq 2004-2010.

I'm with you just far enough to say that the way to make lemonade from these lessons is to push on the historical lessons... not the witness debates and old resentments of various sorts, but real questions about "Should we have been in Cambodia?"  "Should we have withdrawen the way we did?" and in general, "What are the lessons of past wars as they relate to Iraq?"

....involved full resupply, massive air support, and in general everything necessary for the RVN to sustain itself short of actual American infantry.

There's no clue that Kerry will even make that minimum commitment.

SBVT led with a highly controversial ad questioning Kerry's fitness for office, whether he deserved his medals, &c.  It generated weeks of contoversy and attempted squelches from Kerry/Edwards, turning a small, inexpensive ad into a national phenomena.  Now, just when they have everyone's attention, SBVT unleashes a new ad using Kerry's own words from his  "Winter Soldier" speech to let a huge new audience experience first-hand Kerry's postwar politics.

Exquisitely timed, I would say.  And it must have the Kerry folks gnawing their fingernails to the quick and wondering what's next.

Bush almost blew his best chance to win today. He practically gave the media permission to drop the swiftboat issue.

But then Edwards topped Bush's blunder with one of his own. Edwards said Bush hadn't gone far enough because Bush wouldn't deny the Swiftboaters' allegations. That was a huge mistake.

He put the attention smack dab on the allegations. Edwards could have said, "It's about time our opponent cleared this up. We are glad the president is on board with us."

Then the Dems could keep advertising and the Swiftboat issue might have drifted away with a more than willing media there to help Kerry in whatever way it can.

 

Kerry's experience in Vietnam and afterward is not predictive in a strict policy sense, or at least it's not by itself. It's predictive in a character sense, which is important, and it helps as the earliest data points in the larger pattern of Kerry's career. You know, the part that is both the bulk of his record and is not being emphasized by his campaign.

That Kerry went to Paris and helped shatter any illusions that the official US delegation was the sole available negotiating party might be dismissed as a young man doing something stupid except that he did a similar disservice to our country in Nicaragua during the 80s.  There was no growth and maturity on Kerry's part after over a decade and a half in public life.

Kerry's precipitous withdrawal plans for Vietnam could similarly be dismissed except that they fit in very well with his subsequent record in the Senate where he seems to have continued in like fashion, always advocating a cut in this program or that and adopting the most defensive of postures out of the realistic choices available at the time.

I expect that the pacing of the campaign is being done fairly well and the current Vietnam episodes are foundational. When Labor Day has come and gone, the bulk of the voting public will be paying attention. It's at that time that the dots, having been drawn in August, will be connected when the voters are paying attention.

what percentage of Americans thinks Kerry was right about Vietnam when he testified back in the seventies, what percentage still thinks we could have "won," and what percentage wasn't born yet and is most concerned about whether Iraq will still be grinding up our soldiers after 2005.