All this controversy about the Swiftvets, and the film Stolen Honor, and John Kerry’s 1971 testimony to Congress still being relevant today depends on the assumption that today, 29 years after the fighting ended, Americans who were young during the Vietnam War are still deeply divided over it – over whether it was a mistake, and whether it was just.
But they’re not divided. They’re about two-to-one against it and have been, consistently, ever since 1968.
It is reasonable to ask not only what position someone has taken, but what actions that person has done to advance that position.
Most pro-lifers, for instance, don’t want anything to do with clinic bombers, and will denounce these actions.
Likewise, I think Kerry could have protested the Vietnam War without broadly calling soldiers war criminals, and throwing his medals on the ground. Very many people have real problems with these actions, since they went way beyond normal political protest.
There has been a fuss over these things for a long time. If Kerry is overwhelmed with the reaction to them now, it is due to very poor preparation on his part. He should have addressed these concerns forthrightly, in a manner that did not make him seem politically calculating, like his current position seems to demonstrate.
This was a time when antiwar protestors were blocking the entrances to induction centers, burning American flags in the streets, and shouting things like “Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?” and “Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh! Ho Chi Minh is gonna win!” By the standards of the time, Kerry’s protests were remarkably moderate and civilized.
A lot of the opinion today no doubt is based on the fact the US lost the war. A bunch of US soldiers died, many Southeast Asians died, and we pulled out letting the Communists take control. Even if someone thinks the cause was just, in retrospect it was a mistake in that the US failed to free the people their from communism.
“Not as radical” really isn’t a great defense for much of the country. This past had to be neutralized in some way, for Kerry’s sake, and his concentration on his war record wasn’t enough to do so.
In retrospect they were, even if they were protesting for the wrong reason. While some may believe the cause of the war was just, the fact that we weren’t able to win means we should have stayed out.
When a very vocal minority continues to spew this sort of comment regarding war protestors, I would say that we still have a split in the country on the issue. It may not be a 50-50 split, but the division exists and is quite capable of bringing forth inaccurate and unreasoned speech. (Mind you, if this thread goes much longer, I’m sure we will see some inaccurate and unreasoned speech from those who opposed the war, but that simply proves the point: the U.S. may not have some deep divide that separates all of us into one of two camps, but there is a very vocal fringe that is quite capable of evoking emotional responses using slogans and cheap rhetoric, even today.) I worked with a Vietnam-era vet who actually took the time to study the issues and came to the conclusion that we (in his opinion) did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. However, it did not take much in the way of “hawk” or “dove” sound bites to get him foaming at the mouth mad over the whole issue all over again–to the point where he would actually switch sides and rant the hawk perspective until he cooled off. It does continue to be an emotional issue regardless of how many people hold any given position.
The reason the U.S. is portrayed as “divided” is the same reason that some people referred to Kerry and Bush as “candidates with problematical service records.” Conservatives are lying, lying their asses off, as they so often do. They want us to think opinion on Vietnam was equally divided when it was not. They want us to think Kerry’s service in Vietnam equates with Bush’s non-service in the Air National Guard. They are a bunch of damned liars, that’s all there is to it.
He did no such thing. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, with cites and references. You persist in blandly repeating slander as though it were proven and accepted fact. I will call you on it every time.
The only place where you have the slightest reasonable point is in contesting his characterization of these actions as being “commonplace”. And such an argument must necessarily hinge on defining the word “commonplace”. It is a trivial argument.
You seem to be concerned that Mr. Kerry (ano others, including myself) were not sufficiently respectful and circumspect, we should have restrained ourselves to polite murmurings. Softly, softly. Carnage and horror committed in our name, under our flag, but mustn’t raise your voice, might disturb a slumbering public. Perhaps a letter to the editor, maybe your name on a petition, but make your case softly, softly, as if you were ashamed of yourself, rather than ashamed of your country. Cherished lies are sacrosanct, if they but drape the flag over a crime, the crime is no more, it has vanished, if the blood seep through and stain it, best not to notice.
No man ever honored his country by assisting in a dishonorable cause.
The general consensus is that it was the right idea to go to Vietnam to fight communists however we failed to recognize that the conditions and method of fighting the war pretty much guaranteed that it would be unwinable. We recognize the bravery of the men and women who fought there and largely view the majority of protesters as drug addled hippies. We think it’s great that they were exercising their freedom of speech, however it just doesn’t deserve the same level of respect.
Gosh, Msmith, whereever did they get such a view? Ever wonder who’s purposes were served by such a view? Ever wonder how such persons who might be lucky to get their shoes properly tied managed to organize and execute large scale public protests? Seeing as how they were all so “drug-addled”. The Berrigan brothers? All doped up, huh? Fellows like John Kerry, remarkably eloquent and incisive for someone whacked out smoking LSD and shooting up mary jane.
Have you even the slightest idea what you are talking about? Did you, like I, personally participate in these events? When Nixon referred to the students gunned down at Kent State as “bums”, did you nod your head at the received wisdom, from on high? If a man is ripped to the tits when he tells you the truth, does that make the truth less so? Nixon was sober as a Quaker when he lied through his teeth, lies that killed thousands. Are any of those less dead because of his chemical habits of restraint?
Oh, I agree entirely – fighting against long-term consistent data is usually a poor idea. But the central assertion of the OP, the topic of the Great Debate, if you will, is “But they’re not divided. They’re about two-to-one against it and have been, consistently, ever since 1968.”
If one believes that the country is divided about gay marriage, one can not then believe in good faith that the country is not divided about the Vietnam war.
That said, perhaps the OP will drop by and moot my post by stating that he believes that the country is not divided about gay marriage. It’s not an interpretation I’d agree with, but it would be consistent and not unsupportable.
