Tuesday, October 12, 2004

and the beat goes on...

Frequent correspondent Theresa Winters writes:

All I'm saying is, I think Kerry--and everyone else, including the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth/Against Kerry/what have you--has played up the Vietnam thing waaaaaaay too much. Clinton never served in the armed forces, and aside from a few snide draft-dodging remarks, no one seemed to have a problem about it. More people seemed concerned with the fact he "didn't inhale".

Who *really* gives a care whether or not someone served abroad, or at home, or didn't at all, 30 years ago? With less and less people serving in the Armed Forces, I hope that someday we'll have multiple candidates (of more than the two major parties) who have never served in any kind of military unit. While I'm proud of my grandfathers, great-uncles, cousins and friends in the armed forces (one currently in Iraq for six months after he should've gotten out of the Army), I really don't think in the arena of politics it matters if someone went through boot camp.

And I write this:

I'll address your latter paragraph first, because it's true that the issue will have relevance in the future, and that's because future politicians will be of the post-Baby Boom generation. See, this isn't about military service in general. This is about Vietnam. You can't have this discussion without being hyper-aware of the profound cultural impact of that conflict. It was the first war America fought at a time when a humungous middle class existed, the most priveledged, best educated young middle class in its history, and a significant portion of that young, middle class, upon grasping the full implications of what they were being asked to do collectively said "Fuck this." But they said it in different ways. You ask me there's a big difference between what Bill Clinton did, which was to protest the injustice of the war, and what Bush, who was on record as thinking the war was just dandy, but still wanted to avoided the flying bullets. And "served at home"? Please. Ask anybody old enough to remember what the National Guard meant back then, and they'll tell you. It meant ducking. It meant bravely turning your tail and fleeing ala Brave Sir Robin. Of the three men, what Kerry did was obviously the most honorable, he didn't believe in the war but he didn't want someone else to have to go in his place, nonetheless, if you're not willing to pick up a gun the least you can do is pick up a placard. And I beg to differ that Clinton's draft dodging didn't affect him politically, it was red meat for his right wing opponents for years. In fact, it was part of the crux of their batshit insane hatred of the man. To them, he represented the spirit of the "sixties" when everything, in their opinion went wrong (e.g. people being unashamed of sex, foreign policy being subject to public scrutiny, black people being able to vote) It also meant a lot of the Pentagon leadership just plain didn't respect him, which significantly undermined him as commander in chief. But anyway, Bush's crime, to me, is not that he dodged combat, it's that he dodged combat while supporting the war. This whole "draft" rumor thing that's flying around annoys me right now because, first of all, Kerry and Bush are both well aware a draft would be political poision, though if anything I think Kerry would be more likely to institute one (by one millionth of a percent) because he has a passing acquaintance with reality and he understands how overstretched our forces are right now. But anyway, it saddens me that people are only motivated to stop an unneccessary war because they or their kids might have to participate in it.

I think war records are relevant because Bush has made them so, not Kerry. Bush is the man who goes around declaring "I'm a war president." It's hard to imagine Abraham Lincoln or Franklin D. Roosevelt saying that at every opportunity and saying that the Democrats are weak on defense. Kerry's certainly not the first politician to make reference to his own combat record, but Bush is certainly the first president to land on an aircraft carrier wearing a U.S. Air Force flight suit. That was one of the most stomach turning things ever, and I lost a lot of respect for the man. Yes, I did indeed have some respect for him before that, and I still have a tiny bit, but it's less now. No American president has ever pranced around in a combat uniform in public, including Dwight Freaking Eisenhower who, one might recall, won World War II. Courage under fire is not the only characteristic required of a President, but it certainly is one of them. I agree Kerry's put way too much emphasis on Vietnam in his campaign, but he's learned from George McGovern, among many others, who was a genuine war hero that got slimed as an unpatriotic wuss because of his belief that we needed to get the hell out of there. Kerry sure as hell wasn't going to let that happen to him and good for him that he hasn't. I'd like to see him talk more about his Senate record, specifically as one of the lead investigators into Iran-Contra, which is sadly being revised into a heroic narrative about how our Strong and Tough President defeated Communism by Being Strong and Tough and wouldn't it be nice if we had another Strong and Tough President to defeat terrorism, why by golly we already do!, rather than the illegal conspiracy to subvert the Constitution and support mass murderers that it was. But hey, if he can't talk about that, the silver star thing will do.

previous entry

next entry

Posted by Paul @ 10/13/2004 06:25 PM CST

Ohmigod, Paul Czarnowski posted on my site. Boys and girls, this man is the finest Wrigleyville underground cartoonist in Wrigleyville, so it's amazing to bask in his glow. Yeah, one of the real sore points I didn't get to in that post is the fact that the core of the whole Vets against Kerry movement is an attempt to whitewash Vietnam. Stupefyingly, I've heard it said that Kerry is *almost singlehandedly responsible* for the image the world has had of American atrocities in the war. My Lai, Operation Phoenix, the secret bombing of Cambodia, napalm, agent orange, just a bunch of crazy stories made up by a silly Bostonian who wanted to go home and burn American flags. The truth is the people of Vietnam were shiny, happy yellow people who wanted us there, and cried when we left because Kerry and Hanoi Jane were telling mean stories.

Posted by Rory @ 10/13/2004 01:57 PM CST

Nice post, Rory!

While I see your point about Vietnam being a big deal, I still maintain it doesn't/didn't need to become the big political deal that everyone seems to think it is. I look forward eagerly to the time when all of the Presidential candidates run on their voting records instead of their military ones.

Posted by Theresa @ 10/13/2004 11:53 AM CST

I think what is amazing is that, in response to the prime-time right wing smear movie about Kerry's post Vietnam record, no one is responding with any documentaries about the some of the bad things done in the name of the US in Vietnam. I would think that a special on christmas in Cambodia might have a little more impact than Kerry hanging out with Jane Fonda in her pre-capitalist days.

-paul

Posted by Paul @ 10/12/2004 09:06 PM CST