He’s never running for president again. He’s a 70-year-old creature of the Senate with no personality and no base, nobody wants him. He was the Romney of his day. What does matter is this: eight years ago Republicans* said he was a traitor, today they’re largely supportive of his nomination for Secretary of State. That tells you all you need to know about the sincerity of the allegations.
*John McCain was more or less the only exception.
What did you read other than the book?
I didn’t read that book, nor any of Kerry’s specific defenses against its attacks, but I did take guidance from journalists who had, and that satisfied me. Someone more knowledgable than I could probably direct you to a few websites and books that will give you a more balanced view, if you want one.
Every leader-- military, political, whatever-- makes mistakes, or does things for the right reasons that don’t work out well. I assume that it was impossible for Kerry to lead a combat mission and do everything perfectly to everyone’s complete satisfaction, but normally people allow for that in assessing someone’s career. In this case, they found people who disliked Kerry, which you could do with anyone, who were offended by his political positions after the war, and they presented a very one-sided picture of his military career. I can’t imagine an officer who hasn’t pissed off some other soldiers, so this doesn’t mean all that much to me, as McCain’s arrogance and abrasiveness didn’t mean that much to me, and as Romney’s reputation for business greediness and unethical behavior didn’t mean all that much. Soldiers will piss some people off, as will Senators and businessmen, if they’re doing their jobs well.
I do wonder why, exactly, Kerry would like to have Shit on a Shingle, though.
Morganstern, did you read any accounts of Kerry’s service from anyone who actually served with him? Because that ought to carry a little more weight than an account from someone who didn’t serve with him, oughtn’t it?
It’s been several years since I read the book. I seem to remember that the story about running his boat aground was a firsthand account. I may be wrong, as I said, it’s been several years.
One overtly biased source was all it took? I’m not surprised your opinion wasn’t favorable. I didn’t like Obama as he was presented by the LaRouchers either.
Stay away from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Don’t ask, just take my word for it…
The story Morgenstern recounted makes sense to me. I wouldn’t want a huge group of soldiers as sitting ducks for an ambush.
BTW, other than his views remaining consistent his whole career (AFAIK) the comparison of Kerry to Romney is spot on.
The gist of this seems to be correct, but the source of the story puts it in a different light:
Corsi and O’Neill draw a damning conclusion, but Kerry’s shipmate doesn’t seem to think this was a big deal and suggests there was a consensus decision not to call this in.
You’re discussing a guy whose most famous quote is “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” His views on some major issues (the Iraq War, and oh yes, the Vietnam War) did not exactly remain consistent.
A lot of people’s views on the Iraq War did not remain consistent, after they found out they’d been had. Mine as well, I originally thought it was just a bad idea.
Marley-You’re quite correct about “I was for it before I was against it.” Vietnam, on the other hand, I give him a pass, going through it gives his views credibility.