Several days ago, Glenn Reynolds linked to a post at Infidel Cowboy and asked the rhetorical question, “Does Vietnam matter?”:
Vietnam doesn't matter. Vietnam was almost 40 years ago. Some will argue that if what the Swiftboat Vets say is true, then that reflects poorly on Kerry's character. Personally, I can't hold something from that long ago when he was a young man in difficult times against him.
Like Stephen Taylor, James Lileks, and other bloggers I respect, Reynolds appears to agree with this general sentiment. They aren’t the only ones. Many of my fellow conservative and libertarian bloggers have made similar statements. In light of this surprising dismissal of Kerry’s actions in Vietnam, I have a few questions for them and for others who claim that what happened 35 years ago shouldn’t be an issue today:
If Charles Graner were to run for the Presidency in 2040, would (or should) what happened at Abu Ghraib prison be a significant consideration in his qualifications for the office?
Assuming that Graner was otherwise qualified and had spent a career in the Senate up till that point, should his torture allegations be discounted in favor of focusing on his legislative record?
What if in 2006 Graner appeared on television and declared that he had committed other “war crimes” (hinting that he had killed innocent civilians) and that such actions were widespread, would that affect your answer?
Maybe I’m letting my military experience cloud my judgment but for me the issue of whether a candidate is a war criminal is of considerable importance. I’ve known veterans from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq and I think I can safely say that none of them would have anything but the utmost contempt for anyone who violated the laws of war. Since men who've known the horror and stress of war would not excuse such crimes why are so many conservatives willing to do so?
If John Kerry is a war criminal (and I have no reason to doubt his own admission of guilt) then he should be considered morally disqualified from holding the highest office in the land. I find it astonishing that so many people appear to disagree. What kind of country are we when we excuse the actions of a candidate who has admitted to committing horrendous crimes? Is it excusable since it occurred long ago and far from home? Is America truly so Janus-faced that we can feign shock at finding war crimes in Iraq while winking at the atrocities committed in Vietnam?
Update: James Joyner agrees but adds the typical corollary:
Even aside from the things he said about his fellow vets, Kerry has said some rather bizarre things about his own service. For example, he has repeatedly said that he participated in atrocities in Vietnam, which some have used to bolster the claims of SBVFT. If true, this alone would make him unfit to serve as president. It seems far more likely, however, that he in fact not a war criminal but lied about his actions when it served a different political agenda than he's now pursuing.
Committing the crimes he claims would make Kerry a cold-hearted immoralist. Claiming to have committed heinous crimes when he didn’t makes him a lying psychopath. Whichever one is true the fact remains that he is unfit to serve as President.
1
It isn't that I don't it matters. I think because Kerry is basing his campaign on VN that it clearly matters. I am just not sure there is anything to be gained from engaging in an argument on the medals. Rather, I think the focus should be on what Kerry said and did after the war (and which he says he still stands by).
However, it is true thatI am tired of the VN discussion and think that Kerry's political career is more relevant, and is currently being ignored.
posted on 08.09.2004 12:55 PM2
The reason I am not more upset about Kerry's war crimes is that I think he's a liar: I think he came back to the U.S. from Vietnam and lied about committing war crimes in order to juice up his political career.
posted on 08.09.2004 1:07 PM3
Ed,
I think he came back to the U.S. from Vietnam and lied about committing war crimes in order to juice up his political career.
You may be right but I think that makes him even worse. Admitting that you are a common muderer is disturbing. Claiming that you committed murder when you didn't for the sole pupose of gaining political advantage is downright psychopathic. Either way he has no place in public life.
posted on 08.09.2004 1:13 PM4
Joe, I didn't make the rules 30+ years ago. Someone else did.
If Kerry had been put on trail and convicted 30+ years ago of war crimes, you would have a point.
But that didn't happen. Kerry wasn't accused of committing war crimes. On the contrary, he was accused of being a traitor.
How about this "hypothetical"? Let's say that Kerry raped a few hundred Vietnames boys and girls and pregnant women, blew their brains out when he finished, and ate his rations out of their skulls. My guess is that had Kerry NOT returned from Vietnam and "confessed" or protested anything, but just simply took his Purple Hearts and Silver Star and ran for election, there would be no Swift Boat Veterans Group protesting his campaign for Presidency. On the contrary, those nutcases would be deeply in love with John Kerry.
As for Mr. Graner, that guy is will surely be convicted and hopefully he will kill himself in prison (after providing the testimony necessary to convict his superiors).
"Is America truly so Janus-faced that we can feign shock at finding war crimes in Iraq while winking at the atrocities committed in Vietnam?"
Hilarious. Who is feigning shock at the war crimes in Iraq? I'm disgusted but not shocked. I'm surprised the crimes were so well-documented and orchestrated, but not shocked that war crimes were committed. I would be shocked if there weren't MORE WAR CRIMES in Iraq than have been reported thus far. The fact that such crimes occur whenever there are wars is one of the REASONS why I opposed Bush's stupid war in the first place.
