A political master stroke?

Here it is hot off the presses. President Bush has denounced the Swiftvet ads in the following statement CRAWFORD, Texas (AP)--President George W. Bush on Monday denounced a television advertisement attacking John Kerry's war record and called for a halt to all such political ads by outside groups. Bush said he doesn't think there ought to be any unregulated groups involved in the political discourse. "That means that ad and every other ad," he said. "I think they're bad for the system." He was referring specifically to an ad sponsored by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that said Kerry didn't deserve his Purple Hearts, lied to get his Bronze Star and Silver Star, wasn't fighting in neutral Cambodia as he said he was and that he unfairly branded all veterans with his 1971 congressional testimony about atrocities in Vietnam.

I had a hard time understanding why from a strategy standpoint Bush would do this considering the new ads being run will focus on Senator Kerry's most notorious testimony regarding war crimes in Viet Nam. After further examination it would seem to make perfect sense for him to do this.

The Kerry campaign has gone to great expense to create ads calling on the president to disavow the ads and call for their removal and their current stump speech castigates the president for the Swiftvets activities. In one fell swoop he eliminates that argument and guess what? I think O'Neill and the Swiftvets are simply going to reply to the president in no uncertain terms that they have no intention ending their campaign against Senator Kerry.

The new ads are not about Senator Kerry's war record. They are about the things he said and did after he came home. Things such as his testimony before congress and his activities in meeting the Viet Cong representatives in Paris while he was still a member of the armed services.

There are some serious questions which need to be answered relative to the Logan Act and Uniformed Code of Military Justice. This is the crux of the issue motivating the anti Kerry veterans. As a candidate for president, should he be answering questions as to the propriety of meeting with representatives of the enemy while his peers were in the field in battle and others held captive? How might he react today if a service man did the same thing in such a public manner while he was commander in chief?

What about the congressional testimony? Should he be asked in detail by the media what his thoughts are now on those words? Should he apologize for the bulk of the atrocities comments now that there is no question they were untrue?

Whether those questions are answered remains to be seen. What we can see here is a seemingly master stroke by Karl Rove. The president has consistently praised Kerry for his service, he has now denounced the anti Kerry ads and called for their removal and in the end it isn't going to make a damn bit of difference because the Swiftvets aren't going to ease the pressure on Senator Kerry one bit.