Kerry and Vietnam.

Remove all ads!

I haven't seen either of the movies about Kerry in Vietnam discussed in threads here, neither the pro-Kerry one nor the Swift Boat Veterans bilge, but I do have some clear memories of that tragic time in my country's history. The Vietnam war tore this country apart; not since the Civil War was there such an ugly and violent division of opinion. The chief difference was that the American bodies were in a faraway Asian country,not in Pennsylvania and Virginia and points south. Its repercussions continue to rend this country today, as is obvious from the campaign rhetoric on both sides. Bill Clinton advised Kerry to stop talking about Vietnam, although it's a wound that still requires closure, because it was hurting his chances of being elected. Kerry's stand, as a decorated veteran who chose to oppose the war, is the most honorable I can imagine.

He talked of atrocities, and has been crucified for doing so. There were atrocities, many of them, on both sides; any standard history of the war documents them. It is simple lying to say they didn't happen, or were unique. One of my own unpleasant memories is a photograph of a Vietcong being dragged through the dirt of a village on a rope behind a halftrack.

The silliest charge of all is that Kerry extended the war for two years by his opposition to it. He was a noncom, for God's sake! How much weight do you think he carried among the millions--yes, millions--who opposed the war at that time. So he testified before Congress. So what! So did many others. Kerry's testimony gets aired today because he happens to be the candidate of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. Back then, he was just one of many, and no one particularly noticed him. Opposing the war at that time was no passport to political success; more like political suicide. It doesn't seem to be the greatest passport to success today, for that matter, but Kerry has not retracted his opinions of thirty years ago. Flip flopped, as they say. It's rather astonishing that the war hero is criticized for his record, while the man who copped out gets a free ride.

 

The most telling thing for me was when I heard his testimony before Congress (on a documentary that is - he made the actual testimony shortly after my birth, so I don't remember it). I could not believe how well spoken this man was at the age of 27. With the way he talked, the way he carried himself, to me, he seemed like he was ready to be president all those years ago (with the slight problem that he was 8 years too young to run for president).

In general I agree with your opinion. How many times does one have to receive a "minor wound" as his detractors would say before they ackowledge the fact that he served. It's almost like saying he wasn't wounded badly enough. I do not know that losing a limb was required to make the scarifice to your country noteworthy. Honestly, I don't understand how this election is even close. We'll find out tomorrow though...

 

Even worse when you consider that his detractors were by and large staying home in the National Guard. Three Purple Hearts = injured in combat at least three times; sure, it's no Congressional Medal Of Honour, but you don't get them by staying at home.

 

There was a Congressman from Georgia--I can't remember his name--who lost three--that's three--limbs in Vietnam. He was defeated in 2002 largely as the result of smear campaign ads implying that he was a traitor who was soft on terrorism. The spots were produced by the same group that did the swift boat veterans ads. Kaarl Rove's favorite tactic is to decide where a candidate is strongest, and attack him there.

 

The Candidate you are referring to is Max Cleland, and the ads against him had his picture superimposed over Saddam and Osama and called him a traitor for opposing (The republican version of) the Homeland Defense Act (While supporting the Democrats' version of the bill).

After that, Ann Coulter, a complete bitch by the way, claimed that him losing his limbs in Vietnam wasn't honorable because he lost it on a "beer run" or some s*** like that.

 

Coulter does come across as completely feral and completely unprincipled, and more than a little smug. (Does she LOOK at the cover photos on her books?) On the other hand, she has a clear run for the leading role if they ever re-make "Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS".

 

Ann Coulter is an opinionated, condescending bitch - and that's about the nicest thing I can say about her. The meanest thing I could say about her would be against forum rules. I forgot to mention in my first post that the pro-Kerry movie Cernak is referring to is, "Going Upriver".

 

Ladies and gentlemen, as someone who is not American but was interested in the US elections and did a bit of research on the way I have some observations and questions on the whole Vietnam affair, purely informational now that the whole bit is over. Yes, I am pro-Kerry (still) but I will try to be objective:

1. Has anyone in the USA considered the Swift Boat ads to be inaccurate in their facts as well as biased? I went through the documentation they provided on his record and their comments, and they just don't add up - they say he got "good" grades from officer so-and-so, and in the file it's checked "excellent", they say another officer did not request him in his command while in the documents he did, etc. Did anyone try to expose them?
2. Kerry was, among other things, considered a "medal-hunter". Well, I don't think he got 5 medals (five, right?) in a few months just with wanting. Throw in connections, if you want, but it still seems way too fast without some real successes. Even if he pushed one of the PH's to go home earlier if he was sick of the war (I suppose most vietnam vets did not like it too much either) that still leaves two, and two other medals. Why did apparently so many people discount that?
3. How come the whole Vietnam record was actually used against this guy at all? I mean, compared to his opponent, he actually went to the war and on top of that was decorated several times. And if he did not like the war, he did a sensible and honorable (to me) thing about it - he waited until no longer in the military, and then spoke out without naming any specific people. What's wrong about that? Furthermore, his opponent proclaimed himself as a "war president" with almost no service in the military. At least for me it's strange...

 

Hey look! It's Ann Coulter!

The Vietnam thing really cost Kerry the election in my opinion. If he hadn't mentioned it, it would be less used to attack him, which very possibly made the difference this year in votes. Besides, the dopes he was trying to convince by saying he had a military record were going to vote for Dubya for some other stupid reason or another and really couln't care less.

 

The swift boat veterans claims were exposed as lies--one of them had actually campaigned for Kerry in his 1996 Senate race, praising the senator for his courage--but how many people were aware of, or convinced by, the exposure is hard to say. A book detailing their claims, "Unfit to Command", briefly topped the best seller list, before falling into deserved oblivion. It's hard to catch a lie, and harder still to watch the liar reap the reward of his chicanery.

 

Well put, Cernak.

I was extremely dismayed at the popularity of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and the propagation of their lies, I even have a funny anecdote to go with it:

During this election, we tried to convince a few people who weren't planning on voting or who were planning on voting for Shrub to vote for Kerry instead. One such fellow was in my extended family, and lived out in the country and is in the National Guard. First thing he asks once we start explaining about how Bush could send more National Guard troops to Iraq, which could include him, was "Well, what about those purple hearts?"

We ended up convincing him though.

 

Unfortunately, it isn't happening only in America. During the '80s the conservative leader here was a guy, who was a member of the guerilla forces in WW2, while the leader of the socialists had served as nurse in an american hospital (his mother was american). When the conservative leader tried to used his ww2 record in comparison with the record of his opponent, a socialist newspaper published a picture of him between two german guards with the title "He wasn't a guerilla, he was a collaborator". Of course the newspaper didn't mention that his hands were tied behind his back and that he was led to the execution squad when this picture was taken. One of the guards, who had survived, confirmed his story few weeks later, but the damage was already done and the socialists won the elections. I was 10 years old then but I still remember the supporters of the socialist party screaming "Death to the SS dog".

 

I thought it was, as in Tal's words, "Only in America" you were able to vote on a dead guy.

 

@Caleb

I forgot to write that the execution was cancelled the last minute because the Germans decided to exchange him with some german prisoners.

 

Yeah, I guessed something like that. Otherwise, he would look like a zombie, like Kerry, actually.