John Kerry made his voluntary participation in a criminal and immoral war the centerpiece of his campaign; that invites scrutiny. But the scrutiny it is getting is a joke, typical of the pathological stupidity and dishonesty of both the Republican Party and the national media in this country. This article says all there is to say about the candidates and the Vietnam War:
"[N]ow we're having a debate about whether the man who did the honorable thing [and volunteered to serve in the army] may have embellished his record a little (although nothing in the documentary record suggests he did this), while we have two cowards who did everything they could to stay miles away from the place Kerry demanded he be sent. This is the fundamental truth. And while yes, Kerry has made his war service a centerpiece in a way that Bush and Cheney for obvious reasons did not, is it really Kerry who deserves scrutiny for how he behaved in 1968 and 1969? Why shouldn't the major media be doing comparisons of how Kerry, Bush, and Cheney passed those years? Why shouldn't The Washington Post be devoting 2,700 words to a comprehensive look at Cheney's deferments? Nichols identifies three young men from Casper who did die in Vietnam: Robert Cardenas, Walter Elmer Handy, and Douglas Tyrone Patrick. Did one of them die because Cheney had 'other priorities'?
"But The Washington Post won't do that, because there exists no Vietnam Veterans for the Truth About Deferments, financed by wealthy Democratic donors and out peddling its wares. Which is the moral of the story. Our media can sort through the facts in front of their nose and determine, at least some of the time, who's lying and who's not. But they are completely incapable of taking a step back and describing the larger reality. Doing that would require making judgments that are supposedly subjective rather than objective; but the larger reality here is clearer than clear. Just imagine if the situation were reversed: The same people now questioning Kerry's 'character' would have worked to establish Bush as a war hero long ago. They would have labeled Kerry a coward. If by chance a liberal-backed group came forward to question Bush's wartime actions, they would have been called traitors and worse. And the mainstream media would be following the agenda they set every step of the way."
The one happy thing to come out of this pathetic display is that attention has been finally called to John Kerry's role as critic of the Vietnam War, the role that was erased from the Democratic Convention. But, given the militaristic mindset of the country, his strong performance as a war critic--really his most honorable performance in public life--will no doubt prove a liability. But he deserves to be hoist by his own words on this score, since he disgracefully failed to acknowledge the dignity and moral correctness of his criticisms of the war during the Democratic Convention.
UPDATE: Turns out Paul Krugman is on a similar theme today.
Recent Comments