(painted so after we burned it down)

I just knew you had something to do with that.

"Sadly, it appears that Kerry has squandered a political opportunity that could have raised up his nation even as it raised him to the Presidency."

I agree. Since I am not a Kerry supporter, I am going to say this and it is not going to come across correctly, but I'll try anyway.

All things being equal, John Kerry has been masterful at saying "Presidential" things. His campaign has done well - in a tactical sense - combatting the typical partisan attacks.

John Kerry himself has painted his campaign into a corner though. There was a strategic level mistake made from which he is finding it very difficult to recover. There are a myriad reasons why this might be so, and I don't really mean to start that debate here. I just wonder if his chosen campaign focus was a good idea executed poorly or was it perceived by his campaign as the only possible winning strategy. There were what I would consider to be REAL issues that had more legs than the Vietnam bit.

More divisive? The revolutionary war, and those wounds didn't heal for a while either. Although a few good things came out of it.

As to Joel's question, I think Wretchard may have the answer.

John Kerry could never be the person to heal the wounds of Vietnam, because he was significantly responsible for some of the worse. His trashing of veterans including military leaders at all levels was one of the bright shining lies of war opponents that was calculated to make Americans want to lose the war. It was and is unforgivable and in and of itself makes him unfit for command.

The reason Vietnam matters is that it was turned into a quagmire by policies of liberal Democrats who did not have the will to fight the war effectively nor the political courage to not fight it. This is same problem the Democrats have today. They are an antiwar party cross dressing as nuanced hawks--exactly what they did in the 60's when they also characterized proponents of a more effective strategy as wildmen and crazies. Then when their strategy did not work, instead of taking responsibility for the mess they made, they blamed it on the military and later President Nixon. It is reasonable to fear they would do the same thing again if given the chance since Kerry still refers to the confict as Nixon's war.

Sadly, I don't think anyone is going to heal the wounds of Vietnam.

For what it's worth, Kerry and McCain thought that was what they were doing with their resolution of the POW/MIA issue.

It appears that this campaign has opened up old debates.

Kerry really is the poster boy for confusion and pain surrounding the war. Kerry walked right into this crossfire, i cant imagine he thought he would come out unscathed. Everything that has happened thus far is a direct result of Kerry either not knowing, or disguising who he is and what he's done. He's created the contradictions in his image. Now if he had presented the country with his entire biography, i think he would have less problems now.

One would think John Kerry has been frozen in a block of ice since April, 1969 if you get all your information from his campaign. If that picture conflicts with everything he has done in the last 35 years, why is the contraversy a surprise?

Merv has a good point. If anyone can be saied to have birthed the Toxic Left ™, it is John Kerry.

As praktike comments, M&K thought they were helping, but if you think what the SwiftVets have to say about Kerry is harsh, check out some of the POW and MIA groups that are starting to come after him.

Adeimantus defines the "Vietnam truce" thusly:

"(1) Those who participated in the war, with the exception of anyone at or above the rank of general officer, are entitled to public honor for their service.

(2) Those who actively opposed the war, with the exception of the most extreme Jane Fonda-types, are not to be branded as cowards or traitors to their country."

I don't buy Adeimantus' argument that John Kerry had the rare potential to mend the wounds of the Vietnam era. You will note that Adeimantus excludes from the truce "the exteme Jane Fonda-types." As a result of his Congressional "war crimes" testimony in 1971, John Kerry is the male equivalent of Jane Fonda and was therefore outside the scope of the truce. I am not a Vietnam veteran, but I can see that those veterans deeply resent what John Kerry did in 1971.

No, John Kerry was never fated to heal the divisions of the Vietnam war. He could only reopen them. The Democrats are beginning to realize what a flawed candidate John Kerry really is.

IMO- Kerry based his whole campaign on the premise that the MSM would attack Bush, leaving him to sneak in under the radar without having to say anything substantive or answer any hard questions.

The problem with this scenario is that if you are spotted, you have no room to maneuver. The ground comes up mighty quick.

As to Kerry's 1971 testimony, I was in the USMC from 1970-1972. Spent all my time in the sunny Mojave desert, but still felt then (and do today) betrayed by Fonda/Kerry et al.

praktike:
"Sadly, I don't think anyone is going to heal the wounds of Vietnam."
That is because we still can't make up our minds about the War. Like Hamlet and Adiemantus, we just wish to leave the issue alone. And then, from elizabethan to greek tragedy, we get John Kerry, opening old wounds in his hubris, and heading straight for ate.

A few things:

1. For such a "thoughtful" piece, I'm flabbergasted by not mentioning, that yes, indeed, there were atrocities.

For example, the Toledo Blade series, just last year, that investigated Tiger Force:

Link here
2. Was Kerry wrong to speak about this? I think most agree that it was the right thing to do, yes? Even if it does enrage other veterans.

3. We shouldn't have been in Vietnam. Let's not rewrite history to that degree to believe otherwise.

3. I in no way believe that the smear campaign would have abated, no matter what Kerry would have done. These guys were going forward no matter what.

