Glub, glub, glub...

IN THE NEWS
I guess you have to be a goggle-eyed rube to expect the American press to stop pointing the camera at the Swift Boat Veterans. No matter how much they've discredited themselves, poisoned public discourse, re-opened old Vietnam wounds and rubbed salt in them, and generally demonstrated how odious they truly are, they're still getting air time and column inches of print from the mainstream media.

I guess I need to look in the mirror for tell-tale signs of Rubus goggleoculus. I had thought that, by now, someone would have turned off the mike, not returned the phone calls, scratched them from the talking head invitee list. Even James Corsi's anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic, and anti-Semitic rants weren't a painful enough jab to the journalistic dinosaur's tail for the walnut-sized brain at the other end to register that something had happened.

When I last wrote about this issue (and believe me, I really, really hate writing about this noxious distraction from things that really matter), I noted that Bill Clinton, when he was running for the presidency in 1992, chose to leave George Bush's World War II service record alone. He apparently assumed it was as honorable as portrayed, and in no way would it have been proper to make it a campaign issue. Bush's odd story about, while floating in the middle of the Pacific after being shot down by a Japanese fighter, thinking about the separation of church and state was an open invitation to at least a few good snipes. But no, the Democratic contender stayed away from that "character" issue.

Someone, however, attacked Bush Sr.'s service record with the ferocity of a rabid badger. Care to guess who that someone is? No, not Al Sharpton. Not James Carville. Not Al Gore.

The badger/human hybrid in question was James Sampley, founder of Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry. Sampley claims that Bush bailed out too early, leaving his fellow fighter pilots in mortal danger. (Click here, if you can stomach it, for more background on Sampley.)

Contrast the likes of Sampley, Corsi, and O'Neill with John McCain and David Ifshin. You'll note where the link goes, to a Christian minister's account of the McCain/Ifshin friendship. Randy Becton, the minister, wants people to see in this story a Christian parable of reconciliation and respect.

Thomas Jefferson once hired someone to smear John Adams in print. (When Jefferson didn't completely pay, the author retaliated by publishing the rumor about Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings.) The incident destroyed the friendship between the two men, who took year to finally reconcile with one another. A hard lesson learned early in the republic--or maybe not.

Comments

[Oscar]

1.As I recall, GWB's record was attacked by the Dems first

2. While most Reps (except those of us who haven't forgiven the WinterSoldier thing) would LOVE to discuss Kerry's more recent record and leave the distant past alone, Kerry has been RUNNING on his Viet Nam experience. (I assume you saw the Dem convention)

I would point out that the way the Kerry campaign is handling the Xmas in Cambodia complaint from the Swift Vets seems to show that the Swift Vets have some valid points.

I am beginning to feel that the "lady doth protest too much" - some Donks complain that their patriotism is being impugned, because deep down inside they know it should be.

Now if the Dems had nominated someone like Leiberman, we might have actually had a debate about what the hell to do about the Islamic extremists. This is not 68 folks, this is 72: Nixon was vulnerable on a lot of foreign affairs issues and the Dems nominated an absolute loon. This year, GWB is also vulnerable on his foreign affairs plans (albeit not because he doesn't ask Chirac or the UN for permission to do things) and the Dems did it again they nominated a clown who thinks that 4 months in Viet Nam is the only qualification he needs to be president.

I should note that the Reps do this sort of dumb thing too, LBJ could have been beaten in 64........

[Kingdaddy]

This is exactly where the hard-won civility and rationality of the Vietnam debate breaks down. If four months isn't "enough," how many months would be? And enough for what?

The experience of combat doesn't seem, from the standpoint of those who've had it, to be a question of time anyway. People in uniform usually spend most of their time NOT fighting--sitting around base, conducting uneventful patrols, planning operations, training, etc. The experience of the soldier is usually days of boredom, punctuated by a few minutes of sheer terror.

The exception for US forces is, of course, Vietnam. Boobytraps, snipers, ambushes, infiltrations, assassinations, major offensives--American infantrymen in that war faced a higher average exposure to danger than in other conflicts.

So, is four months of service in Vietnam "enough"? And again, for what?

Whatever the war, the message that candidates who were veterans inevitably send to the electorate is, "I served, with all that military service means." Eisenhower certainly ran on his military resume, even though he didn't face danger himself. In WWII, he did, however, make momentous decisions on a daily basis. Is this kind of service more or less valid than the perilous war histories of McCain, Bush Sr., Cleland, or Kerry?

We might have a discussion of how military service makes someone a better candidate for public service. We might also dig into the type of service someone performed: General or lieutenant? Medic or pilot? Logistics specialist or XO?

But, you have to ask yourself, (1) Are these fine distinctions really necessary, if in fact someone actually performed active duty, and (2) is it even possible to have a constructive discussion in any public forum today, particularly the American press?

I'd answer no to both questions.

[Oscar]

Sorry, I think you missed the point of my "4 months" comment. I agree that the length of time in service is less important than the service itself (although Dems don't feel that way about GWB). I meant that those 4 months are the only part of his life that he discussed at the convention, and those 4 months are what he is running on. What about all the time since???

As to your two questions,
I agree, the distinctions aren't necessary (I wasn't making them anyway), and in our poisonous atmosphere I dont think we can have a rational national debate about ANYTHING. That is why I have come to agree with Hugh Hewitt's premise in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785263195/hughhewittcom%22%3EIf%20It/102-2059385-9184947
that for our own national salvation, we need to crush the Dems at the polls this November so badly that the inmates stop running that asylum