Lando 
Posted on 07/30/2004 7:12:23 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
A few weeks back, a colleague of mine at TNR joked that the Kerry campaign should create a miniature river in the FleetCenter, in which the candidate and his "band of brothers" could wend their way toward the podium in a swift boat. Then came news that the Kerry campaign had actually hunted for a Vietnam-era swift boat to plunk down in the convention center. Alas, none was found, and Kerry had to settle for a water taxi ride with his boat mates. In the end, it didn't really matter. No one who watched his acceptance speech last night could have missed the fact that, yes, John Kerry served heroically in Vietnam. Easier to miss was that, as a guide to what sort of approach to national security Kerry will enshrine in official policy--presumably the whole point of the exercise--last night's martial imagery and rhetoric told us nothing at all. Or, rather, worse than nothing.
There were, in fact, three Vietnams haunting the convention hall last night. One was on the stage, which, with its "band of brothers" and "greatest generation" tributes, somehow attached World War II nostalgia to our national tragedy in Vietnam. The second was in the audience, where nine out of ten delegates view the war in Iraq through the prism of their views of that earlier conflict--that is, they would just as soon bolt--and where Kerry's Vietnam service seems to be regarded as some sort of anthropological (and heaven-sent) oddity. The final Vietnam was in John Kerry's words, which blended the stage and audience versions into some approximation of the candidate's own views about the war. None of it furthered the cause of rational discourse.
As for the stage version of Vietnam, the theme of the night clearly took its cue from the 1996 GOP convention, where Republicans attacked the sitting commander-in-chief as a draft dodger--in contrast to World War II hero Bob Dole, who, "bloodied in combat" and "tested by fire on the battlefield," would be a "commander-in-chief whom our military respects," in the words of former President George H.W. Bush. But last night's sheer militarism--how else to describe the implicit, and too often explicit, insistence that veterans are morally superior to and possess better judgment than their civilian counterparts?--topped even that. Between the robotically repeated mantra "He served his country," the gauzy video, and then triple amputee Max Cleland introducing Kerry--and of course the acceptance speech itself to which Kerry "report[ed] for duty"--there was something vaguely illiberal about the whole production. But, then, that was the whole point.
Echoing the phalanx of generals who have endorsed him, Kerry says we should trust him to guide the fortunes of an America at war because "I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president." Leaving aside the unseemliness of recently retired general officers endorsing political candidates from a convention podium, the steady diet of patriotic gore that Kerry forced us to imbibe was unsettling enough. After all, whether it describes a Republican or a Democratic candidate, the fact that a politician has "fought under that flag" tells us nothing about his qualifications to be a wartime leader--even less when the would-be leader devotes far more of his convention speech to a long-ago war than he does to the war in which America happens to be presently engaged.
To Kerry supporters who argue otherwise, is it really necessary to point out that Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt never saw combat before going on to become America's greatest wartime strategists? Or that the very men who dispatched Kerry to Vietnam were themselves decorated veterans? To be sure, politicians who have served in war have an essential understanding of the horrors of war. But what does it tell us about their strategic wisdom or their fitness to be commander-in-chief? In truth, very little. None other than George McGovern boasted, accurately, that he was "a decorated combat pilot in World War II," while his opponent "was stationed far from battle." Did this make McGovern "stronger" than Nixon on national security? For their part, Senators Chuck Hagel, John McCain, and John Kerry all served in Vietnam. How did it shape their foreign policy views? In completely different ways: the first ended up a traditional realist, the second a virtual neoconservative, and the third a conventional liberal.
This final fact, needless to say, is what Kerry's speech was all about papering over. The task left the candidate in the odd position of camouflaging his own, pessimistic lessons of Vietnam in the very different, upbeat lesson advertised on stage: namely that Vietnam, no less than World War II before it, was a showcase of generational fortitude, a failed, but noble enterprise. If only Iraq were so noble, Kerry seemed to be saying in his speech, he might even have a discernable position on it.
Regarding his own Vietnam, as opposed to the Hollywood production staged around him, Kerry asked his audience "to judge me by my record." The question has been asked before, but Kerry did not answer it in his speech: If his Vietnam service offers proof that he is "decisive," then why is it that for two decades Kerry has been "only an average Senator," as pro-Kerry columnist Al Hunt wrote in yesterday's Wall Street Journal? If his wartime feats prove that Kerry is "strong" on national security, then why did he oppose virtually every stand-out weapons system in the U.S. arsenal today, speechify against the first Gulf War, and refuse to fund the second? Why, indeed, unless no correlation exists between his biography and his record?
