On preferring rock to sand for your foundation.

Today's article by William Saletan in Slate, Being There, demonstrates exactly why the SwiftVets are dangerous to Bush, and why, immediately after the convention, he should specifically single them out as wrong and unhelpful:

For the past month, a group of veterans funded by a Bush campaign contributor and advised by a Bush campaign lawyer has attacked the story of John Kerry's heroism in Vietnam. They have argued, contrary to all known contemporaneous records, that Kerry was too brutal in a counterattack that earned him the Silver Star, and that he survived only mines, not bullets, when he rescued a fellow serviceman from a river. President Bush, who joined the National Guard as a young man to avoid Vietnam, has been challenged to denounce the group's charges. He has refused.

Now the Republican National Convention is showcasing Bush's own heroic moment. As John McCain put it last night: "I knew my confidence was well placed when I watched him stand on the rubble of the World Trade Center with his arm around a hero of September 11 and, in our moment of mourning and anger, strengthen our unity and our resolve by promising to right this terrible wrong and to stand up and fight for the values we hold dear."

Pardon me for asking, but where exactly is the heroism in this story? Where, indeed, is the heroism in anything Bush has done before 9/11 or since?

Nine-tens of battle is choosing the right ground -- of framing the right question. The SwiftVets, aided and encouraged by folks who should know better, have spent millions framing the wrong question: Is he a hero? I don't doubt that Kerry's has had trouble (and maybe can't) answer this question. That's bad. But, worse for Bush, I know that he has an answer to this question: his answer is "no." Smart, competent, bold, resolute -- perhaps. Personally brave? No. (At least, we've never seen it.)

Bush needs to put the SwiftVets behind him like they never were there. He's gotten some mileage out of them, sure. (At some cost: whether it's Vietnam-era war protestors or Swifties, I don't like to see folks spit on another's military service -- literally or figuratively. It's bad for the Republic.*) But the needle is about to swing the other direction. It's time to jettison the SwiftVets, and leave Col. Kurtz and crew alone and seething in their huts, far, far up the river.

UPDATE: In comments, Edward asks if I expect folks to start questioning Bush's bravery. No, I don't, per se. (Though Saletan did, and I expect other lefty pundits will.) But, being frequent witness to petty disputes (I'm a trial lawyer for large corporations, see), I can tell you that the human mind seems to abhor a single standard unfairly applied. If your opponent's courage is questioned, your courage is put on the line as well -- even where you're not necessarily the one doing the questioning.

In part, the issue boils down to: How will the story continue, if it is allowed to do so? We've pretty much heard whatever truth the Swifties may have. They've shot their wad, and their successive firings are each less impressive than the last. (BTW, I agree with Pejman, who observed on Redstate.org that the Swifties should have led with Kerry's far-more-damning '71 testimony.) The "Bush is behind it all" story is simmering, and, with the right event, may boil up. But far more appealing to the chattering classes is the meta-narrative revealed in Saletan's piece. That's the story that says something relevant about Kerry (he may have lied, but he served) at the same time it says something relevant about Bush (he may have lied, but he didn't serve). Once folks stop looking at Kerry in Vietnam, and start looking at Kerry and Bush in the Vietnam era, Kerry wins the beauty contest -- at least on this issue. In attacking Kerry's flaws, the SwiftVet's inadvertently draw attention to Bush's flaws as well. The sword is double edged -- though it may not seem to be at first. (Bush knew it was double edged fairly early -- see, e.g., his praise for Kerry's service and humility regarding his own.)

von

*On NPR this morning, I learned that I apparently have the temperment of a moderate, middle-aged Republican woman from a swing state.

Comments

[carsick]

Apocalypse Now starring von as Willard: Watch as von is forced to report on the horror the horror he sees as he travels into the Heart of Darkness.

"Everyone gets everything he wants. I wanted a mission and for my sins they gave me one."

(I hate these little semicolon/colon doohickeys but :-) or is it ;) I'm just havin' fun)

[Edward]

Not sure I'm following exaclty, von, do you think folks will take shots at the President's courage?

