I spoke to a Texan while I was away this week, who said that he was, somewhat reluctantly, going to vote for Bush this year because he was a Vietnam veteran simply couldn't forgive Vietnam veteran John Kerry's anti-war activities back in the day; he called John Kerry's acts treasonous.
I couldn't respond to that. I think that opinion is coming from so far opposite my own that we have virtually no common ground on which to discuss the question.
Now, there remains the question of how much of his stated reason for voting was pretextual and how much of his knowledge of John Kerry's acts was from right-wing propaganda.
Nonetheless, I was unable to pose an effective response.
What do you say in such situations?
Truly, it is a sad truth that some of our swing voters will (partially) base their decision on purely speculative ideas on events which occurred 30 years ago. Obviously, it is important to look at a candidate’s history when considering who should be our next president. However, seeing that both candidates do not have sparkling military records - in the public eye - it may be wise to look past them, as there are some issues at hand which deserve much greater attention.
But, while we’re on the subject, let’s analyze the “military service” issue a bit.
George W. Bush did not serve in Vietnam. I won’t fault him there; a lot of great Americans of that era did not serve in Vietnam. But, there is some evidence that implies that he somehow “skipped” out of his serving overseas. While this is not overly commendable, I do not doubt that a number of Americans did the same - they just didn’t happen to have some very powerful relatives. He did, however, serve in the Air National Guard. While he “maybe” did not fulfill his service there, this in itself is not a reason why I wouldn’t vote for him as President (of course, there are countless other reasons why).
John Kerry VOLUNTEERED to fight, and possibly die, for the freedom of our country and those abroad. This fact is undeniable, and highly commendable from my point of view. He earned some medals for his actions in combat. Yes, there is much speculation as to what really happened, allowing him to earn his medals. But, in my book, he did not lie. At worst, he fought hard for our country and earned a medal or two that some people don’t think he deserved.
It is wrong for Kerry to be endlessly castigated for doing what he thought was right after returning from Vietnam. I must admit, he MAY have been providing ammo for the Vietcong who were then holding American prisoners. But was he betraying them? Or was he doing what he though was right - as an American citizen.
Now, I am not going to proclaim that I understand what it is like to fight in a war, or what it is like to “fight and survive at all costs” as was often the situation in the hellfires of Vietnam. I do not know what it is like to be in a ‘band of brothers’ - or to know what it feels like to be part of the comaraderie that develops when you trust your LIFE in the hands of your fellow soldier. I do not proclaim to know the often implicit “rules of warfare.”
And thus, I would not automatically condemn any Vietnam veterans upon learning of one or another atrocity that was committed in the heat of war. Not to get too Machiavellian, but I could envision a situation where certain actions of war - while totally unacceptable in the eyes of the naive citizen - would be justified.
You don’t hear many stories badmouthing WWII veterans for torturing the Germans. And trust me, it happened. Was it okay, because the goal was to defeat Hitler? Apparently…
So, let’s bring it back to a situation that we can all relate to.
A rather large deal was recently made about the torturing of prisoners in Iraq, specifically in Abu Ghraib. Honestly, I agree that the mistreatment of prisoners, to a certain degree, is wrong. Now, how do you think the high ranking officers and the media found out about what was really going on? Yep. An American soldier - fighting for the same freedoms as those who were doing the abusing - disagreed with their course of action - they thought it was wrong - and decided to do something about it. From watching the response of most Americans, I am assuming that many people think this conscience-wielding soldier did the RIGHT thing. In general, I think Americans think it is wrong to unnecessarily abuse prisoners - terrorists or not.
Now, is it likely that most terrorists and Iraqi insurgents saw evidence of this abuse on the TV? Is it likely that it made them angry? That it gave them ammo to further abuse and torture every American prisoner they came in contact with? Undoubtedly. In fact, some beheadings reportedly took place in the name of “the abuse done by Americans in Abu Ghraib.”
