August 24, 2004
CONVICTED BY HIS OWN WORDS
The Vietnam Passion (DAVID BROOKS, 8/24/04, NY Times)
I'm launching a major investigation into whether the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization is being secretly financed by the Kerry campaign. For today that organization begins airing ads drawing attention to John Kerry's 1971 testimony against the Vietnam War.If voters see that testimony, they will see a young man arguing passionately for a cause. They will see a young man willing to take risks and boldly state his beliefs. Whether they agree or not, they will see in John Kerry a man of conviction.
Many young people, who don't have an emotional investment in endlessly refighting the conflicts of the late 1960's, might take a look at that man and decide they like him. They might not realize that man no longer exists.
That conviction politician was still visible as late as the 1980's. When Senator Kerry opposed aid to the contras, or took on Oliver North, he did it with the same forthright fire.
But then in the early 1990's, things began to evolve.
It's fine to have convictions but why are his always wrong when it comes to fighting totalitarianism? Posted by Orrin Judd at August 24, 2004 8:29 AM
Mr. Judd;
Why are his wrong? He's uniformily supported the totalitarians favored by the Left and opposed those favored by the Right.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at August 24, 2004 10:53 AMConvictions don't include meeting with the North Vietnamese in Paris (while still a Naval Reserve officer).
Posted by: jim hamlen at August 24, 2004 11:12 AMBrooks might have a point if Kerry's "convictions" didn't switch back and forth like a weather vane.
In Vietnam = band of brothers war hero
After Vietnam = VVAW, Cambodia seared into brain
Running for President = band of brothers war hero again
True convictions don't waver like this.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at August 24, 2004 12:40 PMJeff, it's worse than that: Kerry was publicly opposed to the Vietnam War before he joined the Navy.
And it's obvious that if the current political winds were different, Kerry would be running on war-protestor credentials and ignoring his military service.
Posted by: PapayaSF at August 24, 2004 2:49 PMWait . .. this Brooks piece isn't parody?
Posted by: G. Gaudi at August 24, 2004 3:52 PM