Friday, September 03, 2004
How they did it: There has been much talk about how Kerry, by bringing up his military service, deserved the attacks he's been subjected to over the last month. Sounds fine to us. An examination of the record shows that Kerry merited all his medals and his reputation by commonly accepted criteria. But the Swift Boat Veterans and others, were able to make an "issue" out of Kerry's service by redefining the criteria. Redefining criteria so that Kerry either doesn't meet it (e.g. getting severely wounded) or so that it falls into an area of dispute (e.g. under gunfire). The press fell for it, as did many other commentators. This sort of thing, in a presidential election, is a serious failure. | Issue | Accepted criteria | Met criteria? | New criteria | Met criteria? | | Purple Heart | Being injured, no matter how slightly;
shows individual was in life-threatening situation | yes | Must be severe wound | no | | Bronze Star | Act heroically while under attack | yes (mine blew up PDF) | Must be under gunfire | yes - but can be disputed (SBV claim no enemy fire) | | Silver Star | Act heroically while under attack | yes | Must fight adults | yes - but can be disputed (SBV claim shot "fleeing teen") | | Soldier in Vietnam | A tour of duty with significant combat experience | yes | Must be there for a year | no |
posted by Quiddity at 9/03/2004 02:30:00 PM
5 comments
I get so damn fried about the whole "killed a fleeing teenager" thing. No matter how you regard it, the attackers' logic is flawed.
1) if it's such a despicable act, doesn't that prove Kerry's 1971 testimony that atrocities occurred?
2) if we can imprison teenagers in Guantanamo, because no matter their age they're still capable of terrorism (which, I believe, has been the argument), then doesn't that justify what Kerry did?
Hooray Comments, Im love this Blog so much and now i can say it in
print
Actually, he was in VietNam for 18 months, 12 on a ship and 4 additional on the swift boat. Met Criteria? Yes, but those motherless sons conveniently eliminate the first 12 months.
Scorpio
http://scorpio.typepad.com/eccentricity/
Great post, as usual, but I'm going to nitpick because this issue of Kerry "deserving" the attacks really riles me up, and not just because it reminds me of the abusive boyfriend cliche: Don't make me hit you.
First, security is an issue this year, and Kerry has an excellent military record that he shouldn't have to hide. What's more, Bush is contributing to the security-as-big-issue factor because fear and terrorism are all he's got. Kerry would've been a fool to not bring up his past service, especially since the right is going to bash him on anything and everything military related no matter what.
Now, while I do think all aspects of Kerry's record are fair targets for analysis and legitimate criticism, these people are just LYING. The things they say are simply NOT TRUE, and the only people responsible for that are the liars themselves. I refuse to accept this absurd notion that Kerry somehow shares the blame for the lack of integrity displayed by the other side.
Just felt I needed to say that. Thanks for adding the comments!
Scorpio: Yes, I should have clarified it by saying that the New Criteria was "a year spent on the ground in Vietnam". That's an easy way to dismiss a whole bunch of Navy guys.
Anonymous: Yes, I agree that Kerry didn't "ask for" or "deserve" the treatment he was getting. I was trying to point out that in any normal exchange, somebody brings up an issue (Kerry a good soldier) and it's okay to check it out. Just like checking to be sure somebody graduated from a particular college. No big deal, just look at the records for the most part. It's not an excuse to redefine criteria, nor an excuse to demand that somebody prove everything. Bringing up questions of Kerry's service and then insisting that the normal process of inquiry and evaluation of evidence not apply, is simply a debating technique.
|
