There's a new theme being used by those trying to criticized John Kerry: spent "only" four months in Vietnam, therefore there is something inappropriate about him touting his war record. The fact that Bush spent no months in Vietnam is apparently irrelevant. Just how serious is this argument?

As Atrios explains, it’s actually quite ridiculous:

The spin point, taken as a whole, implies that only doing 4 months of combat duty in Vietnam was somehow unusual. The vast majority of those serving in Vietnam did not serve in combat units, so Kerry's service commanding a Swift Boat was indeed unusual, but not for the reason given. Kerry's multiple medals are indeed unusual, as not everyone was that highly decorated, but unless you're accusing the Navy of being corrupt institution that handed out medals to John Kerry because he bribed them, or something, then the unusual part was that Kerry did so many things to deserve medals.

What was not unusual at that time was the sons of prominent wealthy people jumping ahead of more qualified people to get cushy assignments which would keep them out of Vietnam. What was slightly more unusual was those people being AWOL from even that duty. What is even more unusual is for those people to lie about their service, as George Bush did in his autobiography, claiming that he "continued to fly with my unit for the next several years," when in reality he continued to fly with his unit for only 22 months, which doesn't even allow for the generously broad definition of "several" which includes the number "two."

Upper Left also comments:

[I]t's just not true. Kerry's duty as the skipper of a Swift Boat was relatively abbreviated, but the pundits overlook his first tour as an officer aboard the USS Gridley, which conducted a Pacific cruise from February 9 to May 27, 1968, which took it to the Gulf of Tonkin. The blue water Navy was a mild assignment compared to the assignment that Kerry subsequently volunteered for, but the guys on the ships in the Gulf and other off shore assignments are Vietnam veterans every bit as much any of us who served as ground pounders.

In fact, even if it were true, the amount of time Kerry spent in country just doesn't matter. A lot is made of Kerry's decorations for valor and his Purple Hearts, but those of us who were there really only look for two ribbons in a veteran's rack, the Vietnam Combat Ribbon and the Vietnam Service Medal. Those are the membership cards in our particular band of brothers, and John Kerry sports both of them. In getting them, he was in the line of fire more times in the months he served than most of us faced in a full tour, or in multiple tours, for that matter.

I've never met anyone who served in Vietnam who would diminish the hazards faced by the brown water Navy, unless they have a particular ideological axe to grind.

I’m sure that we’ll keep seeing the snide comments about this continue to be used throughout the campaign — it’s completely consistent with the smear tactics that Bush used against John McCain, another veteran, back in 2000. What does Bush have against the people who served in Vietnam? Whatever the reasons, the fact that they are vile smears should be kept firmly in mind. They were immoral when used against a Republican and they continue to be immoral when used against a Democrat. They say a great deal about the moral compass of those currently in charge of the nation.

Read More:

• 2004 Elections
• Election Polls
• George W. Bush
• John Kerry