4. A lot of these guys are LYING, or at the very least, MISLEADING. Elliot, Gardner, Alfred French. A lot of these people have been associated with Republican causes, and are Republican operatives. It defies belief to believe that, somehow, Kerry is responsible for their lies. By what - not reaching out to smear artists?

Now, I understand the rage against Kerry for his post-Vietnam speaking out.

But all the rest, is bogus.

5. Long-term, we have to find a way to come together, without this type of acrimony. There ARE terrorists out there, and we need a cooperative, spirit that doesn't descend to these level of attacks, to meet the dangerous challenges out there united. A dirty campaign is not going to help with this - especially based on thirty year history.

I swore I'd keep away from blogging this term but this issue goes deep for me. I was in college during the Vietnam war, had friends drafted, had close relatives volunteer to serve there.

JC, no one disputes that there were some atrocities committed in Vietnam. What Kerry alleged, based on false accounts by others that he did not attempt to corroborate, others who would not give details or testify under oath is that such atrocities were routine and a matter of policy.

You will perhaps understand if those who served as honorably as they could will never forgive that assertion ... particularly because Kerry has never repudiated it.

POWs have noted that Kerry's words were played back to them to try to break their will and their spirit -- in between torture sessions.

To really understand the sense of betrayal they felt, ponder for a while the Army's motto: "No man left behind."

Kerry also attempted an end run around US negotiators by meeting directly with North Vietnamese representatives in Paris.

Now, some may say these were appropriate, perhaps even courageous, acts on Kerry's part. Others will, however, disagree vehemently.

For this reason alone I think Joe is wrong to suggest that Kerry could unite the country and move it past the divisions of Vietnam. This is true no matter what one judges the merits to be of Kerry's candidacy in other ways.

Took a deep breath. Whew.

All this year it's been like watching an oncoming train wreck as the issue of Vietnam was positioned smack dab at the center of the campaigns.

I could speculate on the reasons for that, but won't do so here. I do want to say one thing, though, before I step away from my keyboard as I need to (Memo to Self - that to-do list ain't getting any shorter).

The next decade or more will, I believe, be a time of tectonic shifts in global politics, technology, demography and economics. It's going to be a challenging time for us all. We shouldn't indulge ourselves in necessary spats and divisions - there will be too many real challenges to face.

At the same time, it's precisely in times like this that core principles become even more important than usual. It's my impression that the Swift Boat Vets and the Vietnam Vets for Truth believe that core principles are exactly what divides them from Kerry and those in the anti-war movement with whom he aligned himself and for whom he became a very vocal spokesman.

Those principles, and whatever principles may have been at work among various members of the anti-war movement, have mostly gone unspoken in the debate so far. But they are there, right beneath the surface.

Maybe it's no accident that Vietnam is serving as a proxy for Iraq and the war on terror, then.

My hope? That you all and I have the wisdom to refrain from cheap partisanship in the months and years ahead, and the moral courage to speak up for deep principles when they are truly at stake.

I get it.

Now it's John Kerry's fault for "opening up old wounds" about Viet Nam so that we are all now waking up in sweats from flashbacks. The Horror! The Horror!

Please. Nice try.

Let's forget for a moment that he actually volunteered to serve there, and was decorated for his efforts. In other words, it's part of the man's life. But it seems only yesterday that Right Wingers were trying out the "not knowing who he is" line on the public. Well, now you know a bit more. Sure makes GWB look like what he was, and still is. A Wuss of historic proportions.

When Right Wingers can admit fault for the scorched earth "campaign" tactics of this administration, maybe then we can engage in a serious debate on the issue. If you think you can really convince everyone that it is OK to willfully lie to the public because "Kerry has made this the centerpiece of his campaign" and so has "brought this on himself", you misunderstand the current national mood and are in for a rude surprise in November.

As for the Adeimantus link you provide, it is nothing more than an unbelievably windy partisan polemic that takes 5 scroll-downs just to make the same tired old Republican talking-point that Sean Hannity makes every damn night: " he's trying to have it both ways." What a revelation! Same script, different actor reading it.

And the only point that needs to be highlighted to illustrate that the author would have done better to check their references rather than simply typing furiously is the referral to the Swift Boat Veterals for (cough) Truth as the "testimony of credible witnesses", especially in light of the fact that their claims have now, almost to the one, been exposed as lies or willful misrepresentations of truth. Not to mention their links to Bush/Cheney'04.

Remember: Kerry might be our president in November. If Republicans try too hard to tear him down now on non-policy issues, and refuse to support him, we are all weakened.

VT:
"Now it's John Kerry's fault for "opening up old wounds" about Viet Nam so that we are all now waking up in sweats from flashbacks. The Horror! The Horror!"

Kerry deliberately chose to define his campaign through the lens of VietNam. It was his choice. He opened the Heart of Darkness himself in the primaries with the complete emphasis on his medals and four months of service. HE said he was in Cambodia on Christmas eve, 1968. No one forced him to say that at gunpoint. I agree with Wretchard , that the Swiftboats issue is transforming the MSM. And I think that, because of his choices, Kerry is doomed to fail. To paraphrase Conrad-- "Mistah Kerry, he daid".

