Press Action ::: It’s the Bogus War in Iraq, Stupid

Thursday, February 12, 2004

It’s the Bogus War in Iraq, Stupid

Not George W.’s 30-Year-Old National Guard Status

George W. Bush was a hard-drinking, drug-taking, womanizing frat boy who probably didn’t meet all of his commitments while in the National Guard in the early 1970s. Most people know this. By reminding the electorate of his murky military status in the 1972-73 period, the Democrats hope to catch the attention of the undecided voters among us and spur them to question whether Bush can be trusted to revive his role as “war president.” The Democrats also hope to juxtapose Bush’s decision to avoid combat in Vietnam through his service in the Air National Guard with John Kerry’s medal-winning tour of duty in Southeast Asia.

The strategy could gain Kerry some converts in the voting booth as long as the Democrats aren’t seen as over-playing their hand and the Bushies fail in their attempt to prove without a doubt that George W. did indeed meet all of his National Guard commitments. The press has latched onto this topic to a degree reminiscent of its coverage of Bill Clinton’s draft-dodger status. Yet, Clinton still managed to win election despite the negative press about the absence of military experience on his resume.

The Bush/Quayle team also was victorious in 1988 despite charges that Dan Quayle used family influence to get into the Indiana National Guard in 1969, thereby avoiding the draft and possible combat in Vietnam. It’s interesting to note that Republicans now feel comfortable claiming that George W.’s decision to enter the National Guard was not an attempt to avoid going to Vietnam. During the 1988 presidential race, it was understood by both Democrats and Republicans that joining the National Guard was clearly a path taken by those men who wanted to avoid combat in Vietnam. The only quarrel in 1988 was whether Quayle used family connections to get into the National Guard, not whether service in the Guard was a way to evade the draft. Everyone knew it was.

Sixteen years makes a difference, especially in this age of 24-hour news cycles and short attention spans. Many Bush supporters are saying today that those who joined the Guard were not trying to avoid going to Vietnam. Even John Kerry has said in recent weeks that he will not criticize Bush’s decision to join the Guard instead of going to Vietnam, even though Bush has said he supported the war. Kerry also said this week following his victories in the Virginia and Tennessee primaries that he doesn’t want to hear his surrogates questioning whether Bush fulfilled his National Guard service.

To their credit, the warmongers on the staff of the Washington Post’s editorial page offered some plain talk in today’s issue about George W.’s Vietnam war-avoidance strategy:

“[I]t’s a little hard to take Mr. Bush seriously when he makes his Guard service look like something more than what it was: an obvious effort to avoid going to Vietnam. “I put in my time, proudly so,” he told NBC’s Tim Russert. But as was made abundantly clear before the 2000 election, Mr. Bush, like so many young men of his generation, used the Guard to get out of the draft. He signed up when he was 12 days away from losing his student deferment, at a time when 350 Americans a week were dying in Vietnam. Somehow, Mr. Bush — whose father was then a member of Congress — managed to get in on the day he applied; his commander later staged a special ceremony so he could have his picture taken administering the oath to the younger Bush. It’s even harder to take when Mr. Bush seeks to hide behind the heroic service of Guard members in combat today. ‘It’s fine to go after me ... I wouldn’t denigrate service to the Guard, though,’ he said Sunday. But his relatively risk-free tour in Texas and Alabama wasn’t equivalent to those of reservists he has sent to Iraq.”

Like George W., Dan Quayle also had to confront the drug issue, although it wasn’t until the eve of the 1988 election that accusations of Quayle’s drug use hit the news. Federal prisoner Brett Kimberlin told the news media in the fall of 1988 that he had sold marijuana to Quayle when Quayle was a law student in the early 1970s. Prison officials set up a press conference to accommodate the large volume of news media requests for interviews with Kimberlin.

Upon hearing of the planned press conference, the deputy press secretary of the Bush/Quayle campaign made several telephone calls to the Department of Justice about Kimberlin’s contacts with the news media. Bureau of Prisons Director Michael Quinlan subsequently cancelled the press conference, citing a department policy. Quinlan also placed Kimberlin in “administrative detention” until the election was over.

While the press continues to have an avid interest in candidates’ Vietnam-era military status and past drug use, most undecided voters don’t care what happened 30, 35 or 40 years ago. They only understand what they see in the present. And what they are noticing on the nightly news and the cable talk shows today is a president claiming he’s the perfect man to protect them from the world’s evildoers for the next four years.

The Democrats could counter Bush’s claims of strong leadership by running a campaign that emphasizes how a Kerry administration would clean up the mess in Iraq — created by the lies and deception of the Bush administration — by bringing the troops home, immediately.

By driving home the fact that the Iraq war had nothing to do with protecting the security of Americans at home or abroad, there would be no stigma of defeat or retreat attached to an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops because all the blame would be placed on the Bush administration for leading the nation into a bogus war. Kerry’s stump speech this summer could go like this: “As we now know, President Bush led us into an unnecessary war in Iraq. It was a war conceived through lies and manipulation. If elected president, I will thank our troops for their heroic service. And to show my appreciation, I will issue a presidential directive my first day in office, ordering our troops in Iraq to come home, thereby preventing any future casualties among the brave and dedicated members of the U.S. armed forces.”

Will the Kerry campaign adopt this strategy? It’s highly improbable. Kerry and his advisers are likely already developing a script for convincing the American public that he, not George Bush, is the man — with the war hero’s medals to prove it — who is best-positioned to lead America to ultimate victory in the pacification of Iraq and in the so-called war on terrorism.

— Mark Hand

More from Mark Hand