« Jo_Ke goes Gore | Main | Chutzpah Watch »
September 23, 2004
The Betraying Voice
As I've already discussed in a previous post, I find John Kerry's slipping back into his 70's persona spooky. Of course, I'm assuming that he actually has ever changed from who he was when he sat in front of the US Senate and spoke of the US Military as "the heirs of 'Jenjus' Khan."
The last several days have moved my suspicion into the realm of confirmation as Kerry is dropping all attempts at pretense in a last ditch effort to resurrect the twitching body of anti-government/anti-American tie-dyed, rarely washed, black-armbanded, clenched-fisted, "hey hey LBJ" chanting Baby Boomers. He started this run at the White House with the constant refrain of his extraordinary qualifications because of his four months in combat in Vietnam. From "saluting" the gathered at the DemCon to dropping mentions of his service into every conversation from riding a ferry in Boston to discussing his favorite gun in Outdoor Life, he wanted to put his time in uniform front and center, to the exclusion of his Senate voting and, most certainly, to obfuscate his time with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
However, it hasn't exactly worked out the way Kerry wanted. Certainly, September 11, 2001, changed a great deal with most Americans. We woke up and realized that a couple of oceans and a tendency towards isolationism are no guarantee of safety. We also saw our all-volunteer forces in action, educated, dedicated and finely trained, and we saw something to be proud of. Kerry thought to capitalize on our heightened sense of respect for men and women in uniform. Regardless of his past with a radical anti-Vietnam group, Kerry must have figured the memory bank was so faded that he could pick and choose which pictures to restore to the national attention.
In the meantime, the Democratic Party has become almost indistinguishable from the Left. It has an easily angered core whose collective knee dances the jig at every international catastrophe in which America is even a peripheral player and pronounces America guilty.
So Kerry sought to straddle the divide between the core Leftists and the moderates of the party by trying to support the liberation of Iraq while saying it had been done "wrong." He says that while he voted to give President Bush the power to topple Saddam, he really didn't mean it. He now says Iraq is the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" when he said prior to the DemCon that anyone that would hold such a position was "unfit" to be President. Kerry counted on the core to grumble, but to hold their peace on his listing towards hawkishness because, at least, he wasn't Bush. His "hawkishness" would play upon the moderates rediscovered respect for US military and willingness to confront Islamist terror.
What Kerry didn't count on was that his military service in the past would be the only thing people would remember. Kerry didn't count on the deep well of resentment he engendered by his very public actions in the early 70's. These sentiments may have well remained in the background except Kerry was so earnest in his efforts to revive only that part of his past that he felt would resonate with the new security minded moderates and conservatives of his party he totally discounted those of us that would find that appeal hypocritical at best, cynical and condescending at worst.
Even the Angry Left admits that Kerry doesn't have the "common touch" that GW does. They attribute it to every thing than the reality that Kerry looks at people as things to use to further himself. From the couple of hundred of Swift Boat Veterans who have recalled Kerry's self-aggrandizing both in Vietnam and as recently as the Swiftboat reunion in 2003 Kerry's attitude has always been clear. Even a Doonesbury strip of the time poked fun at his self-importance:
We know from direct testimony of former POW's that Kerry's testimony was part of the torture that they endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese. We know that many of the VVAW were frauds, never having even been members of the military let alone serving in Vietnam.
I was 16 years old at the time of the "Winter Soldier" testimony. My high school allowed for a "Vietnam protest day" at the urging of some students, who arranged for speakers and who passed out black arm bands. And part of their argument was that the US military were "committing genocide" on Vietnamese. They claimed it was "policy" and the terms of "rapist" and "babykiller" was just as prominent from their mouths in my high school as it was on college campuses.
I was shocked. I argued with them that no matter their political disagreement with the Administration, they were just plain wrong to attack the soldiers. I argued they were giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy by portraying our soldiers as war criminals.
I was part of a small group of kids that counter-protested, handing out red/white/blue armbands in support of the troops. I offered a counterview to the speakers when the discussions were opened.
I really didn't want to relive those times. I would love to let it fade into sepia-toned memories. I'd rather wryly recall the disasters of fashion and home decor of the era, from harvest gold appliances to granny-square crocheted ponchos.
Kerry started this. He ripped the scartissue off and all those lingering memories of spitting on returning veterans and riots and burning flags and burning monks are now in the forefront, along with a soundtrack that includes a patrician voice intoning an almost endless list of purported American atrocities as policy; a voice born of the American northeast but a content worthy of Tokyo Rose.
I guess it will be up to me and my peers to stop it Nov. 2.
Posted by Darleen at September 23, 2004 12:30 PM
Comments
Darleen, almost no one still argues that Vietnam was a good, necessary or well-prosecuted war. It was bad. Some soldiers did, in fact, commit atrocities. That was morally wrong and damaged America.
Kerry did not blame the troops - he clearly blamed the policies and leadership which allowed the atrocities.
Supporting the troops, which everyone I know does, is not the same as supporting the war. Do you get that? I support the troops more than you do, because I don't want them to be in Iraq unnecessarily - I support them by opposing the war. I support them by objecting to the Pentagon decision to not make sure they were supplied with equipment and food. I support them by objecting to the shameful mistreatment and neglect they received from the Pentagon.
If you support the troops, then you would be concerned by the fact that their own families had to raise money for their body armor, that they have to do jobs they aren't trained for, that they had to stay longer than their tour was supposed to be, etc.
Do you care about that stuff? Have you ever complained? I bet you chose to just support the administration and ignore such problems. Am I right or wrong?
The genocide in Vietnam was, for example, bombing dams to create famine. It was also the attitude that it was okay to kill any "gooks" you saw, because they "might" be VC. Just like in Iraq, where soldiers were permitted to "shoot anything that moved."
Posted by: Binacontenda at September 23, 2004 09:32 PM
Darleen, I'm curious about what your standards are for choosing a president - is it sort of an emotional thing for you, or do you judge based on pragmatic concerns?
For example, do you care whether the President is successful in fulfilling his duties?
Posted by: Binacontenda at September 23, 2004 09:34 PM
Scott
For me, choosing who to pick for President is more than the sum total of a resume. Certainly, President Bush 41 had one of the most impressive resumes for the office of just about anyone in modern times. It certainly didn't translate into a good and inspiring leader. (I did not vote for Bush the elder in either election.) The President almost like the CEO of a major company, the best ones being those that have the grasp of the macro and will not be bogged down in the details of the micro. The President has to have the qualities of good leadership, a willingness to seek out and use the best talent s/he can find, to trust those who s/he chooses and inspire trust in them. The President must stay focused on those parts of the macro where s/he can have an effect and not overly worry about historical trends that supercede even his/her efforts.
GW was not my first choice last election. I voted for McCain in the primaries. However, there was no way on god's green earth I was voting for Al Gore and history has vindicated my decision. The man is/was incapable of the office of President.
Certainly, emotion plays a certain role. "Confidence" is an emotion, and a person who one is confident in is going to be more attractive than the person one doesn't trust.
IMHO, the greatest President of the second half of the last century was Ronald Reagan (of the first half, FDR). Both men embodied all the elements of great leaders beyond what a mere resume prior to their elections would have indicated. This is not to say either men did not also engender strong negative emotions in others. That is just part of human nature. "Being liked by everyone" is a Beauty Pageant sentiment, not a policy to be pursued by the President of the United States.
And, let's be honest, that's been one of John Kerry's main themes besides "I served in Vietnam" is the one of "I'll go to foreign countries and get them to like us."
And boy, is he starting off great on that by pissing on PM Allawi!
Posted by: Darleen at September 25, 2004 08:18 AM