An interesting article on Slate from the normally frustrating Christopher Hitchens on Kerry's conundrum when it comes to challenging Bush on
Vietnam and Iraq.
While I don't agree with Hitchens on Iraq, he makes a good point.
Sooner or later, Sen. John Kerry is going to have to say which he thought was the noble cause: the war or the antiwar movement. In the later movement, he clearly was not numbered among the "moderates."
...
It would be easier for Kerry to find his voice on this, perhaps, if he could remove the cluster of frogs that lurk in his throat whenever he is questioned about his position on Iraq.
As someone who protested early and often against the war in Iraq (and truth be told, the first Gulf War, too), I agree with Hitchens that it seems hypocriticial to now be calling Bush AWOL when Clinton was clearly a draft dodger, just because we have a candidate in Kerry who was both a soldier and a protester, particularly when his constituents in Mass were strongly agains the war he voted for in Iraq.
Yes, you'll all say, 'but Clinton was protesting the war for noble reasons, and Bush was just shirking his duty for political ends'. A fine point, to be sure, but they were both saving their skins, in the end.
The point is, Kerry will have a hard time taking the high ground in either argument, because he voted for the war in Iraq, even if he did vote correctly on the first Gulf War, when even Colin Powell was arguing for more time for the sanctions to kick in. (I predict this last argument will be the most controversial here)