If the group that calls themselves the Swift boat veterans for truth had a motive other than correcting the truth as they would like us all to believe, then I think they certainly made their point. They ran their ad in 3 states and for the past week and a half, the constant 24 hour media coverage of the ads has ensured that those ads have been seen by the rest of the country. If that is not brilliant advertising, I don't know what is.
The question that puzzles almost every objective spectator of this tussle between two veteran groups - one allied with Kerry and one against him - is how can two honorable set of men who were at the same place 35 years ago have such contrasting and different recollections of the same incident today? Is it just the fog of war? In the thick of the battle, with bullets flying around and the spectre of death a constant and distinct possibility, can the memories of men 35 years removed be trusted or even be reliable? Do we tend to believe what we want to believe and does that shape our memories? In my opinion, these men really believe in all honesty their versions of the events that unfolded in Vietnam. It is hard however, in a stressful situation as the one that existed in Vietnam to build a reliable, objective and unbiased memory that relies solely on the facts. Human beings by design view things through the color of their own lenses. Two individuals at the same scene can have entirely different accounts of the same incident. It has happened before and is happening now.
We can get too caught up in this debate about Kerry and whether his tour of duty in Vietnam was really heroic. The fact of the matter is that he volunteered to go there when his opponent and many others found ways to avoid the draft. That in itself is heroic. To put yourself in the line of fire, be it for 4 months or many years is a courageous thing to do. And Kerry deserves plaudits. I wish however, he'd tone down his constant drumbeat about his military service in Vietnam. Part of the problem is that he made this a central issue of his campaign and it has come back to haunt him. For my part, nothing that the Swift boat veterans say will diminish Kerry's service to his country in Vietnam. After all, their argument is a mere quibble about exactly what Kerry did in Vietnam. They don't challenge his presence in Vietnam, which would have been a very serious charge.
I hope the campaigns start debating the real issues that confront this country soon. It is astonishing that two months removed from the election, all that is being debated is whether Kerry pulled his comrade Russman from the water in the face of enemy fire or in the absence of it. Who cares? I don't have time for it and neither should any sane person in America.
2 comments:
I guess what bothers me is that Kerry used his 3 Purple Hearts to get out of Vietnam within 4 months...when others pulled the load for a year or more. My father was one of those people...who had many cuts..and almost lost his finger to enemy fire...but knew....as all soldier's knew during that era...you don't take a purple heart unless you've lost a limb or an eye. Dad would have had several purple hearts if you count all the knife slashes he got from the enemy trying to take over his mine-sweeper...and shrapnel that they picked out with their fingers when it was all over. It may not be about "severity of wounds" but it should be about commitment and trust.
I personally would feel uncomfortable criticising Kerry for his Purple hearts. After all his opponent chose to stay back and avoid the war. I don't think that argument is compelling enough to appeal to everyone. I am sure veterans who served in that war feel differently, but having been born in a different era, I am just not capable of seeing this from their perspective.
I think Kerry's mistake was to rely on his Vietnam experience so heavily and turn it into a central pillar of his campaign to the exclusion of all else. I wish he had kept it in the background and instead built an attractive message. I think there was room to build a solid and inviting message that would appeal to a majority of the people. Today he lacks a coherent message and anybody who runs for national office without a coherent vision and message deserves to lose. Bush on the other hand has a solid, unwavering message and I think is the favorite to close out this election.
Post a Comment