Now that President Bush has released the records in respect of his service in the Texas Air National Guard, Senator Kerry is suddenly on the spot over records in respect of his own military service — and what he did after he left active duty. The Wall Street Journal issued an editorial on the point yesterday, the same day that the editorial page editor of the New York Post, Robt. McManus, had his own dispatch. The general idea is that once the Democrats start insisting on the relevance of what the young George W. Bush was doing during Vietnam, then what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

In the case of Mr. Kerry, the country deserves the fullest airing. We tend to agree with his statement, uttered some years ago and being repeated now, that he’s not so concerned about what individuals did during the war. Some went, some stayed home, some fled to Canada. Not all in each category acted on principle, but many did. Neither the hawks nor the doves had a monopoly on character. The issue the Democrats claim they are trying to raise with Mr. Bush is whether he told the truth about his service, and it turns out — the records show — that he did. Indeed, if there’s a question about his showing up in Alabama, it appears, by our reading, that he put in more time than required.

The questions about Mr. Kerry are going to be harder. Mr. Bush, with his vigorous pursuit of the war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, has shown that he’s not shying away from the war we find ourselves in today. About Mr. Kerry, that’s not so clear. Now, a 1970 report from the Harvard Crimson has turned up indicating that Mr. Kerry said,”I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.” He further said, he wanted to “to almost eliminate CIA activity.” What with Mr. Kerry’s constant harping during in his 2004 campaign on the Kyoto Treaty, and the supposed failures of American intelligence, it is fair to ask what has changed.