So, who is blaming the beheadings on the
soldier(s) who stepped up and reported the beatings and humiliation taking place in Iraqi prisons?
I certainly am not. And I don’t know many who are.
Most importantly, in 30 years, if one of these proud soldiers, who thought they were doing the right thing, decides to run for the Presidency of the United States, will we condemn him/her simply because they “supposedly” betrayed their American comrades?
I certainly hope that Americans will want a president who will fight for what he/she knows and believes to be the best for this country.
At least one Vietnam vet of my close personal acquaintance thinks the attacks on Kerry are seriously misguided: that it took a brave man to go up the river in a swift boat, and particularly having been there, seen it, and thought it through, Kerry had every right to come back and protest against the war.
I'm not sure if that helps you respond to your acquaintance, but I think it's an interesting alternative point of view from someone who might well have easily taken the other side.
My background is a family of hippy peaceniks, but....
One of the precious resources this country has is a legion of soldiers willing to sacrifice their lives for it. To waste those lives in the wrong war is unforgivable. If that's what he saw, doesn't he have an obligation to stop it?
If Bill Clinton sends the troops into combat to distract the public from his latest scandal, do we all have a duty to line up in patriotic ferver, or are we permitted to call bullshit, and demand that the armed forces be used for the benefit of the nation, instead of the man.
I think the only possible responses to such people are to either walk away, or mess with their heads.
I would probably inform this fellow that, likewise, I couldn't possibly vote for George W. Bush because, while his abduction by the Greys in 1970 was completely unavoidable (and in fact excusing of his absence from the Guard), his subsequent farming of the human race for the benefit of his alien masters' appetite for cranial matter is unforgiveably traitorous. And if called on this particular opinion, I would smoothly reply that both our positions were formulated with the exact same degree of factual basis.
I would also make sure that this fellow wasn't armed or on speed. That's always a judgment call.
I'm am a very charged up Bush fan so perhaps you might be interested in my thoughts too. You guys certainly have every right to say and write what you want, this is America and unlike any other place in the world, we've got something for everybody here and what business is it what the Hell you think or believe in (it's your absolute right). So while you are taking swips at my good budy, George W., why don't you tell me what do you think of the Democatic Senator, Tom Harkins who told everybody that he flew and fought over Vietnam during the war and never was within 1000 miles of it or of Bill Clinton who lied about planing to join the Arkansa National Guard and then got another deferment and never did (and by his own admission was a draft dodger)?
And before you even ask, you need to know that I volunteered to go into the military during WWII, so I feel I have the right to question you fellows on how feel you can honestly pick on some people that didn't serve in Vietnam the way you thought they ought to, but not on others .. Frank Haines
As a Navy veteran, I feel obliged to respond to Mr. Haines.
Frankly, I think falsely trading on one's military record is repulsive. I don't believe that Kerry has done so. He served honorably in the war and then, after his discharge, opposed it based on his first-hand experiences and moral convictions. This is perfectly admirable.
Clinton, as a conscientious objector, has no military record to abuse. I hate the idea of the draft -- as a volunteer, I would not care to serve beside people who were compelled to -- so I won't fault Clinton for evading it. But I have much more respect for Kerry, who did volunteer.
If Tom Harkins lied about serving in Vietnam, then he owes his consituents and every Vietnam veteran an apology, at the very least. What an asshole.
Which brings me to your "good budy" [sic] Junior Bush. I find his cavalier attitude toward his service in the National Guard to be repugnant in the extreme. The evidence shows that he neglected his duties at the very least, and I think he was probably even a deserter.
Moreover, I think Junior is our military's worst enemy -- as commander in chief, he's cut combat pay and veterans' benefits. He's ordered troops into combat zones unsupported and underequipped. He's failed to hold anyone accountable for the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, nor for the monumental intelligence failures leading up to the war. He's spending American lives on his personal agenda in open contempt of their patriotism.
Support our troops. Vote Kerry.