Posted on 08/24/2004 5:01:44 AM PDT by EllaMinnow
The extraordinary emotional exchanges we are witnessing daily about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group leads us to one unavoidable conclusion: For only the second time in our nation's history, the bitterness of a bloody, lost war will shadow national politics until generational replacement has removed all the brave soldiers who experienced the event first-hand.
The Civil War did not end until everyone who had fought in it had passed away--and then some. For over a century after Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House, Americans were still arguing over the war's name (the Civil War, the War Between the States, or the War of Northern Aggression). Even two wars we did not really win--the War of 1812 and the Korean War--never came close to generating such animosity.
Much like the Civil War, the Vietnam War continues to roil our elections almost thirty years after the inglorious collapse of U.S.-supported South Vietnam. Arguably, Vietnam has already played a significant role in as many presidential elections as the Civil War ever did--at least in a headline sense. It was THE ISSUE in 1968 and 1972, but still mattered greatly in 1976 (the amnesty matter for those young men who had fled the country over the draft); 1980, 1984, and 1988 (the "weak on defense" issue for the Democrats as a result of the party's post-Vietnam dovish tilt), 1992 and 1996 (Clinton's draft evasion while running against war heroes Bush Sr. and Bob Dole), 2000 (Bush's National Guard situation), and now 2004.
Can you believe, dear readers, that we are back in the Vietnam jungles yet again? It has happened for three primary reasons:
The Kerry team decided early on to contrast Kerry's and Bush's war records in an attempt to create a rationale for the Democrat to serve as commander in chief, to undermine Bush's rationale post-9/11, and to send a message to the Republicans that Kerry was the anti-Dukakis, a Democrat who wouldn't take a punch without landing a harder one of his own. The logical conclusion of this was the Democratic convention, where Kerry's Vietnam War record was not just a theme, but the predominant message. At times, the inattentive viewer might have thought that he was watching a Veterans for Foreign Wars conclave, not a party gathering, in Boston. Bush supporters were just as determined not to let the Kerry-drawn contrast to stand, for if it did, much of Bush's reelection argument might melt away. Only in time will we know how closely, if at all, the Bush bunch has coordinated with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but the Crystal Ball's guess is that nods and winks were given to appropriate fundraisers and organizers--within the boundaries of the current campaign finance law. (Let's not forget how that "reform" law, the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, strongly encouraged this kind of activity through independent 527 committees, rather than the more accountable political parties. We'd call it an unintended consequence of reform, except that this was flatly and prominently predicted by opponents of the act, so how could it be unintended?) Democrats were genuinely thrilled to have a "war hero" as their 2004 nominee; no longer, they thought, would they have to defend Bill Clinton's smarmy draft evasions. But the party ignored the down side of what Kerry did once he returned to the States after his short tour of duty in 'Nam: With a political career in strongly anti-war Massachusetts in mind, Kerry took up a leadership role in the often-radical Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and headed for the U.S. Senate to give inflammatory testimony that even today reads like an indictment of many U.S. troops serving in Southeast Asia. At the time, the testimony won wide praise in a nation that had grown sick of Vietnam and the two Presidents who ran the war (LBJ and Nixon). But one group had a very different reaction, and has remembered it all the years, with the words still churning in the pit of their stomachs: Kerry's fellow Vietnam vets, including some incarcerated in North Vietnam's brutal prisoner-of-war camps. Now these three pieces have come together in a volatile mix to dominate the presidential campaign's August doldrums. Kerry and his advisers dearly want to shut down the subject since the debate interferes with their agenda and appears to be having some effect on many voters, if the polls are to be believed. Generally, the news media are supportive of the Kerry objective, both because they suspect the Swift Boat Vets are a front for the GOP and also because most of the major newsrooms in America are run by Vietnam-era baby boomers. These particular boomers were themselves anti-Vietnam War in overwhelming numbers, just like Kerry.
Still, the Bush elements involved in this effort are not likely to let up anytime soon. After all, this is the first time since winter that Kerry, not Bush, has been swimming upstream in a political controversy. That role reversal is a massive relief to the Bush forces, however temporary it may be.
Much more important, the Vietnam vets who have committed themselves to this endeavor show no sign of giving up. Some of them are surprisingly good at arguing their case and debating the usual suspects on TV to a draw or better. Journalists may be anti-war but they have learned not to be anti-veteran, so most tread carefully in this arena.
The vets' intensity makes it difficult to say when and how this time travel into history will end. It may very well be that the controversy will last through Election Day and, if Kerry is elected, beyond it--to affect his relationships with the armed forces and his decisions on military intervention.
For the moment, Vietnam has been added to Iraq, the war on terror, the economy, and gay marriage as the major issues of the 2004 election. Vietnam? Yes, indeed. This campaign is turning out to be a long, strange trip that is not always following the map created for it some months ago.
Thanks for pointing me to this column, YaYa!
Imagine seven years of torture, filth and near starvation. All they had to do was admit being a war criminal and they could go home. Their resistance was phenomenal.
Enter Walter Mitty, er John Effin' Kerry. This traitor, without torture, lies about war crimes, and tells it to the world.
Kerry's statements resulted in increased abuse of our prisoners. Kerry should rot in hell.
"even today reads like an indictment of many U.S. troops serving"
like an indictment, no simile here, it was an indictment.
This article is full of innuendo and supposition.
The above quotation being just one of them.
I wouldn't want to suppose that Mr. Sabato is shilling for the DNC, so I won't mention it.
Liars, plaigerizers, and other assorted nogoodniks all.
All Sabato had to do was ask O'Neill.
While the Swifties are helping Bush, they would tell Bush to go to hell in a New York minute if he told them to shut down.
Journalism in America is at its nadir and Sabato as journalist or analyst is right down there in the mud with the rest.
Depending upon what he does in the last moments of his life, it certainly is not outside the realm of possibility...
Even today, Mary had a Little Lamb reads like the story of a girl and her pet lamb.
"But one group had a very different reaction, and has remembered it all the years, with the words still churning in the pit of their stomachs..."
There is some truly bad writing in this piece, get me re-write, stat!
"Some of [the vets] are surprisingly good at arguing their case...on TV..."
Why is it so surprising? These men were mostly officers, one would expect them to be smart, articulate, and determined. Does Sabato think only professional talking-heads like himself, or professional pols and hacks and flacks can be good at arguing their case on TV?
Still, he makes some good points, notably about CFR, but his liberal bias is really showing and he needs some serious help in the metaphor department.
These particular boomers were themselves anti-Vietnam War in overwhelming numbers, just like Kerry.
Sabato was on F&F this morning, being quite critical of the media for their obvious bias. Interesting that he can't see his own.
In other words, being anti-war comes naturally to them, but they had to be taught not to be anti-veteran. The lessons worked only as far as not being anti- the Kerry type of veteran. They are clearly showing their disdain for any veteran who speaks out against Kerry.
Agreed.
There is but so much time in any given day to read and digest articles posted here, and elsewhere.
I certainly haven't he ability to recall each and every author of these "hit" pieces, and their various ways of misleading and camouflaging who they are, or what they are about.
Suffice it to say there are many, and Sabato is but one.
The price of war, I suppose. ;)
Did Sabato mean bias AGAINST Kerry?
No, bias against Republicans. He was very clear on that.
Thanks, good thing I am sitting down!
And wouldn't it be fun if the media would now turn to McCain and Feingold and force them to answer the question: "Was Mitch McConnell right, or what?" The media, once again, treats McCain with deference, not interested in pointing out that his efforts are what created the moveon.org/George Soros beast and even Swiftboaters' ads to exist. (I think it's hilarious to see John McCain's face and words are so prominently used in Kerry's 527 ads.)
When I see Sabito come on TV now, I turn off the station immediately. Everybody should ignore him. He's a DNC frontman.
Wow, I did not know that. Now it makes more sense to me. He wanted to start a career on his war exploits and miscalculated. Then, after that blew up in his face, he decides to stab his band of brothers in the back.
What gets me is when Sabato is portrayed as being non-partisan astute political analyst.
Only in Sabato's dreams.
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.