What the hell is going on?

The country is on a single-track mind about credibility, yet not in a helpful way. Our obsession with credibility is linked to the country's desire for a strong leader who we can count on to defend us. Kerry feels he is the man because kicked ass in Vietnam and alleging a direct contrast with Bush's actions during that time. Indeed, a Kerry spokesman claimed in a Washington post article I'll get to -

"Maybe if George Bush had seen combat up close his hired-gun mouthpiece wouldn't be so flip"

"Mr. McClellan needs to understand that John Kerry is not the type of leader who will sit and read 'My Pet Goat' to a group of second-graders while America is under attack."

While I definitely agree that Bush's response to the news was debatable to say the least, and that the contrast between Kerry and Bush's actions back in Vietnam show a difference in character we should all take a good look at in assessing the candidates, should these be at the forefront of the presidential election? I think not, or at least I wish they weren't. I personally think Bush has done enough wrong in four years to provide plenty of much more recent ammo for Kerry to use, let alone delve into past actions. About half the country has seen an ad from the Swift Boat Veterans, and many more heard of it, yet have that many really heard much about the fact that there were no substantive ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Do that many voters know about Kerry's health care or tax plan?

The Washington Post article I referenced before discussed the Swift Boat Veteran's new advertisement, about to be released. Here is what the new one is about:

"A new ad by the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth condemns the Democratic nominee for making allegations of war crimes and atrocities committed by American soldiers. "It hurt me more than any physical wounds I had," a Vietnam veteran says in the ad about Kerry's highly publicized testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971."

Wonderful, first they allege that Kerry lied to get his medals, even self-inflicted his wounds to get his military honors. Now they allege that hey, terrible shit actually didn't happen in Vietnam.

I wish Kerry could speak more openly about his anti-war activism. That, to me, means more than any of his medals. To have the courage at that age to testify before Congress and accuse the government of manhandling its boys in uniform when no one else did is remarkable. It is, however, a sensitive subject still, and many Vietnam vets think ill of him for it, thinking he was disrespecting their service. Far from it! Atrocities did happen, mass slaughter of the Vietnamese did happen, mass slaughter of our troops did happen. That should be acknowledged. What also must be acknowledged is the fact that in speaking out against a mistaken war in which both men in uniform and families at home were deceived Kerry helped save the lives of those who might have enlisted thinking fighting in Vietnam remained a worthwhile thing to do.