As many of you who read this blog have gathered, I have a long-standing grudge against Vietnam War protesters and the media's love affair with them. A few year's ago in the magazine of my professional association (of which I am not a member), I got treated to an archive pic of them protesting the war. They were proud of it then, and they're proud of it now. Each raindrop swears it didn't cause the flood, and there are not many former protesters who accept responsibility for the damage their actions did to our troops, the Vietnamese people, and our country.
While my father was serving two tours in Vietnam, John Kerry was comparing him and other veterans to Ghengis Khan. Now that Kerry's running for president, he want to wrap himself in the cloak of military service, with no repudiation of his former actions. He's not sorry for his antiwar actions, and he doesn't understand why people would have a problem with that.
I'm sorry, though. I'm sorry that when my dad came home I asked him if he'd done the things that people like John Kerry had tarred all the troops with doing. He didn't need that, and didn't deserve it.
Jeff Jacoby did a good job of describing my own feelings on the hypocrisy of the Kerry candidacy:
He came to prominence as a radical opponent of the war in Vietnam, yet now he runs for president on the strength of his service in that war. He portrayed the men who fought there as unspeakable savages, yet now he surrounds himself with Vietnam vets at every turn. He lent respectability to those who demanded that America cut and run, that it abandon a beleaguered ally, that it drop "the mystical war against communism." Yet now he insists that he would be a tough and vigilant commander-in-chief, one who would never disrespect allies, one in whose hands the security of the United States would be safe.
Even after 33 years, Kerry's 1971 testimony, and his refusal to either repudiate or corroborate it, remains unsettling -- and relevant. For the Swift Boat vets, this fight may be personal. But all of us have a stake in its outcome.
Posted by floridacracker at August 27, 2004 11:53 AMMy dad did 3 tours back to back in Vietnam. There must be hundreds of thousands of other (former) kids with the same experience and I'd imagine near 100% loath this guy with his sham history. The things a persons says has a way of catching up to you later.
Posted by: xire138 at August 27, 2004 04:23 PMI've often wondered about the other kids who were in my situation. It was rough landing for those guys making the transition back to civilian life. For my dad it came at the end of thirty years of service.
He said he wasn't sure there was any room for him in this country.
BTW, my dad's response to me that day after I worked up the nerve to ask him if he killed children was "Don't be an eejit all your life." He's not exactly the brooding anti-hero type ;)
If what John Kerry said was untrue then that is shameful. I wasn't there I don't know. I'm not a big fan of his anyway. My objection is to lump those who protest with those who lie. The real point is look at who benefits from the wars we engage in and who pays the price. Politicians like G. H. Bush were fine to send troops to Vietnam while his children and family friends did not go. Nothing against he ANG in general, but that particular group in Texas was obviously for the privelaged. It happened all over the country by economic elites across political lines.So to protest the rich sending the poor to kill the poor of another nation should not be as an insult to the soldier, rather an afirmation of his/her worth and sacrifice.
Posted by: Jimmy at August 28, 2004 01:22 AMHey, Jimmy? What is that jumbled mess you just typed?
The first thing you need to do is to look up the demographics of who went to Vietnam. It wasn't "the poor".
Secondly, you don't get to reframe the argument. I have framed the argument. Speak to what I have written. I put forth what "the real point is", then you argue within that framework. That's how it works.
And brush up on freshman logic so you can construct a valid argument. I mean, come on. After 20 years even I remember the set ups for If P Then Q.
Do that so we can talk, OK? A swing and a miss, but you can improve.
"So to protest the rich sending the poor to kill the poor of another nation should not be as an insult to the soldier, rather an afirmation of his/her worth and sacrifice."
That's a phantasy evaluation of Vietnam. Just not the facts.
Why is the left so obsessed with money? Everything is about money, who has it and who doesn't.
Posted by: xire138 at August 28, 2004 08:27 AM