In a recent interview Kerry accuses the Bush campaign of getting very “angry” in regards to the Vietnam era. First of all, this “anger” is purely imagined. I believe it is the dems who are more known for their anger in the recent months. How often does one see Bush or Rumsfeld or Condoleezza Rice foaming at the mouth ala Al Gore or Howard Dean? He’s trying to spin. The Kerry campaign is aware that Mr. Kerry’s actual voting record indicates that he is extremely weak on defense and more or less anti-military. Democrats are trying to switch the debate to the Vietnam era. Kerry himself is, like so many Dems did previously, whining about being called unpatriotic somehow.
As was the case before, right after 9-11, the Dems are imagining that someone is questioning their patriotism, when in reality it is their policies and voting records/tendencies that are being called into question. Kerry will continue to try to talk about 30 years ago in an effort to avoid the much more relevant issue of how strong he is on defense based on his voting record. Moreover, the fundamental difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry has no proactive vision of the war on terror. He, if anything, (because after all it is rare to hear him o pine about truly relevant defense issues) leans towards a more law enforcement based answer to terror which is reactive rather than proactive. Kerry would never seek to find these terrorists were they live and route them out, he would rather wait until we get hit, then find those responsible and then wait until the next attack.
This issue of the prosecution of the war on terror is the most important issue of our time and Kerry can continue to smokescreen and bring up almost any other, less pressing, issue but eventually the American people will see which candidate is a stronger wartime president.
