With John Kerry now the certain Democratic nominee, the Republican attack machine has moved into high gear to vilify him. The attacks have basically been focused on one of two themes. The first is that his anti-war protests after coming home from Vietnam make him unpatriotic. The GOP is being careful to leave the line of attack to people with no official ties to the administration, so the Bush team can plead innocence in attacking their opponent's patriotism. The second front is being fought over John Kerry's occasional votes against military spending increases, which is an attempt to make him uncommitted to our national security. Though Republicans are far more open about pursuing this course of attack, there really is little difference in what the accusation is about.Let me first analyze what problem the Republicans have with Kerry's anti-war protests. He did nothing illegal, as his freedom of speech is clearly constitutionally protected. Even if no laws were broken, it could be reasonable to charge that he exercised poor judgment. But this charge is not true. There was a legitimate debate on the merits of going into Vietnam in the 1960s. Looking back 30 years, it is clear which side was right.

It was the height of the Cold War at that time. Communism was a major threat to the free world. We entered the Vietnam War to police the actions of a brutal dictatorship and contain the spread of communism. These were all noble intentions, but our efforts failed. Fifty-eight thousand American troops died in Vietnam. They died in vain, every one of them. We set out to strengthen our position in the Cold War and we wound up weakening it. The whole world saw that the great power of the United States was not invincible. In fact, communism's spread to Cambodia and Laos would most likely not occurred had the Americans not tried to intercede. History has proven the anti-war activists right. John Kerry, in fact, showed remarkably good judgment upon returning from Vietnam in decrying this lapse of American judgment.

Of course, it must be noted that there were those among the anti-war activists who were genuine communist sympathizers, such as Jane Fonda. The Republicans have desperately tried to link Kerry with her, by coining nicknames like "Hanoi John" and doctoring photos to make it look like the two were standing together at an anti-war rally. Also, there were those motivated by personal cowardice rather that genuine conviction in protesting the Vietnam War. Neither of these criticisms, of being a communist sympathizer, or of being a coward, can possibly be applied to Kerry. He enlisted, risking his life fighting communism. He fought bravely, was wounded three times and received medals of honor for his valiant service to our country.

I have also heard it said that Kerry slandered his fellow soldiers by testifying with regard to immoral activities they did in Vietnam. I wish they were right on this one, and that those charges were nothing but slander. However, as the years since Vietnam go by, more of these stories have been confirmed. Though the war was not inherently immoral, there is certainly little doubt left that there were immoral things done there by American troops. Kerry was doing his patriotic duty to report these crimes, and make every effort in the name of justice.

There clearly is no legitimate case against John Kerry's patriotism for his post-Vietnam activities. The Republican criticism of the fact really boils down to one thing. They are trying to play on people's fears by monopolizing their policies as the only patriotic ones. They are playing to people's post-9/11 insecurities with blind jingoism. They tell people that our military can be used to solve every problem. When someone is reluctant to go to war in a particular situation, they try to portray him as unable or unwilling to defend our country, and therefore unpatriotic.

This leads directly into the Republicans' other line of attack against Kerry. He has voted against a few military spending increases during his tenure in the Senate, and the GOP uses this to question his commitment to the defense of our nation. This is essentially another attack on patriotism. The Republicans, who so often chastise Democrats for trying to solve problems by throwing money at them, ought to be aware that the same is true for national defense. It is certainly important that America have a strong, effective and efficient military, and while more funding will often help with this, it is not always the right answer. We ought to have a president who realizes that foreign policy is a complicated matter that should not and cannot be dealt with in generalizations and reflexive judgments.

What the Republicans will try to portray as flip-flops and inconsistencies in Kerry's record is really evidence that the Senator thinks about each issue on a case-by-case basis, and knows there is no one-size-fits-all solution for the problems facing America. While one can certainly debate whether Kerry made the right decision with any given vote, to suggest that his record indicates he would not defend our country against attack, is grossly misleading if not an outright lie.

There are plenty of issues to challenge with John Kerry on. I know there are a few things where I certainly disagree with him. Bush may be using this strategy because he's afraid to debate the issues that matter to Americans, but if he has any sense, he'll start making the race about these issues. If the election becomes a question of patriotism, Bush will lose.