Why is Vietnam service relevant now?

[VaSteve]

OK, We have two (legitimate) choices for President.

1. A guy who may/may not have been in Vietnam/Cambodia at a certain time.
2. A guy who may/may not have been in the National Guard (or was/was not certified to fly or whatever) at the time.

These are the facts. We are stuck with them. Can someone explain why any of this is relevant now? Better yet, why these jokers use it as a platform? How is what these idiots did when they were younger than my current age (I'm still making mistakes!!) going to really affect me now? As Janet Jackson said: "What have you done for me lately???" Seriously, I have changed my freaking mind so many times since I was in my 20's, doesn't everyone?* I should hope that by the time I am old enough to run for President, I will mellow out even more!

Certainly, military service sometimes makes good leaders. Sometimes it makes "leaders" who lead only because of the chain of command. Good leaders can be born out of civil service as well.

I am from the Desert Storm generation, so I guess it will be awhile before people my age start trying to be the President. But I think gone is the day when the country needed a heroic general to walk off the battlefield and into office. Thanks George Washington (the original) for setting that precent.

Maybe one of you older guys can explain it to me. Assume I haven't made up my mind, because I'm flip flopping like a fish out of water here. I wish VA was a swing state so I could see the stump speeches (and R.E.M. would come play - my vote won't really matter here.

------Footnotes----
*Yes JFK changes his mind 6 times a day, but let's please keep this one on my original topic.

[fintstone]

It is relevant only because that is the sole reason that the democrats nominated Kerry. It was thought that the only way for the (traditionally weak on defense) liberals to defeat a successful wartime president was with a war hero...who was thus immunized from his own record. Once Kerry stops talking about his 4 months in Vietnam....there is nothing left but a war protesting, anti-defense, tax and spend liberal that noone would vote for.

[dd74]

Yep. The Kerry campaign brought up Kerry's Vietnam service, and for the most part, its mention continues to blow up in his face, until he fights back against his detractors.

Bush's service was never brought up by the Bush camp - a wise thing. Media digging brought that to the limelight.

IMO, neither man's service is relevant. But in Kerry's case, he chose to bring it up, and now has had his character assassinated for it - not that he had any character to begin with.

[rcecale]

And besides, your voting record during 20 years of being in the US Senate won't earn you 3 Purple Hearts! Whether you show up to vote or not!!!

Randy

[nostatic]

There is an argument (not sure I'd make it) that the service record points towards underlying character (or lack thereof). I don't give it that much weight, as I have a sensitivity towards people who pull themselves up by their own bootstraps after making mistakes (as opposed to pulling silver spoons out of their arse after accidently sitting on them).

So which is better, tax and spend liberal or spend and spend conservative? That would seem to be the current choice unless GW has different plans for his second term.

[flyenby]

Will he sell his country out, like he sold out his fellow Viet Nam veterans??? I am one of those real combat veterans,his crap did not make my life any easier. I was there 14 months as a combat foot soldier in the INFANTRY

[rcecale]

Flyenby,

Thank you!

Randy

[WOODPIE]

I'm fifty-three years old. I didn't go to Nam, or Canada, but stayed in college as long as I could, which wasn't too long, until I pulled a high lottery number. 273, I think it was. By that time, 1972, Nixon was all into the "Peace with Honor" baloney and it was winding down.

The sense of things I had, at that point in time, was that this country had accepted the notion that it was only digging an ever deepening hole, and the time to get out was now. I don't remember much discussion about the "rights" or "wrongs" of the war; I can't say how people felt regarding whether the soldiers and sailors were doing anything honorable or dishonorable there. The country was just tired of it, sick and tired of it. By that time, everyone knew of a son, or cousin or neighbor's kid who had been killed there.

I'm sure everyone has heard at least a thousand times the story of Viet vets coming home to be spit on and called baby killers and such. I can't dispute that; people can be ugly sometimes. What you hear less about are the vets coming home with their heads halfway twisted around. The future residents of our urban streets. And still others with their heads really firmly screwed on straight and tight, and with a huge chip on their shoulders. It is a natural tactic of moral survival to believe what you have done is right.

I found myself in my freshman year trying to befriend one of these latter survivors of Viet Nam, a Marine who was about as anti-social and anti-hippie as you could find in those days, but still with good business sense. You see, because of his age, he was the "go-to" guy for refreshments alchoholic in the 21-is-legal state of Pa. I can still hear his huge duffel bag going "clink-clink" as he walked back into the dorm after a beer run. One cold spring day, we blew off class and went to the new movie "Easy Rider" and split a bottle of gin. He was an angry drunk, not sure if that came from the war or not, but I was a happy one, so we sort of put each other in check that way. We were both English majors, but he later shifted to psychology, and I believe he went to work at one of the local hospitals after getting his degree.

I would bet that to this day John believes he had the moral high ground regarding whatever he did or did not do while fighting in Vietnam. If I had gone, and had I then come home alive, I also might very well have adopted the same view. More than anything else, it is about survival.

If there is any reason, beyond just these insane politics, why this old war is being discussed so much right now, it is because us older farts have never settled the matter in such a large and illuminated forum. And really, the crux of the matter isn't being discussed at all; only talk about what two very young and relatively wealthy men did or didn't do while the country imploded. The real elephant-in-the-livingroom that everyone ignores is, what exactly is the role of this country on the world stage. That was the final unanswered question of Vietnam, and I think it's the real one this country is going to give answer to, full of ignorance and naivete as it may be, come November.


Ed

[fintstone]

Nicely done post! well written and thought out....maybe you are really a closet conservative......

[island911]

Originally posted by VaSteve
OK, We have two (legitimate) choices for President.

. . .

with that being Bush and Nader, what does Vietnam have to do with anything?

[dd74]

Nader was fighting the Corvair in the 60s, right?

[fintstone]

"Unsafe at any speed"....sorta reminds me of Kerry!

[jm951]

Well, the DNC brought it up because if Kerry's record in the Senate were brought out, this thing would have been way over. Only the yellowdogs would have voted for Kerry. They thought they might have an issue with the war to gain advantage. The problem is it highlights the basic duplicity on the part of the DNC as military service didn't matter when they were running Clinton. Not to take a partisan stance here, but go back and look at some of what was said back then. When Dole's military service was brought up again, the DNC marginalized it. The modern DNC is weak on defense and that's an image they're trying to shake by emphasizing Kerry's service. Too bad they picked a guy who did what he did after he came back and that is the core of the anti Kerry resistance among vets.