A.M. Siriano
Those betrayed do feel the treason sharply
By A.M. Siriano
Try as they might — and they have — Democrats are having a hard time pinning the Swift Boat Vets for Truth controversy on George Bush and the GOP. The GOP knows Kerry's accounts are suspect, but many conservatives and Republicans have distanced themselves from the matter, including this writer. This is not because we believe Kerry's stories, or think the Swift Boat Vets are lying (unlike Kerry, they have little to gain by the practice). The Bush camp knows that an attack on a vet is a political boomerang that could hit them in the head. Better to back off and let the vets speak on their own behalf.
The vets have done just that, claiming no ties to Bush; in fact, John E. O'Neill, co-author of Unfit for Command, told columnist Robert Novak that he likely would have voted for Edwards. But the Democrats, wallowing in their usual pool of hypocrisy, are trying to silence the Swift Boat Vets through legal means. Aren't they supposed to be the champions of the First Amendment?
Conservatives, the true guardians of the Constitution, are in full support of letting the vets be heard. If anyone has the moral right to question a soldier's service, it is another soldier who has fought for the very freedoms we all enjoy. But there are also many conservatives like me who would rather avoid the subject. We are a bit uncomfortable about the whole affair, as if we have been made to laugh at a dirty joke in the presence of a pastor.
In a world where character should be king, John Kerry is a court jester. And if this is a contest to see who is the true opportunist, Kerry wins hands down. He is a politician, for the love of Ted! Given the mounting evidence, perhaps he did embellish the truth. Perhaps he lied. Given his timeserving ways, we shouldn't be surprised that he received many Purple Hearts when other soldiers, more noble, more deserving — more wounded — got none.
But this is the thing: Anyone who has the guts to march into hell — whether it be Normandy, the Pacific, Vietnam, Korea, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq — that man has the respect of conservatives everywhere, even if he is a flaming whacko today. Those who haven't served, but appreciate the sacrifice, are loath to impugn the character of those who have.
Needless to say, not all conservatives think this is a Swift Boat Vets issue only, but I have talked to many who would rather not take sides. Contrast that to the Democrats: When they questioned George Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, the malicious liberal voice, abetted by the media, was unanimous. "Bush wasn't really in the military — he was just in the Guard." The condescending tone was palpable, but the lefties were too blinded by hate to see that they were not just impugning one Guardsman, but all of them. Conservatives, on the other hand, do see the complexities — and so are uncomfortable with it. They would rather let those vets duke it out in private and leave the election to other issues. I personally couldn't care less if Kerry razed a village, shot a Viet-teen in the back, or used minor wounds to get some Purple Hearts and a short tour of duty. Heck, just going into that nightmare gets, if nothing else, a sloppy civilian salute and a load of respect ...
But Let's Not Forget the Real Issue
Respect is conditional. Once earned, it must be maintained. The world is full of stories of men who start out good and go bad. Fathers who love their children sometimes abandon them. Managers who work hard to get to the top sometimes sell out their own people when they get there. Sportsmen who once lived for the game sometimes end up living for the money. In each case, the respect held for a time is undone. It can happen to good soldiers, too.
A long time ago Americans honored a national hero, an opportunist like John Kerry, who served his country well; bravely led an expedition through horrific weather, raging rivers, impenetrable forests; was wounded, and suffered, but came back as a renewed warrior and earned the love and admiration of his troops — indeed, of the whole country. Then things soured, and he sold out to the enemy, all for an opportunity that seemed right to him at the time. Today the man's good deeds are little known because his one bad deed was very bad. Thus his name — Benedict Arnold — has become synonymous with "traitor."
One cannot make a point-by-point analogy in comparing Kerry to Arnold (the latter actually conspired to handover West Point and her troops to the British), but, like Benedict Arnold, the respect Kerry earned in battle was later undone by his faithless, seditious activities. While his fellow soldiers were finishing their full tours of duty, many returning in body bags, Kerry was on Capitol Hill in 1971 telling vicious lies and undermining the war effort. In the name of peace — but more in the name of John Kerry — he played lead to Jane Fonda's role by aiding and abetting the enemy.
It is this, Kerry's treason — not his service, not even his Senate record — that should have formed a sort of crucible of American life and politics today. All other issues, true or not, from his notorious flip-flopping to his leftist politics to his absenteeism, should pale in comparison to Kerry's post-tour words, actions, and associations. Yet we have hardly noticed them. Our age allows men to sin their way into superstardom instead of shame.
Kerry's supposed good intentions and immaturity don't make what he did after the war any less despicable. It was this man — a man dangerously close to becoming President — who played a critical role in creating a climate of silence and shame for our returning Vietnam heroes. Unlike a conventional traitor, Kerry did not plot against his country secretly; instead he chose a subversive route and donned the guise of dissent (popular at the time, so true to his opportunistic ways) and handed over his fellow soldiers to derision, mockery and contempt.
Only God can quantify the damage done to the war effort abroad. Only God knows the cost to our soldiers because of Kerry's actions. Vietnam was lost for many reasons, but chief among them was the war at home, which had John Kerry reporting for duty among America's internal enemies. Is it any wonder the Swift Boat Vets "feel the treason sharply"? We should, too.
If we put a traitor in the White House, it will prove to be a harbinger. Imagine telling our children, "In America, anyone — even a felon or a traitor — can become President." If Americans had ignored seditiousness during the Revolution, their complacency would have ended what had just got started. Won't it be the beginning of the end today?
The Swift Boat Vets understand this all too well. In truth, they are fighting a new war, defending their beloved country from an alarming threat, the threat we should all be concerned with — waking up one day to a traitor in the White House. Regardless of how we feel about Kerry's four-month tour, it is his disservice in 1971 that should be fresh in our minds when we head to the polls in November.
