Stuck in the amber of the radical sixties

Even as our "effete corps of impudent snobs" (thank you, Spiro Agnew) trot out the same old, same old "We SHOULD be talking about the economy, education, health care, the environment, homeland security, soshcurity, etc.," John Kerry and the Swiftboat Vets have -- however unwittingly -- opened a long-overdue national debate on the festering sore of "What did you do in the Vietnam War, Daddy?"  In our fantasy we saw Kerry himself confronting his demons and acknowledging ambiguity as he looks back now on his fiery youthful post-service anti-war persona.  But no.  Instead, we get a boilerplate Senatorial denial of any doubts and projection of all wrongdoing onto his critics.  Sad, very sad. Above all else, his whiny, it's-Bush's-fault-not-mine handling of this difficult moment in his presidential campaign bespeaks a character unworthy of leading the free world.  Ironically, his loose-canon helpmeet is reported to have said the other day (couldn't find a link) that no one, including her husband, was qualified to be President of the US.  She ain't no Laura Bush.  We're -- gasp -- starting to appreciate Hillary by comparison with Ms. Heinz Kerry.

We continue to believe that Vietnam sticks in the national craw because of the pivotal role it played in the sixties leftists' sense of their own importance.  They were going to change the world.  If they were wrong about Vietnam, their entire worldview is in question. Lawrence Kasdan's The Big Chill comes to mind. Can't have that. As we blogged here a couple of weeks back, quoting Bruce Thornton in his article "Embedded and Elitist Left: The Long March through Schools of Journalism":

For those stuck in the amber of the radical sixties, Vietnam is their most glorious memory, a time when they rose up and confronted the military-industrial complex and forced it to retreat from its neo-colonial and imperial ambitions. That's why at every opportunity Vietnam is trotted out, surely the most overused false analogy ever.

Comments

[CoolBlue]

You make a great point.

It also seems to me that Kerry has opened a wound that never healed. To whatever extent the country moved on from Vietnam is far in advance of where the Vietnam Vets themselves stand.

How could it have healed when Vets still greet each other with "Welcome Home" because the country did not? How could it have healed when the myth of soldiers committing atrocities still hangs over the head of every Vietnam Vet?

I think that whenever a soldier comes home today to a thankful America, Vietnam Vets are proud but also resentful; and their anger is not aimed at the soldiers but at those who sullied their name and tarnished their sacrifice.

Perhaps many Vets didn't have a name or a face before beyond Hanoi Jane; someone who was untouchable.

But now they do.

And as the word spreads, I wouldn't be surprised if Vietnam Vets and all of their brothers in arms, past and present, make it their mission to defeat the one who has become the icon for all they suffered.

I think that after 30 years, the pus of the festering wound is starting to drain and I think that Kerry inadvertantly made the cut that let the venom flow.

And it won't be pretty.

[Sharps Shooter]

CoolBlue,
Concur yr analysis.

The Wall helped, but Kerry is struggling desperately to pretend his speech to America's Senate never really happened.

Down that road lies damnation, Kerry.

Men of courage would take a stand for truth. Americans would deal in matters of character. Your pandering, your betrayal of all that America's soldiers stood for, your obvious support for Hanoi Jane and your honored place in the annals of Communist Vietnamese war history as one who, almost singlehandedly, allowed the nearly-defeated North Vietnamese to win by default...

THESE are the skeletons in your filthy closet, and their rattling bite will be MUCH worse than anything you've felt to-date! You show yourself as neither a man of courage nor an American of character. Shame, Kerry, bitter shame be your solace!

[Touchdown]

I am a new vistor to this site/blog. First, the DNC convention's disengenuous showboating and then the Swifters' explosive challenge to Mr. Kerry's Viet Nam record brought me back to feelings from long ago and in search of why.

I am impressed by the level of research, reasoning and thoughtful dialogue contained on this blog site. It is a bit comforting to see that there are folks out there thinking the same as me relative to Mr. Kerry. I have always held him in low regard, but there was a post-Vietnam life to live, and I moved on. Now it has all bubbled up again over the past week.

While I do not wish to dwell on the medals, the Purple Hearts really get to me. Three in 4 months is difficult to accept, especially when, collectively, the 3 wounds didn't amount to anything more than a bad morning of shaving. My recollection of the rules on Purple Hearts and eligibility to leave country is as follows:

Three seperate wounds/hearts qualified for a ticket out. BUT, one of those 3 wounds had to be a "major," meaning that it had to have knocked the serviceman out of duty for at least 48 hours. This was the rule in the Marine Corps. Assuming that this rule also applied in the Navy, just how did J. Kerry make his hurried exit?

Is there anyone reading this that knows what I am referring to and can confirm my recollection?

Thanks and....
Keep up the good work.