Re: the POW/MIA groups.

I don't think there's a lot of realism there. Guys like Ted Sempley are too far gone. Remember, they came after McCain just as viciously. It's sad, really -- lives wasted clinging to a forlorn hope.

Has anyone here read Michael Lind's Vietnam: The Necessary War?

If so, what do you make of the way he tries to transcend various orthodoxies, right and left?

With his Vietnam-service based campaign, Kerry has managed to find the magic formula to lethally infuriate his opposition while turning off his own base.

The down ballot effects on the Democratic party will be interesting to see in light of the Democratic 527 organization efforts aimed at voter registration and get out the vote efforts.

I am reminded very strongly of what happened to the Thune 2002 Senate campaign GOTV efforts that managed to get Democratic voting Republicans to the poll.s

Kerry and the Toxic-Left hate the SwiftBoat vets because they are the genuine article that Kerry only claims to be. Some continue to call them liars en masse (all 254 of them, including Kerry's chain of command) and attempt to dismiss them with silly phrases like "Republican operatives" but their sincerity and their message is resonating deeply not only with veterans but with the great segment of America that has remained unaffected by the serial hatred of the Toxic-Left.

Kerry's belligerent response to shut-up the Swifities is perhaps more telling of his flawed character than their testimony. Kerry could have said that he stands on his record, invited the Navy to investigate the accuracy of the record (a slam dunk for him), and in a grand gesture made his own records publicly available. Almost everybody would have accepted minor inconsistencies as normal and the matter would be done.

Kerry gauged correctly that the MSM would ignore the Swifties, but egregiously underestimated how cable TV and the blogosphere would leverage a tiny media buy into a big story. The Swifties will remain the most important story in this election because the America that has not bought into the mean spirited meme is reacting viscerally to the arrogance and hypocricy that has poisoned the political atmosphere with months of the most vile caricatures of the President while the country is engaged in war. Foisting John Kerry in the persona of a Vietnam war hero upon us as the savior of the nation is the denouement of this arrogance.

Jin;

I can only conclude that you think it is OK to lie and distort the truth (or perhaps worse) if someone "brings it on himself", as Kerry has.

Reminds me of the argument often used by rapists against their victims.

And John Kerry served two tours of duty in the navy, BTW. Swift boat duty was 4 months.

If Republicans want to have an honorable man-to-man debate on any of these issues, I'm sure Kerry would be more than willing. Instead, we have a completely fabricated set of lies being propogated by people who's only motivation is to get Bush elected at all costs. And we have Bush pretending to disavow their comments and attempting to use the situation to "ban 527s".

Like I said, when Republicans show some respect for our political discourse and face up to the fact that they'd rather descend into the muck than engage in serious debate, they will deserve to govern.

Kerry did volunteer only in the sense that he was drafted and did not get a deferment to study overseas so he chose to "volunteer" for the navy. He volunteered for the swiftboats when he thought they were not actively involved in the war. There is no shame in any of that. He served well, wrote up his exploits better and got out/pushed out with 3 purple hearts. What he did after the war was without honor. He could have trashed the war w/o trashing the men he served. It might not have meant as much tv time or had the same cache in his circles. I don't think you can do that and be considered an honorable man.

But the 800 pound elephant in the room is that Kerry doesn't deserve to be president because he was wrong on almost every foriegn policy decision in his lifetime. Pro North Viet Cong - oops how many dead from that little train wreck, opposed Latin American counter insurgency, nuclear freeze, gulf war 1, who know what his stance on Iraq really us, how about the Mad Mullahs or N. Korea. He seems to me infected with a fatal dose of Jimmy Carter. Unable to distinguish between our friends and enemies. Not a man to lead us in a time of war

Vesicle Trafficker: I think you should read Wretchard's 'Battle in the Clouds' that Oscar and I both linked.

Kerry chose to delineate the focus to the four months where he claimed his medals. I actually know little about his other service, because he has not showcased it. I believe it has been PROVEN that Kerry was not in Cambodia on Christmas eve, 1968. Witness the dancing around about the date and the actual meaning of the word "IN". If you have not seen these stories, I think you must be spending too much time on Gor again! :)
Like Robin says, the swifties have their memory of events, and they are certainly entitled to put them forward.
Couldn't Kerry resolve what you call a smear campaign by full release of his records and publically addressing the discrepancies in the versions? Can't he, at this point just humbly state, "I was mistaken about Cambodia" ? I worry about his IQ to be CINC-- it would have been so much wiser to say, "I can neither confirm nor deny" when reporters asked him about his Cambodian statement.

I stopped reading Belmont Club, back when the site was pushing the "flypaper" theory ad nauseum. Any site that made such a ludicrous claim didn't deserve my attention.

Nevertheless, clearly, Wretchard is bright and articulate. Has it gotten better over there?

JC: Yes. And now there are comments. :-)