I agree. Our real enemy does not equivocate. They do not play at war.

We need someone who understands who is our real enemy and is willing to lead us in the fight.

Unfortunately Mr Kerry has chosen to focus on the four months of his life in which he seemed to do something of value, not matter how staged. Unfortunately, this isn't another scene in his screenplay, it is real.

Vietnam does matter.

Kerry is saying the same things about Iraq that Nixon said about Vietnam, but what I worry about is that he'll run the war on terror like LBJ ran Vietnam, trying to make war kinder and gentler, and bogging us down far more than we are at present.

AST - Of course Vietnam matters in the literal sense. You are literally saying what I am saying figuratively - that what matters is how the current war will be fought. In your calculation, Kerry's comments are comparable to those of Nixon and you expect his actions to be like those of LBJ. I can't disagree with that - but it doesn't negate my point either, since it deals with what Kerry is doing now to predict what he would do if elected. You aren't saying that him being a war hero means he would be a great president or vice versa.

If Kerry would stop basing his whole campaign on his Vietnam experience, your statements would be more salient to the actual situation.

But if Kerry is saying he should be elected because he's a war hero, and if he faked his legacy of heroism, I call that highly pertinent to the campaign.

Instead of underhanded legal threats, Kerry should face his accusers head on, and get the true facts in front of the people.

Vietnam matters to those who were there at the time, both in the field and on the home front. That's why we're all jumped up about it today. For the longest time, it was conventional wisdom that Vietnam was a mistake, a war we shouldn't have gotten into, and in several ways, that's correct.

But there's an underlying question that resonates today: Is it worth going to war to fulfill a country's aims, when the affect on those who fight it are little or non-existent?

There are worthy geopolitical reasons for invading Iraq: to resolve the repeated violations of UN resolutions for 12 years, to ensure the dismantling of the WMD programs, to gather information on terror groups and their finances, to surround Iran which is trying desperately to go nuclear.

But the effect on those who fight the war boils down to this: 900+ soldiers killed and more wounded.

Is the sacrifice worth it, and should we continue to sacrifice our brothers and sisters (and speaking personally, I had one cousin fight during the war, and another cousin going over in January, so, yes, I'm affected) to ensure that our country's goals are met?

In Vietnam, we faced a similar problem: should we sacrifice our soldiers to contain the spread of communism? As in Iraq, only those soldiers affected by this question were sent home in body bags and on stretchers.

These are the questions that are not being considered underneath the questions about Kerry's service record, and his promotion of his record as a reason to vote for him.

I grow weary of people telling me that Viet Nam does not matter for several reasons. For one, there were valuable lessons to learn there about when, why, and how to fight a war. Most seem to have gone unnoticed except in the abstract, e.g., "war is bad" mantra of the left today.

Second, there are many refugees from Viet Nam now living in the US who think it still matters a great deal that the US abandoned them and they lost their homeland.

Third, there is no statute of limitations on things like war crimes and murder which Kerry has both been accused of and admitted to. Getting older and "growing" does not excuse horrific behavior and heinous crimes.

And finally, I served in Viet Nam both in the Navy and as a civilian contractor and it was a part of my life for more than 6 years. I cannot just throw it away as if it never happened. I do agree that we must meet the challenge of the threats that confront us today, but I further submit that 55,000 men lost their lives in 'Nam and that was a pretty serious threat too. Some things like values and character never change.

Scaramonga - I appreciate your comments. Again, I acknowledge that in black and white terms, of course Vietnam matters. It left an idelible mark on our nation's history. It matters in that it shaped our politics for a long time.

My figurative title is speaking only in terms of the current conflict. To me, what Bush or Kerry were doing individually back then doesn't matter much. Bush is evidence of this - he didn't fight in Vietnam, but has performed admirably in this current war. Kerry did fight, but I doubt his ability to lead us in the war on terror.

For the most part, I have to agree that VietNam is old news, but some of Kerry's activities, while in the Naval Reserve, draw serious reflection and could stand some "sunshine" to clear the "air". I really don't want another major unanswered allegation hanging around into a Kerry presidency, like Clinton had (remember Paula Jones).
So all that is required is for Terry McAuliffe to apologize for making an ass out of himself by calling George W. Bush, "AWOL" or at least a statement from the DNC that the Bush's time was honorable and complete. I also like the idea of the 527's shuting down; all of them.

I agree that Kerry or Bush's VietNam related record is not important to a decision to vote either of them for President. What is interesting is Kerry and his teams decision to lead with the VietNam theme, both in his stump speeches and even at the convention. If you had knowledge that your "background" could be disputed by others who were there, or for that matter, proven wrong, why the heck would you lead with it? Either you have no such guilt and the story is absolutely true, or you are incredibly cynical. Interesting decision-making and candidate positioning.

For some of us,
including some people you emailed me about, Vietnam does still matter.
There’s a reason for that copy of “Still in Saigon” being on my hard drive. The
fact that John Kerry lied to get at least two of his Purple Hearts (click

here and start reading) and apparently enhanced the truth about the
incidents that resulted in his Bronze and Silver Stars, says “boatloads” about
his character. That, and his "anti-war" (spell that "anti-G.I.") activities
after he returned from 'Nam, should be all anyone needs to know to make their
decision about the November election.

Oops. HTML tags don't seem to work in your comments. That blank line in my previous comment was supposed to be a link to http://inbillsworld.blogspot.com/2004/08/john-kerry-unfit-for-command-update-1.html.

Bill - you hit on my point. The issue is character in so much as it relates to his ability to lead our nation today.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: