Unbelievable

Here's a passage from a recent AP campaign trail dispatch:

Bush also took issue with Kerry's pronouncement this week that he and running mate John Edwards (news - web sites) were proud of the fact that they opposed in the Senate the $87 billion aid package for Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news - web sites). Kerry said they had done so because "we knew the policy had to be changed."

"He's entitled to his view," Bush said. "But members of Congress should not vote to send troops into battle and then vote against funding them, and then brag about it."

Kerry's campaign responded that Kerry had served in the Vietnam War and questions linger about Bush's wartime service in the Texas Air National Guard.

"Considering that George Bush actively avoided combat duty and has pursued policies that have made the nation less secure, he is on very shaky ground when it comes to questioning the commitment that Vietnam vet John Kerry has to our national security," said former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., a Vietnam War veteran and frequent Kerry surrogate. "This is just more attack-dog politicking by an increasingly desperate, partisan White House."

Let me get this straight: Kerry takes a position (voting against the $87 billion for Iraq reconstruction after voting for the war was the right thing, and he's proud he did it), Bush makes a substantive criticism of that position (saying: you shouldn't authorize invading a country and then vote against money for reconstruction and to equip the occupying army, and that bragging about doing so is unseemly), and Kerry surrogates reply to Bush's criticism how? By pointing out that, 35 years ago, Bush served in the Air National Guard, whereas Kerry served in Viet Nam?
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but "I served in Viet Nam" doesn't seem like an argument to me. I mean, maybe it's a response to a criticism of Kerry's character; if Bush were to say, "John Kerry doesn't care about the safety of America," Kerry could plausibly reply, "That's absurd: I went to war, put my life on the line in Viet Nam in to protect the safety of America." But pointing out that John Kerry did something brave and patriotic 35 years ago isn't really a response to a substantive question about his policy vision. I know I'm not the first to point this out, but it never hurts to call the Kerry campaign out when they pull this kind of crap.
 
What makes this so insanely frustrating is that there's an entirely plausible justification for Kerry's votes. He could say, "I knew the bill would pass, so the troops would get funded. My 'no' vote was a protest against the abysmal handling of the postwar by the Bush administration." Or he could say, "I hoped that if we defeated the bill the Bush Administration would be forced to come to the Congress and consult with us, and that maybe by working together we could come up with a sane Iraq policy that will secure the country without putting our soldiers in unnecessary risk." Or any number of other things. Those would be arguments in defense of his votes. Instead, Kerry and the Kerrybots just say: "Kerry commanded a swift boat in Viet Nam! Ergo, Bush sucks! Case closed! La-la-LA-la-la!"