Uniform Justice
I'm not about to say that a man's military record is irrelevant to the question of his leadership because, for one thing, American History proves otherwise (e.g., Washington, Jackson, Grant, et al.). And that is, as I suggested here recently, entirely just. If you're going to go through the crucible of fire for the sake of your country, you have earned the right to move ahead of the line and be given preferential treatment. It's a measure of a man's character and courage and it is something to be rewarded.

John Kerry went and served his country in the Viet Nam War. He did so with distinction. No one can take that or the fact of his bravery away from him. But is it just, for him or for those who support him, to then use his record to bludgeon his political opponents? I don't think so. While his service is a demonstration of his character and patriotism, it is not an irrevocable trump card or some license to demean the character of others.

And let's be clear about that in the context of Kerry's and Bush's generation. By the time it was over, the Viet Nam War was hugely unpopular with most Americans. It was the most divisive thing that had happened to our country since the Civil War. For millions of Americans, the question of whether one should serve in that war became a test of morality and patriotism. Many veterans of Viet Nam, including Kerry himself, became vehement opponents of our involvement there. And, needless to say, there were many more on the Left who had been opposed to the war from the start, but who never served. These young men sought out deferments or they fled and resisted the draft. They first held LBJ and, then, Nixon responsible for killing babies and burning villages and destroying a whole generation of their own peers in what they saw as an immoral war. But, again, these young men did not serve.

So, where are those young men now? They are middle-aged men. Baby boomers with Leftist attitudes. Checkbook and armchair liberals who live lives of affluence gained on the degrees they took in college 35 years ago while other men of their generation went and served in a war that they refused to or avoided. And, now, when it serves their disdain for George W. Bush, they want to cash in vicariously on Kerry's war record because they think it will make Bush look bad? That's enormously hypocritical. Just think about it: liberal Bush-haters calling him a deserter in the time of a war that they themselves opposed. What nonsense.

It would be one thing if Bush reminded people, as Kerry does with practically every exhalation, that he did serve in uniform, but he doesn't. Why is that? I think it's because Bush has long kept the experience of his service in perspective. No, he didn't serve in Viet Nam. In fact, he explicitly wished not to. Instead, he took full advantage of his father's political connections to obtain the best possible assignments inside the Air National Guard. It also seems likely, based on what I have read, that he had enough juice to have his commitment ended early. Yet, none of this makes Bush exceptional. That's because, whether or not idealists wish to believe it, the military is a political establishment and strings do get pulled.

The bottom line is that our President was no wartime coward or shirker, and it's incredibly unfair of his detractors to now paint him as such. Bush didn't run off to some foreign college or cross over into Canada or cook up some medical disability; he joined the Texas Air National Guard and learned how to fly F-102's. Had the war in Viet Nam intensified or continued, he might very possibly have had to go. Other men in units like his did. In any event, what Bush trained to do was inherently dangerous: what coward goes and flies fighter planes to avoid serving his country? Moreover, our President was honorably discharged. He did his duty as he saw fit.

I have no respect for liberals and Leftists who think it's appropriate to try and show up the President with Kerry's war record. Kerry's heroism doesn't make Bush a coward. Get it? That's essentially what the Democrats are hoping to insinuate and it pisses me off. But if they and Kerry wish to make an issue of it, I think we should also make something of Kerry's lies and manipulations from the time of his protests. He's on record with a lot of questionable statements that he may have to answer for. He says he is not sure if he wants to make an issue of his and the President's military experiences. I think he is.

post script: Here's a fairly balanced essay on Bush's record.