1) It isn't explicit, but it is clear that some of the statements in the commercial are aimed at what Kerry did after he let Viet Nam (such as the line about "betraying" his shipmates).Excellent analysis. If Kerry wants to trot out vets that support him, he should expect some resistance from those who support the other candidate. However, arguing over old memories of events 30 years old is going to be a non-starter, except to those who want to believe it.2) There are several, far more explosive, claims regarding Kerry's medals: one clear attack one on his first Purple Hearts and another on his Bronze Star.
Of the two sets of charges, the first are honest--there is no doubt that many Viet Nam vets feel as if he lied and betrayed them when he returned to the US and became and anti-war advocate, accusing US troops of atrocities and war crimes. The second set are far more controversial and highly problematic. In terms of smart politics, it would have been best to stick with the first set of objections, which are defensible. The second set may not be.
I still maintain that the biggest issue with Kerry's Vietnam service is not how he served, but that he pissed all over his own service with his public statements upon returning home. That in itself is not a problem - if he honestly felt that way about it. Yet here we are 30 years later, and his self-disparged service has become the centerpiece to his campaign.
In related news, a Rassmussen poll released yesterday (yes, the timing is definitely suspect) evaluated candidate support based on their military service or lack of it. The results:
| Group | Bush | Kerry |
|---|---|---|
| Veterans | 58 | 35 |
| Non-Vets | 51 | 41 |
