Bad Moon Rising

I'm afraid I have to concur with Jeff Dubner of TAPPED, who writes that the next series of accusations from SBVT could mean big trouble for Kerry.

Judging from the timing of this new round of attacks, I do get the impression that this was the plan all along: To fire the opening shot with this claim about Kerry's medals, followed by this. Unfortunately, by responding directly to the first round of attacks (which, in fairness, I agree that he probably had to do), Kerry may have played right into Bush's hands (and I'm just going to go ahead and equate SBVT with BC04 if that's okay by you, and, well, even if it's not) by further raising the profile of the group.

I think Dubner is right to point out that this charge, unlike the other, may be more damaging because (1) it has a kernel of truth to it, and (2) former POWs, even more than veterans in general, will come across fairly sympathetically. I also suspect that BC04 (at least some of its more intemperate mouthpieces) will tie this back into Kerry's opposition (such as it has been) to Iraq, saying, See? Questioning Bush really does mean you support the terrorists and that you hate America.

I don't think it will work to go after the specific people making the charge, or to catch them in little lies and inconsistencies. The broader point -- questioning Kerry's antiwar activities -- is what's key here.

So, the question is, what to do about all this? How can the Kerry camp respond? Well, I think we can eliminate a couple of possible responses fairly easily:

• Hey, it was 30 years ago and I was just really, really upset about the war. That's just not going to cut it. Kerry is using Vietnam not only as an impressive line on his c.v. but also to argue that his experiences taught him valuable lessons about judgment.
  
• I was trying to end the war as quickly as possible so that fewer Americans would be killed, injured, and taken prisoner. That's closer to the mark, but it still strikes me ultimately as an ineffective response. At best, all this does is mitigate the damage that the initial attack does, but that's still a net gain for Bush.

The best answer I've been able to come up with in the past few hours (as I have been watching the Yankees) is something like this:

• Responsibility: First, Kerry has got to own up to it; he should say, with clarity, that he regrets any suffering that his words may have caused. It has to be clear enough to serve as an effective counterpoint to Kerry's alleged "flip-floppiness," and to Bush's utter refusal to take responsibility for anything he does.
  
• Empathy: Kerry also must express sympathy more generally for the plight of former POWs. It won't be enough, I think, to just broaden this to all Vietnam vets.
  
• Defense: Kerry should stress that his intent in speaking out was to end an unjust war as soon as possible, reminding people that as the war dragged on, it would mean more Americans killed, wounded, and taken prisoner. This was not just the ranting of a disordered mind, or of some communist hippie freak; these were the thoughts of somebody who had been there, who had seen the horrors of war, and who was doing what he sincerely believed to be his patriotic duty. Kerry should say that this was one of the great tragedies of Vietnam: it forced vets like Kerry to make an impossible choice, to decide whether they could better serve their country--and the soldiers still fighting in Vietnam--by speaking out against an unjust, unnecessary, and unwinnable war, knowing that such statements might be hurtful to some of their brothers in arms, or by merely holding their tongues and hoping for their safe return.
  
• Lesson: Kerry should stress that this is a terrible choice to force upon someone, and it is a good illustration for why you shouldn't go to war unless the justification is clear, and unless there is no other alternative.
  
• Counterattack: He should then make the link to Iraq. Bush has made all the same mistakes, all over again. By rushing the country to war, without a clear plan for victory, and more without giving the American people a fair public debate--a chance to decide for themselves, based on accurate information, whether it was worth it to send young men and women off into harm's way--Bush has forced exactly this kind of choice on many more young American servicemen. And that's a great disservice to American servicemen.

I'm not convinced that what I've just written is the answer, but I do think that any effective response will have to do the basic things I've outlined above: (1) Take responsibility; (2) empathize with the victims; (3) show you're still a good guy; (4) say what you've learned; and (5) score points on the other guy.

And put your seats and tray tables in the upright positions, folks, because the rest of campaign is going to be just like this. It ain't gonna be easy.