A Compare & Contrast of my own

And this, my friends, is what we call moving the goalposts.

On August 14, Will Collier, guestblogging (I think) at Vodkapundit, wrote this about John Kerry's service in Vietnam and Kerry's use of that service in his campaign:

It looks like Kerry and at least some of his supportive "band of brothers" (good thing for Kerry that Stephen Ambrose is dead--otherwise Ambrose would have had plenty to say about that little appropriation) are flat making up stuff about Kerry's service record.

According to Collier, Kerry is lying. The implication is that this makes him unfit for the presidency.

Earlier this morning, Vodkapundit proprieter Stephen Green did a little compare and contrast (actually, he doesn't. He simply lays out two quotations and leaves the comparing and contrasting for the reader. But this trick is rather common in the blogosphere, so this isn't a big deal).

The first bit is from a Boston Globe article of last year, describing how John Kerry requested and received a transfer back to the United States after being wounded three times. The second is a quotation from Colin Powell recounting his trip to Walter Reed Army Medical Center where a soldier who had lost a leg to amputation asked "General, how soon do you think they can get me back up on my new leg so I can get back into the Army and get back into the fight?"

Green ends his piece with "'Nuff said." The implication is rather clear. Good soldiers want to continue the fight. John Kerry, opportunist that he was, got the first ticket out of Vietnam he could. And, going a step further, Kerry's opportunism and cowardice makes him a poor choice for president.

Now, if you want to make this argument, feel free. But I'm not sure how wise it is to impugn the patriotism and bravery of a man who volunteered for service and Vietnam and served there with distinction, earning three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star.

But that argument isn't my main concern here. The real problem is that Vodkapundit has shifted the terms of the argument. First, John Kerry is unfit to lead because he's a liar. Now, apparently, he's unfit to lead because he asked (quite justifiably) to leave Vietnam after being wounded three times. These are two very different arguments (neither of which holds much water, but that's a separate issue).

It's hard to see this as anything but an attempt to attack John Kerry on any available grounds, discarding failed arguments without a peep when they're no longer useful. It's pretty clear now (based on investigations by The New York Times and the Washington Post, investigations, incidentally, that Vodkapundit has called for and now has seemingly little interest in) that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have lied about Kerry's record in Vietnam and that Kerry was telling the truth all along.* Since the "Kerry is a liar" jig is up, why not move to the "Kerry is a coward and an opportunist" bit?

I have no problems with people arguing against John Kerry or for George Bush. It pisses me off, however, when those arguments are not made in good faith. If you have a sincere desire to get the record straight, you wouldn't ignore how wrong the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been. You'd come out and say, "Look. I was wrong about Kerry's service in Vietnam. You got me there. On a completely different note, however, here's another reason not to vote for John Kerry." That's legitimate. It's complete bullshit to abandon your arguments and fail to acknowledge that you're doing it just because you turned out to be wrong.

__________
*I don't want to go through the "Christmas in Cambodia" thing again. He got the date wrong. Is that going to change your vote come November?