[BlackGriffen]

Linky:

[...]
Since most of the media covering the election remember the Vietnam era, it fascinates them still, and thus they tend to overdo it. For Americans of a certain age, Vietnam is the war that will not die -- until they do. On one side are those who believe that Vietnam was a war we could have won if not for the congressional doves, the left-wing press and the long-haired antiwar demonstrators. On the other are those who turned against the war in the mid- and late-1960s and never forgot the drama of those days.
[...]
Anyone who was in Vietnam knows that "the fog of war" was more than a cliché. I remember visiting destroyed hamlets in the lower Mekong Delta in the mid-1960s, sometimes only hours after the fighting had stopped, and hearing different versions of what had just transpired from survivors who had been right next to each other during the attack. Is it any wonder that memories would differ on details of events 33 years ago? But the timing of the attack by the anti-Kerry Swift boat veterans is rooted in politics and personal vendettas; on examination their charges are sloppy and self-contradictory.

I did not know John Kerry in Vietnam, but I knew the area he was in, having served in the same area as a civilian. I've talked to him often about Vietnam in recent years, and there is no question in my mind that it was the defining experience of his adult years, just as it was for me and hundreds of thousands of other Americans, including those now attacking him.

His personal saga embodies the American experience in Vietnam. First he was a good hero in a bad war -- a man who volunteered for duty in the Navy and then asked for an assignment on the boats that were to ply the dangerous rivers of Vietnam -- when most of his college-educated contemporaries (including George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton) -- found easy ways to avoid Vietnam. Then, carrying shrapnel in his thigh, he became an eloquent but moderate member of the antiwar movement.

John Kerry introduced his Vietnam record into his campaign because it is a central part of who he is. But stirring up the embers of our Second Civil War was not his intention. Younger people I have talked to tell me that this past week it seemed to them nothing more than a silly, irrelevant argument about a distant war; to a certain extent, I agree. All those who served in Vietnam put their lives at risk, and at this distance from the war they all deserve respect. Those of us who survived should show younger Americans that we learned something from the war; John Kerry clearly did, but the same cannot be said of his Swift boat critics. To have a sterile debate about the minutiae of his service, when the basic facts of his heroism are undeniable -- and while Americans are again in a war that seems to have no exit -- is particularly grotesque.

Watching this debate over Vietnam while a new generation of Americans are risking their lives in Iraq, I had a sudden vision: a television talk show in April of 2025, on the 50th anniversary of the end of the war in Vietnam. After being pushed into the studio in wheelchairs, the ancient veterans suddenly come to life with still another round of name-calling. How long before the lessons from Vietnam can be absorbed into our national life without resurrecting a civil war that cleaves us still?

Read the rest (what little I didn't quote :blush: ). Very good stuff.

BlackGriffen
Edit: fixed link.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Linky:

Read the rest (what little I didn't quote :blush: ). Very good stuff.

BlackGriffen

I don't see what's so great about that article personally. Reads like something from johnkerry.com.

"His personal saga embodies the American experience in Vietnam."
-umm, ok

"John Kerry introduced his Vietnam record into his campaign because it is a central part of who he is."
-what the heck does that mean anyway? His vietnam record is a central part of who he is? Again, umm, ok.

"To have a sterile debate about the minutiae of his service, when the basic facts of his heroism are undeniable -- and while Americans are again in a war that seems to have no exit -- is particularly grotesque."
- if "the basic facts of his heroism" were undeniable Kerry would not be in the mess he is now.


That article is nothing more than a giant "apeal to pity," which is a logical fallacy. The author sugests that since Kerry was in Vietnam, his service record should not be questioned, especially by those who did not serve in Vietnam.

Whether or not someone participated in a particular event, whatever it was/is, has absolutly no impact on whether or not a piece of information is a truth, exaggeration, or a lie.

[smacintush]

John Kerry introduced his Vietnam record into his campaign because it is a central part of who he is.

John Kerry introduced his vietnam record into his campaign because he thought he could get more votes, and he has very little else to campaign on. The "I'm not George Bush" platform only goes so far.

[PacHead]

John Kerry would make an excellent president, if we were not at a time of war, and we were all leftie, radical, drug taking hippies with tons of facial hair and plenty of peace & love & crap going around.

Mocking Iwo Jima ? No wonder, Kerry forbids reprints of the book he co-authored.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Mocking Iwo Jima ? No wonder, Kerry forbids reprints of the book he co-authored.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by greenamp:
I don't see what's so great about that article personally. Reads like something from johnkerry.com.

Unsurprising. Dick Holbrooke is part of the campaign.

[BlackGriffen]

Ah, crap, I did it again.

The original article is more balanced, I swear (Excerpter's privilege ).

BG