August 26, 2004
FUNNY SORT OF TRUCE:
Kerry's Lost Opportunity: He could have healed the wounds of Vietnam. Instead, he tried to exploit them. (HERMAN JACOBS, August 26, 2004, Wall Street Journal)
Whenever the question of Vietnam percolated to the surface of the nation's collective political consciousness, as it did briefly during Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign, the protagonists on either side only became yet more distrustful and disdainful of the other. And so years ago, wearied by their own arguments as much as by the arguments of their antagonists, sensible majorities of both the supporters and the opponents of the Vietnam War yielded to an unwritten domestic truce, composed of two principles:* Those who participated in the war, with the exception of anyone at or above the rank of general officer, are entitled to public honor for their service.
* Those who actively opposed the war, with the exception of the most extreme Jane Fonda-types, are not to be branded as cowards or traitors to their country.
Depending on one's political bent, one or the other of the two prongs of the domestic truce might be accepted only grudgingly, but it was accepted nonetheless, because most of us had become convinced that the best way to handle any question involving Vietnam was just to "let it alone."
Yes, there would still be occasional flare-ups when the domestic truce would be tested. Until recently, the most notable episodes involved Dan Quayle and Mr. Clinton, who--because they had neither very actively opposed the war nor fought in it--did not seem to be entitled to the truce's honors and amnesties. Those petty skirmishes over Mr. Clinton's ROTC dodge and Mr. Quayle's "alternative" service stirred up some old antagonisms but quickly subsided when the larger public declined to enlist. And so, the truce held.
We were aware that even the Left had been forced to accept that the war was honorable (though to some misguided), but when did the Right ever forgive those who opposed their own nation? It wasn't a truce, the Left lost the argument.
MORE:
Kerry's Testimony (LA Times, August 26, 2004)
It turns out that the attack on John Kerry's war record was just Act 1. Now the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (and, miraculously, all the right-wing media) have turned to Kerry's antiwar record.
"Turns out"? What did they think it was about? Posted by Orrin Judd at August 26, 2004 9:07 AM
Clueless. Completely, insufferably, mind-bogglingly clueless. They actually expected that Sen. Kerry could run on his Viet Nam record without anyone else bringing up the rest of the story - the VVAW and the Senate Testimony.
And they want to run foreign policy during a hot war.
Posted by: Mikey at August 26, 2004 11:21 AMMy guess is that less than 10% of the electorate know about the VVAW Kansas City meeting, the vote on whether to assassinate Senators, Kerry's participation (to his credit, I guess, he voted against assassination) and his denial of his participation until confronted with FBI records.
That has to be part of the Swift Vet's October ad.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 26, 2004 12:27 PM3 Purple Hearts and not a day in the hospital... those are boo-boos not wounds. Besides the fact that awarding Purple Hearts for minor injuries diminishes the significance of the award it is pretty obvious that Kerry was manipulating the system to get out of Vietnam as soon as possible.
Shouldn't we elect a President based on his public service record? In which case Kerry would be running on a very thin record... The fact that he wants to be elected on the merits of what he did (or did not do) for 4 months 36 years ago speaks volumes about his qualifications for the office of President.
Posted by: Tracy Wilson at August 27, 2004 12:39 PM