Another Kerry (Or Washington Post) Denial That Isn’t

I’ve just argued (here and here) that Sen. Kerry’s and Alexandra Polier’s denials are considerably less than, well, you know, denials, and that the press has turned a tin ear toward their Clintonian ring.

Here’s another non-denial denial, but it’s hard to tell whether the non-denier is Kerry or Washington Post political reporter Dana Milbank, whose article, “Bush Honors Soldiers, Prepares Them For More,” appeared in the Post today. See for yourself:

As Democrats raise questions about whether Bush shirked his National Guard duties from May 1972 to May 1973, he has charged that his opponents are disparaging the National Guard itself. “It’s fine to go after me, which I expect the other side will do,” Bush said earlier this month. “I wouldn’t denigrate service to the Guard, though, and the reason I wouldn’t is because there are a lot of really fine people who served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq.”

Bush was referring to remarks such as those made by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), his likely presidential challenger, equating Guard service with avoiding the draft during the Vietnam era. But Kerry said, “I’ve never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard.” (Emphasis added)

But? What does Milbank mean by this “But”? Kerry here is clearly saying that serving in the National Guard is “avoiding the draft” and that it is about the same as going to Canada or going to jail. What, then, is he and/or Milbank denying that he said?

Say What? (6)

  1. Nels Nelson February 19, 2004 at 4:32 am | | Reply

    The structure of Kerry’s statement is “I’ve never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about (A), about (B), (C), (D), (E)”, not “I’ve never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about (A): (1), (2), (3), (4). Kerry is listing actions taken by those who were drafted during the Vietnam War and did not serve in active duty. He does not lump them together under “avoiding the draft” nor does he equate or compare them to each other. Were you to ask me “What are some of the methods for getting around New York City?” and I responded “I’ve always used the subway but other options, none of which I have an opinion on, are to walk, drive, take a cab, or ride the bus,” I am generating a list but neither equating nor making comparisons among the elements of that list.

  2. John Rosenberg February 19, 2004 at 7:47 am | | Reply

    Nels, that’s an interesting reading. As the sentence is written, it’s even a plausible reading. It’s not, however, how I read it (“read” here meaning in both the past and present tense). In your terms, B, C, D, and E are all versions of A. What I think you must mean by “structure” is that, as written, these are co-ordinate, parallel elements separated by commas. But coming from the horse’s mouth, as it were, the sentence was spoken, not written. Thus it would have been as legitimate and accurate (in my view, it would have been more accurate) to write it like this: “I’ve never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft — about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard.” A colon would also work there instead of the dash.

    In short, as a grammatical interpretation of the words and punctuation on the printed page, your interpretation is certainly plausible. As an interpretation of what Kerry meant, however, I don’t believe it is. And the reason I don’t is that it seems clear to me that Kerry believes that the entire list of things he is “not making any judgments about” were all simply different versions of “avoiding the draft.” Indeed, putting the National Guard in that list is the judgment that he denies making.

  3. Jeff Findel February 19, 2004 at 8:33 am | | Reply

    I agree with your interpretation, John. But I think in this case Kerry does get to have it both ways. I don’t see any inconsistency in supporting the national guard and what it has done over the years and pointing out that Bush used it to avoid the draft. Many people used the national guard to avoid service in Vietnam and it seems pretty clear that this was what W was doing. Its not that guard service isn’t patriotic or that Bush isn’t patriotic but that he simply avoided Vietnam. I think insomuch as this is a winning issue, Kerry has the upper hand here – of course i’m not sure that there are many people that would care enough about this to sway votes.

  4. Sam Barnes February 19, 2004 at 2:53 pm | | Reply

    Jeff,

    The problem is that when Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard, the very unit he joined was flying combat missions in Vietnam. There’s no way he could have joined that unit without knowing this. Obviously, Bush didn’t immediately get sent to Vietnam, since it takes a couple of years to be fully trained as a fighter pilot. By the time he’d completed his training, though, his unit had been reassigned to domestic air defense, and shortly thereafter, the plane that he was trained to fly was decommissioned from service. The final year or so of Bush’s service was spent as a desk jockey, since the military had a glut of fighter pilots and considered it to be prohibitively expensive to retrain him on a different aircraft. This is why the military was perfectly happy to release him from service six months early, at his request, due to his enrollment at Harvard Business School–he wasn’t needed.

    Therefore, the idea that Bush joined TANG in order to avoid service in Vietnam is implausible at best, because it implies a knowledge of future events on his part that he could not have known.

  5. John Rosenberg February 20, 2004 at 8:31 am | | Reply

    Jeff, Re Bush’s service in the Air National Guard, I lean toward Kerry’s earlier statement — in effect, let bygones be bygones — than his current harping on his war record, etc., and so haven’t followed the details of this debate. Byron York has, and I assume you’ve seen his report here.

    But for the sake of argument let’s assume that Bush in fact joined the ANG to avoid the draft. If so, he’s vulnerable to that being pointed out, and I would have no objection to Kerry asserting “Bush joined the ANG to avoid the draft.”

    What I object to here about Kerry is what I object to in most areas about Kerry, his constant attempt “to have it both ways.” He obviously believes Bush was a draft-dodger but he doesn’t have the courage to come out cleanly and say so. So, he says it but denies he says it. I will not list here the issues on which Kerry has voted, or spoken, on more than one side, but suffice it say that I think there is a pattern here.

    Partly this is the result of 19 years serving as sort of a back bench Senator. The Senate is not known as a breeding ground of leadership, and for good reason. To be sure there are Senators who vote and speak and their convictions — McCain and Wellstone come immediately to mind — but there aren’t that many of them. They’re so used to the opportunity to vote so many times on essentially the same proposal (in committee, in mark up, on the floor, on what comes back from the House, etc., etc., etc.) that they begin to confuse that with real life.

    So, I think you’re only half right. Kerry was indeed trying to have it both ways, but since that is so apparent I don’t believe he succeeded.

Say What?