If you pull any incident, at random, out of any war, you can almost always find numerous wildly different accounts floating around, even from eyewitnesses. I wouldn't be surprised, also, if a fair number of medal, if subjected to sufficient scrutiny, proved to be dubious. This is only an issue because it's politically charged.
Kerry walked into it by being an idiot. He should have refused to say anything about Vietnam beyond "I went, I served, and that's all I'm gonna say". That would, of course, draw a marked distinction between him and Bush, who, no matter what anyone says, rather pointedly arranged his affairs to make sure he wouldn't go to Vietnam.
I'm sure Kerry's career in Vietnam was less impressive than it's been made out to be, but then again, Bush's career before he went into politics (and in many ways after) was not terribly impressive either.
I can't remember the last time I've looked at a candidate for high office without wondering whether this is really the best we can do. I can't look closely at either of these guys without distaste.
The only positive outcome, in my view, would be to see the next administration, whoever wins, checked by a legislature dominated by the other party, ideally by a fairly small margin. That would at least limit the potential damage. Slim hope, but better than none. |