As for "winking" at the atrocities in Vietnam, you are the one who seems to be doing the winking, Joe. John Kerry did more to put an end to those atrocities than ANY of the Swift Boat wingnuts who are attacking him now. And as for the pundits and freepers who are backing the Swift Boat lunatics, I have little doubt that if they had their way there would have been a hell of a lot more atrocities in Vietnam (and elsewhere).
posted on 08.09.2004 1:17 PM5
Larry,
But that didn't happen. Kerry wasn't accused of committing war crimes.
He didn’t have to be accused, Larry, he confessed. You’re having a hard time realizing that aren’t you?
On the contrary, those nutcases would be deeply in love with John Kerry.
This reminds me of something you wrote earlier than I wanted to ask you about. You claim that the 200+ Swift Boat vets are lying and that Kerry is telling the truth. What convinces you of that?
As for Mr. Graner, that guy is will surely be convicted and hopefully he will kill himself in prison (after providing the testimony necessary to convict his superiors).
Why the double standard? Kerry admits to even worse crimes. Should he kill himself too?
John Kerry did more to put an end to those atrocities than ANY of the Swift Boat wingnuts who are attacking him now.
What did Kerry do to end the atrocities? Can you prove that he was even personally aware of any atrocities other than the ones he admitted to committing? He admits that he didn’t do anything to end the crimes when they were occurring. What was his excuse?
And as for the pundits and freepers who are backing the Swift Boat lunatics, I have little doubt that if they had their way there would have been a hell of a lot more atrocities in Vietnam (and elsewhere).
Why are you backing Kerry instead of them? What reason do you deny the validity of their story? What other reason, other than the fact that you disagree with their political position, do you have for doubting them?
posted on 08.09.2004 1:31 PM6
Not all 'conservatives' are the same. Bush is an Olasky-follower. Most of his advisors are "neo-cons" - moderate Democrats of 30 years ago. Then you have the social conservatives, law and order types, Constitutionalists, Distributists, and so forth.
We are united in that a Democrat fascist power-play could be very dangerous to us all. If we had a parliamentary system, we'd have separate parties.
posted on 08.09.2004 1:46 PM7
"You claim that the 200+ Swift Boat vets are lying and that Kerry is telling the truth. What convinces you of that?"
Joe, as I informed Kevin on another post, this attempt to turn the issue into a "200 people against one" shouting match is really really weak. You've been presented with the reasons why some of these Swift Boat dorks changed their official stories and are obsessed with attacking Kerry.
"Why the double standard? Kerry admits to even worse crimes. Should he kill himself too?"
No double standard. Kerry's actions (to the extent they can be proven) were NOT worse than Graner's, not by a long shot. I gave you five or six differences beween Abu Ghraib and Vietnam already in a previous thread.
"He didn’t have to be accused, Larry, he confessed."
Enough already. If he confessed to these horrible crimes, Joe, why don't you tell us why he is still walking the streets? And why hasn't anyone who really stands to suffer from Kerry's public presence (i.e., the Bush Administration) come out to demand that Kerry be tried for his war crimes?
"What did Kerry do to end the atrocities? Can you prove that he was even personally aware of any atrocities other than the ones he admitted to committing?"
Huh? You must be joking. Of course I can't "prove" that he was "personally aware" of anything. On the other hand, no serious person doubts Kerry's descriptions of the outrageous, surreal horrorshow that was Vietnam, INCLUDING GENERAL TOMMMY FRANKS who said last week that Kerry's descriptions of the events in Vietnam were UNDENIABLE.
"He admits that he didn’t do anything to end the crimes when they were occurring. What was his excuse?"
I gather that he did what he had been told by his superiors "from the top of the chain on down" was necessary to do in order to "win" the war in Vietnam (and stay alive).
"Why are you backing Kerry instead of them? What reason do you deny the validity of their story? What other reason, other than the fact that you disagree with their political position, do you have for doubting them?"
I've answered all these questions in my previous posts.
posted on 08.09.2004 2:06 PM8
Puzzled wrote:
We are united in that a Democrat fascist power-play could be very dangerous to us all. If we had a parliamentary system, we'd have separate parties.
Orwellian language abuse / tinfoil hat alert. A wignut Democrat could just as easily write,
"We are united in that a Republican fascist power-play could be (or is being?) very dangerous to us all. If we had a parliamentary system, we'd have separate parties."
Fascists, remember, were a right-wing reaction to socialism, even though they sometimes disingenuously called themselves "national socialists." "Fascist," these days, is an empty epithet.
posted on 08.09.2004 2:21 PM9
Joe, you are being 50% too hard on Kerry. He has no corpus callosum: the two halves of his brain function independently. Only one of these halves is evil. But which one?
posted on 08.09.2004 3:13 PM10
>Fascists, remember, were a right-wing reaction to socialism, even though they sometimes disingenuously called themselves "national socialists."
I disagree. While they may have been anticommunist they were indeed socialist to the core, believing that the State, which was the embodiment of the racial will, was the arbiter of all things.
>"Fascist," these days, is an empty epithet.
On that I agree.
posted on 08.09.2004 4:12 PM