QandO
Questions and Observations| « All of politics is a stage; politicians, only players | Main | Developing... » |
|
August 18, 2004 Its not about duty, its about honor William McSweeny, in a WaPo op/ed piece, misses the point about the Kerry Vietnam flap. It is a young man's reaction to a sense of responsibility and duty, done without much forethought. Most of the left and Kerry apologists don't seem to understand: its not about duty, its about honor. Kerry performed his duty. No one disputes that. He was there. That's not the debate. That's not the argument. McSweeny is wrong when he says "duty" is enough. It would be if Kerry's campaign for the presidency didn't use his "valor" as a central part of his qualifications for the job. It would be if Kerry were to say "I served in Vietnam" and leave it at that. It would be had Kerry come home and quietly gone about his life. It would be if he didn't insist the men he'd served with and who were still in combat at the time, were war criminals. Duty would have been enough if Kerry had just done his and kept quiet about it. But he didn't. After essentially throwing his "band of brothers" to the wolves in 1971, he's consistently used his war time record in his later runs for public office. Something of which he was intensely ashamed in 1971, or so he said, suddenly became a political asset, and so it was revived and embellished and trotted out like a prize pony. It became a centerpiece to who he was and what he stood for. But when you've dishonored yourself and others, it changes the equation and the argument. Kerry acted in a dishonorable way in 1971 when he trashed his comrades. He dishonred his service, he dishonored his comrades, he dishonored his nation. And vets of that war can't and won't forget that. While McSweeny came back largely unnoticed from a war which was largely ignored, Vietnam vets came back to hostility, bald-faced hate and a stereotype So, in this veteran's mind at least, I don't dispute Kerry's duty. He was there. But so were millions of others. Millions who've quitely put it behind them and carried on with life. Millions who didn't dishonor their brothers in arms or their nation. So I dispute his honor. I find John Forbes Kerry to be a dishonorable man who used his experience in Vietnam for self-glorification and political expediency. I find him to be a man who used lies and innuendo, rumor and myth to brand a generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines as "war criminals". Duty be damned, he dishonored us all. Kerry has made his service as a centerpiece of his qualification for the Presidency. Because of that, and because of his demand that we "judge him on his record", I've taken him up on it. Based on his record both in and after Vietnam, I've found him to be severely wanting. He has no honor. ADDENDUM (Dale): Let me also offer a brief study in contrast. My high school principal was an Army captain and infantry company commander in Vietnam, named Richard Smith. During my senior year, we showed up at his house at about 11:00pm one night, and "kidnapped" him. In his living room, he had the certificate for a Silver Star on the wall. Now usually, when you receive a medal, you not only get a nice certificate with a the medal embossed on it, you also get a citation to accompany the award that describes what you did to get it. Mr. Smith only had the medal certificate hanging. Impressed, I asked him, "What did you get a Silver Star for?" He smiled slightly, and replied, "Keeping my nose clean." And that is all he would say. To this day, I don't know what he did to get the country's third highest award for valor in combat. If you can't see the difference between that, and Kerry's repeated stories about his trips to Cambodia and his magic hat, then I just don't don't know what else to tell you. UPDATE: Beltway Traffic Jam |
Thank you, you took the words right out of my mind. I wanted to reply to that op/ed this morning in the Wa/PO but couldn't find a link for it. As a VET, I found the article wanting, just for even covering over not just what Kerry has lied about during his service, not for Kerry trying to focus his campaign on his 4 1/2 months "in" Vietnam, but for what he did to the Vets when he came back in the early 70s.
Ironically, this vet made no reference to Bush's service, nor that the Bush campaign has not been the one to malign Kerry. Rather, it has been the other way around.
And this vet who wrote this op/ed would give Kerry his medals? Well, not me.
Posted by: Sandi at August 18, 2004 08:21 AM
Great, so you find him dishonorable. BFD.