If so, is that wise? He is one of the few people in world who can convincingly answer the question: "You and what army?"

(forget where I heard that line...loved it though)

[von]

Not sure I'm following exaclty, von, do you think folks will take shots at the President's courage?

I don't think folks will take a shot at the President's courage per se. (Saleten did, but I figure it's an outlier.) But, if your opponent's courage is questioned, your courage is put on the line as well -- even if you're not the one doing the questioning, but merely benefiting from it.

I'll update the post to clarify.

[toby]

the swift boat attack has done its damage and bush got his 5 points. it would be politically wise for bush to significantly distance himself from their campaign. 527's in support of kerry have yet to counter attack bush on his service record. The more distance bush bush can put between himself and the angry swift boat vets the worse it would look for kerry if his supporters bring up something along the same lines.

[Thorley Winston]

The title of this post should be changed to “More Advice To Bush From A Guy Who Already Said He Wasn’t Voting For Him Anyway.”

Oh please, Bush doesn’t need to do a thing about the Swift Vets but to (a) state (truthfully) that he has always honored John Kerry’s service in Vietnam and (b) (wrongly*) go after all the 527’s negative attack ads which have overwhelmingly been anti-Bush/pro-Kerry.

As far as Von’s contrived concern over the effects of “spitting” on someone’s “military service,” I’m sorry but I missed the post where Von condemned Kerry’s false accusations of his fellow Veterans of coming war crimes on a daily basis. This really isn’t about Bush so much as it is a lot of pissed off veterans paying back Kerry for what they see as his besmirching their service and a lot of people realize that which is why it hasn’t and probably won't hurt Bush no matter who funds the ads.

* I didn’t agree with Mc-Cain Feingold and I support the right of private individuals to spend as much of their own money on political speech as they wish. However, politically it’s an astute move and reframes the issue to Bush’s advantage by reinforcing the image of Kerry as being duplicitous and thin-skinned.

[Edward]

As far as Von’s contrived concern over the effects of “spitting” on someone’s “military service,”

Unless you can back up the "contrived" bit, Thorley, you need to retract that.

[hilzoy]

Thorley: If you can tell me where Kerry said that everyone who served in Vietnam committed atrocities, I'd be grateful. Alternately, if you'd care to argue that no atrocities were committed there, OK. But if you're objecting to Kerry saying that atrocities were committed there even though he was telling the truth, please explain why exactly you think this is objectionable.

Also, if memory serves, the objection to the SwiftVets wasn't that they criticized Kerry, but that they said things about him that were flatly false. Unless you can show some evidence of ads about Bush that contained false statements about matters of fact, and were not specifically disavowed by Kerry, there's no double standard.

[von]

Thorley:

Oh please, Bush doesn’t need to do a thing about the Swift Vets but to (a) state (truthfully) that he has always honored John Kerry’s service in Vietnam and (b) (wrongly*) go after all the 527’s negative attack ads which have overwhelmingly been anti-Bush/pro-Kerry.

No. (a) Bush has always (and repeatedly) stated that Kerry's service in Vietnam is honorable. There's no need for him to recite that liturgy again; what's needed is a direct answer to thsi specific issue. (b) On the 527 law: Bush needs to disown it, 'cause it's crap (Mitch McConnel was right) -- oh, wait, Bush was the guy who signed it into law! Silly me for forgetting. (c) He needs to quit the lawyerly locutions about condemning all 527s -- the time for him to do something about 527s was prior to his decision to spin crap into law. He needs make the Swifties go away.

Suggestion regarding your proposed title change is noted; however, given my Hamlet-like wailing on the issue, I think most readers know my biases. Perhaps too well: If I can put myself in the exalted company of Sully and Drezner: We're talking the Axis of Whine, baby. Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine.

As far as Von’s contrived concern over the effects of “spitting” on someone’s “military service,” I’m sorry but I missed the post where Von condemned Kerry’s false accusations of his fellow Veterans of coming war crimes on a daily basis.

You must have posted before the update, where I specifically noted that I agreed with Pejman that the '71 testimony is far more damning; rightfully so.