© A.M. Siriano
Try as they might — and they have — Democrats are having a hard time pinning the Swift Boat Vets for Truth controversy on George Bush and the GOP. The GOP knows Kerry's accounts are suspect, but many conservatives and Republicans have distanced themselves from the matter, including this writer. This is not because we believe Kerry's stories, or think the Swift Boat Vets are lying (unlike Kerry, they have little to gain by the practice). The Bush camp knows that an attack on a vet is a political boomerang that could hit them in the head. Better to back off and let the vets speak on their own behalf.
The vets have done just that, claiming no ties to Bush; in fact, John E. O'Neill, co-author of Unfit for Command, told columnist Robert Novak that he likely would have voted for Edwards. But the Democrats, wallowing in their usual pool of hypocrisy, are trying to silence the Swift Boat Vets through legal means. Aren't they supposed to be the champions of the First Amendment?
Conservatives, the true guardians of the Constitution, are in full support of letting the vets be heard. If anyone has the moral right to question a soldier's service, it is another soldier who has fought for the very freedoms we all enjoy. But there are also many conservatives like me who would rather avoid the subject. We are a bit uncomfortable about the whole affair, as if we have been made to laugh at a dirty joke in the presence of a pastor.
In a world where character should be king, John Kerry is a court jester. And if this is a contest to see who is the true opportunist, Kerry wins hands down. He is a politician, for the love of Ted! Given the mounting evidence, perhaps he did embellish the truth. Perhaps he lied. Given his timeserving ways, we shouldn't be surprised that he received many Purple Hearts when other soldiers, more noble, more deserving — more wounded — got none.
But this is the thing: Anyone who has the guts to march into hell — whether it be Normandy, the Pacific, Vietnam, Korea, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq — that man has the respect of conservatives everywhere, even if he is a flaming whacko today. Those who haven't served, but appreciate the sacrifice, are loath to impugn the character of those who have.
Needless to say, not all conservatives think this is a Swift Boat Vets issue only, but I have talked to many who would rather not take sides. Contrast that to the Democrats: When they questioned George Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, the malicious liberal voice, abetted by the media, was unanimous. "Bush wasn't really in the military — he was just in the Guard." The condescending tone was palpable, but the lefties were too blinded by hate to see that they were not just impugning one Guardsman, but all of them. Conservatives, on the other hand, do see the complexities — and so are uncomfortable with it. They would rather let those vets duke it out in private and leave the election to other issues. I personally couldn't care less if Kerry razed a village, shot a Viet-teen in the back, or used minor wounds to get some Purple Hearts and a short tour of duty. Heck, just going into that nightmare gets, if nothing else, a sloppy civilian salute and a load of respect ...
But Let's Not Forget the Real Issue
Respect is conditional. Once earned, it must be maintained. The world is full of stories of men who start out good and go bad. Fathers who love their children sometimes abandon them. Managers who work hard to get to the top sometimes sell out their own people when they get there. Sportsmen who once lived for the game sometimes end up living for the money. In each case, the respect held for a time is undone. It can happen to good soldiers, too.
A long time ago Americans honored a national hero, an opportunist like John Kerry, who served his country well; bravely led an expedition through horrific weather, raging rivers, impenetrable forests; was wounded, and suffered, but came back as a renewed warrior and earned the love and admiration of his troops — indeed, of the whole country. Then things soured, and he sold out to the enemy, all for an opportunity that seemed right to him at the time. Today the man's good deeds are little known because his one bad deed was very bad. Thus his name — Benedict Arnold — has become synonymous with "traitor."
One cannot make a point-by-point analogy in comparing Kerry to Arnold (the latter actually conspired to handover West Point and her troops to the British), but, like Benedict Arnold, the respect Kerry earned in battle was later undone by his faithless, seditious activities. While his fellow soldiers were finishing their full tours of duty, many returning in body bags, Kerry was on Capitol Hill in 1971 telling vicious lies and undermining the war effort. In the name of peace — but more in the name of John Kerry — he played lead to Jane Fonda's role by aiding and abetting the enemy.
It is this, Kerry's treason — not his service, not even his Senate record — that should have formed a sort of crucible of American life and politics today. All other issues, true or not, from his notorious flip-flopping to his leftist politics to his absenteeism, should pale in comparison to Kerry's post-tour words, actions, and associations. Yet we have hardly noticed them. Our age allows men to sin their way into superstardom instead of shame.
Kerry's supposed good intentions and immaturity don't make what he did after the war any less despicable. It was this man — a man dangerously close to becoming President — who played a critical role in creating a climate of silence and shame for our returning Vietnam heroes. Unlike a conventional traitor, Kerry did not plot against his country secretly; instead he chose a subversive route and donned the guise of dissent (popular at the time, so true to his opportunistic ways) and handed over his fellow soldiers to derision, mockery and contempt.
Only God can quantify the damage done to the war effort abroad. Only God knows the cost to our soldiers because of Kerry's actions. Vietnam was lost for many reasons, but chief among them was the war at home, which had John Kerry reporting for duty among America's internal enemies. Is it any wonder the Swift Boat Vets "feel the treason sharply"? We should, too.
If we put a traitor in the White House, it will prove to be a harbinger. Imagine telling our children, "In America, anyone — even a felon or a traitor — can become President." If Americans had ignored seditiousness during the Revolution, their complacency would have ended what had just got started. Won't it be the beginning of the end today?
The Swift Boat Vets understand this all too well. In truth, they are fighting a new war, defending their beloved country from an alarming threat, the threat we should all be concerned with — waking up one day to a traitor in the White House. Regardless of how we feel about Kerry's four-month tour, it is his disservice in 1971 that should be fresh in our minds when we head to the polls in November.
© A.M. Siriano
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