Bush is even more dishonorable. He misled an entire nation into a war that we did not need to fight. He omitted material facts. He exaggerated others. He spun even more. In the end, his actions will lead to the unnecessarty deaths of hundreds if not thousands of Americans. In the end, his war will cause more harm (increased terror, greater instability in the middle east, etc.) than good (Saddam deposed). That is an inescapable fact. Even when viewed in the most negative light, Kerry's conduct during and after the Vietnam war cannot even begin to approach the level of harm caused by Bush's conduct.
Either Bush or Kerry will win in November. Even if I believed everything you said, it would not change the fact that of the two men, Kerry is the more honorable. Therefore, he deserves to be President over Bush. A majority of American voters agrees.
Posted by: mklutra at August 18, 2004 10:30 AM
Is your principal running for President? Maybe I will vote for him.
Posted by: mkultra at August 18, 2004 10:34 AM
That is an inescapable fact.
Nope.
The inescapable thing is that it's your strongly-held opinion, one you are unlikely to change no matter who debates what information with you.
Posted by: Dave at August 18, 2004 12:16 PM
That is an inescapable fact.
No actually thats just your opinion. Facts are things which are observed and measured. Complex causal relationships very rarely fit the name because they don't involve direct measurement. Things you just made up, like your post's predictions of the future, are not facts.
Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at August 18, 2004 01:32 PM
Dale:
Absolutely right on honor and modesty. I recently found out that my godfather was at Omaha Beach -- but he doesn't talk about it (his wife told us), doesn't blow it in everyone's face, he only smiles and goes about his business. That's what true heroes look like.
I usually can't stand Ann Coulter, but I think she pointed out that Kerry has spent more actual windbag time talking about being in Vietnam than the four months he was there. Such overinflated egotism stuck in a few glory days is the mark of someone too looony to be let near the white house.
Posted by: rainman at August 18, 2004 01:44 PM
How can you take any statements from someone who starts a post with "Great, so you find him dishonorable. BFD." seriously?
My friend you are in for a long sad life, if you truly think that dishonorable conduct is no BFD.
Posted by: sasqwa at August 18, 2004 02:05 PM
Actually, if you actually read my post, you will see that I believe the BFD is Dale's finding. I think dishonorable conduct is a big deal. I just don't happen to think Dale's opinion is.
Posted by: mkultra at August 18, 2004 02:53 PM
Actually, if you would read the post, you would find that the conclusion is McQ's.
Although, I basically agree with it.
Posted by: Dale Franks at August 18, 2004 05:45 PM
Dale:
Except for the last few days I have not seen anyone make the point that you referenced in your addendum. My uncle served two tours of combat duty in Viet Nam as a fighter pilot for the Air Force, my fiance's uncle served a full tour of duty in the infantry, and the guy who cuts my hair served in an army recon. squad for a full tour of duty. None of them EVER talk about it unless you ask them and even then they answer in as few words as possible. They are all completely humble about their service and they seem embarassed when I thank them for what they did.
I always thought that they were brave to have put their lives on the line and I figured their reticence was probably based on the fact that they were grateful for making it back alive when others weren't so fortunate. It seems very fishy to me that Kerry is so boastful about his time in Viet Nam. Fifteen or twenty years ago Kerry supposedly went on a blind date with Diane Sawyer and took her to his house to show her the film he shot of himself in Viet Nam. Someone who is so boastful about his combat experience (in contrast to others I know personally) raises red flags for me.
Posted by: jt007 at August 18, 2004 10:14 PM
War sounds like hell. Kerry has ice in his veins. He was ruthless in war. He was ruthless after the war. I think his '71 testimony revealed his true hero to be Genghis Khan. It took a callous courage to partake in senseless killing. And it took a calculating courage to buck the traditional myth-making, to dishonor veterans by denying them the quiet comfort of repressed truth. I pity these veterans. The nuanced, hedging Kerry is a phoney. Kerry with his back to the wall is the real Kerry, the ruthless Kerry. This is just getting started. I'm convinced that Kerry the President will serve and defend this country with the same ruthlessness. And I'll take Kerry's calculating cunning over Bush's manipulative fundamentalism any day. I'll take Kerry's brutal 'war stories' over Bush's sly slipperiness.
Posted by: Wm D at August 19, 2004 04:45 AM