Friday, August 20, 2004

Vets combat Kerry and it's Bush's fault?

Kerry is doing damage control. He's getting accused by over 250 Vietnam vets, members of Swiftboat Vets For Truth, that he has repeatedly lied about his Vietnam service which Kerry has made a central focus in his campaign. At first he ignored them but now that they're having an effect, he blames Bush for it. What?

Washington Times wrote today:

John Kerry yesterday accused Vietnam veterans who say he didn't deserve his combat decorations of lying and blamed President Bush for not denouncing their television commercials laying out their charges....

Mr. Kerry yesterday aimed most of his fire at the president. "If he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."....

Now let me get this straight. Vets attack his service claims, and he want Bush to debate him? Bush has never said anything about his service in spite of the substantial evidence against Kerry. Bush has denounced 527 groups, which Swiftboat Vets For Truth is, and thinks that they are merely soft money that should be banned while Kerry thinks 527 groups are just fine...unless they're against him.

Both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush have said the other served honorably during Vietnam - Mr. Bush in the Texas Air National Guard, assigned to duty in the United States - but others have questioned the service of both men.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan yesterday said Mr. Kerry's attempts to tie Mr. Bush to the ads were "false and baseless." He would not specifically denounce the Swift boat ad, and repeated the White House assertion that all ads paid for by "soft money," large unregulated contributions to tax-exempt "527" organizations, should end.

"Senator Kerry should join us in calling for an end to all this soft money," Mr. McClellan said. "Senator Kerry has declined to do so. The president has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative false attacks from these shadowy groups."

This is classic Kerry not wanting to take responsibility for what he says and does and if someone ever questions him on it, he blames someone else. Do we want a Commander-In-Chief where the buck stops nowhere?

UPDATE: Generation Why? takes part in this discussion as well and makes some excellent points.