Kerry's speech last night showed how much distance there is between the two. Theatrics aside, it was far more in tune with his own lessons of Vietnam--and with those of the delegates before him--than with the Vietnam kitsch festooning the convention hall. Earlier in the evening, for example, Joe Biden sketched out a truly heroic foreign policy vision, insisting that Kerry understands the need to promote liberty abroad. He was followed by Joe Lieberman, who said we could count on Kerry to liberate those living under "murderous tyrannies." As for the candidate himself, he uttered nary a word about democracy promotion, nor even a banality or two about promoting freedom abroad. There was no heroism here. Only what Kerry defended as "complexity."
Indeed, he spent far more time discussing domestic policy than he spent discussing foreign and defense policy. And when he did get around to discussing the matter of our national survival, he basically took a page from the post-Vietnam playbook favored by an earlier generation of Democrats. "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad," the candidate declared to rousing applause, "and shutting them down in the United States of America." Suggesting that Europeans won't send troops to Iraq simply because they can't stand his opponent, Kerry promised to be nicer to our allies so we could "bring our troops home." Unlike, say, in Bosnia, he pledged to go to war "only because we have to." Leaving unsaid exactly by whom and at what cost, he dedicated himself to making America "respected in the world." Finally, and without saying precisely what it is, Kerry said he knows "what we have to do in Iraq." He has a plan, you see. Just like a candidate from long ago claimed to have a plan to end a war--the war that put Kerry on the stage last night and which, for him at least, wasn't so long ago at all.
Lawrence F. Kaplan is a senior editor at TNR.
Lando
Just when I think it can't get any goofier with guy. Unbelievable. I guess he doesn't have anything else. John O'Neill, author of "Unfit for Duty" was on the local radio station last night. He had some highly unflattering things to say about Kerry's brief swift boat days. Mr. Kerry has invited us to judge him on his record - and as far as I can see, his record is not exactly stellar. What has he done since his Viet Nam days, besides visiting protesting the war and meeting with North Vietnamese officials? What record does he have in the Senate? What noteworthy thing has he done? I mean, besides marrying two wealthy women.
Kerry has a terror war fighting strategy of surrendering to the U.N.
That is all anyone really needs to know.
I have uncles who served in Vietnam and uncles who chose the national gaurd as an alternative. All of my uncles are angry that John Kerry has attempted to divide them into two groups. Those who served honorably and those who dodged service.
GRRRRRR!!! This is driving me crazy! He denounced his service! Now he wants to capitalize on it??
.
JOHN KERRY = Enemy of Vietnam Vets
http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1320
.
Hey wahts the weather doing down there? It has been raining steadily here in STL nonstop since last night. Also, yes or no on Rockaway Beach's proposal?
Kerry is as depressing as the movie...an insult to anyone who lived and died during the VN era. He brings back the worst memories of Americans - not Americans really but Communists - undermining their nation.
"I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president."
GRRRRRR!!! This is driving me crazy! He denounced his service! Now he wants to capitalize on it??
Liberals invented DISENGENIOUS
underneath Kerrys feathers
What we see in the Democratic party today is an alliance between the "peace at any price" and the "win at any cost" factions of the DNC. In the past these two groups had been held in check by a few "Democrats with a conscience" but they're now AWOL. You might argue they've been completely wiped out by Clinton's genocide against anyone with principles. Zell Miller remains but he's been marginalized as a Republican wannabe and Leiberman has been silent since withdrawing from the presidential primaries.
These two groups have ganged up to spin the Iraq war into "Bush lied" and "We should be fighting the real terrorists (who may strike at anytime...I hope)." Micheal Moore is a hero to them because in their calculus wounding the enemy is more important than truth or justice or national security. Never before have we seen such second guessing against a president fighting a war approved by Congress. The peace at any pricers are happy because they are against all wars for any and all reasons and the win at any costers are happy because they think they've finally saddled the president with an issue they can use against him. From their perspective, the actual issue doesn't matter, so long as it gives them an opportunity to exploit. What is completely forgotten, is now that they have raised the bar for a president to to go to war to defend America, what happens when the Iranians develop a nuclear weapon? Is having a nuke go off in an American city just another political opportunity?
Are they so focused on the political consequences of events that they've forgotten that people die? That 3000 died in New York and Washington DC and Pennsylvania?
Are there any Democrats with a conscience left in the world?
You have hit the nail on the head, 5by5!
Only one AFAIK, and he lives 20 miles from me here in the GA mountains.
I used to call him Zig-Zag Zell, but he's finally won me over by disowning the traitors, baby-killers, and Hollywood perverts who have now totally taken over his party. I just hope he will take the opportunity to atone for his past mistakes by speaking at the GOP convention and exposing from within the absolute depravity of the Democrat party.
There are Vietnam-era swift boats on display at a Navy museum in Ft Pierce Florida. Kerry or his team wouldn't know that, of course, because this month is the first time they've thought about Vietnam in decades, at least in a way which might portray that fight in some kind of positive light.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.