Dabum, let's take a look at some implications of your post:
*Whether true or not, it was disloyal to the men fighting in Vietnam for Kerry to point out that atrocities were an integral part of that conflict.
*Loyalty requires that you follow the lead of your government, right or wrong. Love it or leave it means you don't criticize our policies because our enemies might take heart from that criticism.
*It was a good thing to keep the public ignorant of the fact that Vietnam was a bad war and that it wasn't getting any better. We should have relied upon the leaders of our country to do the right thing with respect to continuing the war and we should have relied upon them to tell us what we needed to know.
*And, finally, if Kerry had kept quiet while more and more men got chewed up in the meat grinder, while more and more Vietnamese civilian women and children suffered and died and while we continued to spend money in that war while domestic needs went unmet, he would then have been a leader we could count on. Maybe even the kind of leader that could have been a Marine leader.
Think about what we've learned since. If the vets and others hadn't gone "public" there may well have been insufficient pressure on the politicians to stop the war. After all, we now know that the bastards had figured out that the war was unwinnable a long time before they finally stopped the slaughter. It wasn't until enough of US began to wise up that they sensed a change in the political winds and stopped. Why do you think the Nixon people were so adamant about trying to find some slime on Kerry? I thank Kerry, in part, for contributing to a quicker end of that silly and deadly war.
I guess what I'm saying is that men like Kerry led in battle and then he led in the right direction when he came home. He opened the eyes of many to the "truth" of the war and raised again the central question; "why were we there and what did we hope/reasonably expect, to accomplish?" Of course that pissed off those that wanted to be thought of as part of a noble effort. Of course that pissed of those that cheered USA, USA at the time. BUT he says he cared more about the truth and the young men that were dying over there and he took a stance.
Did you know that his best friend from Yale and his best friend in the Navy were both killed in Vietnam while he was there? I think he had a heart for the guys that were getting killed and, even if you disagree, you might consider giving him the benefit of the doubt instead of accepting every smear as "proven" and rejecting every defense that's offered. Of course if he was a "traitor, deserter, despicable person and flip flopper," I guess that's hardly human and we don't need to be fair to a subhuman like that. |
