GIVEN all the sharp partisan differences over the conduct of the war, it was obvious it would emerge as a particularly bitter and nasty campaign issue this year.
But who knew the war in question would be Vietnam?
Yet, 30 years after America’s ignominious withdrawal from Southeast Asia, the war in Vietnam occupies center stage, vying for political attention with the conflict in Iraq and the global War on Terror.
It’s not utterly senseless: After all, the Democrats are about to nominate as their standard-bearer someone who is both the first Vietnam combat vet and the first major leader of the anti-war movement to reach a national ticket.
But the debate over John Kerry’s role on both sides of the Vietnam War highlights how America, and the Democrats in particular, still suffer from a political Vietnam syndrome – and a still-unresolved debate over what constituted the heroic course of action.
Consider the flip-flopping that Kerry and other Democrats have done over the years on the question of military service.
This year, Kerry has made his Vietnam experience the center of his campaign. He touts it as the defining experience of his life, one that is meant to exemplify his character.
As a campaign spokesman said last October, “John Kerry has always said military experience is not a prerequisite for the presidency, but it informs the tough questions he asks and it certainly gives him the firsthand perspective you can’t learn in the situation room.”
Of course, Democrats were singing an entirely different tune back in 1992, when a decorated WWII combat vet, President George H.W. Bush, was being challenged by Bill Clinton, who had made an active effort to get out of the draft during Vietnam.
Four years later, the issue was revived again when Clinton squared off in his re-election bid against another WWII hero, Bob Dole.
But when it came to Clinton, the Democrats insisted that the heroism and sacrifice of Bush and Dole (the latter permanently disabled by his wounds) were irrelevant. And that Clinton should not be penalized or judged harshly because of his refusal to enter the army. Dole even came under a cruel attack: Cartoonist Garry Trudeau’s “Doonesbury” strip ran a notorious series criticizing Dole for allegedly exploiting his war wound for political purposes.
Not surprisingly, the strip has made no mention this time around of Kerry’s unabashed exploitation of his Vietnam military record. But Trudeau (who donated $2,000 last spring to Howard Dean) has been withering in his attacks on the president, at one point offering $10,000 to anyone who could prove Bush actually served in the National Guard.
As for Kerry, he was one of Bill Clinton’s most public and passionate defenders. “Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?” he asked when Clinton’s Vietnam-era behavior came under attack. “The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them.”
Kerry even defended Clinton for having “put his name in the draft,” adding: “Someone who” – like Clinton – “was deeply against the war . . . may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it.”
“We do not need to divide America over who served and how,” declared Kerry, in a Senate speech that was reprinted in The Washington Post and earned him a spot on Clinton’s vice presidential short list.
But that was then; this is now.
And Kerry, predictably enough, is swinging like a pendulum on the relevance of Vietnam service.
Last October, in New Hampshire, Kerry sneered that “there are some people in high office today who pulled strings to get into the National Guard” – a clear reference to President Bush, who served in the Air National Guard.
This month, after GOP criticism of his votes on national security issues, he angrily told a campaign rally that “I’m tired of [White House adviser] Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance. I went.”
And yesterday, clearly angered by the furor over discrepancies in his account of his 1971 anti-war activities, Kerry’s campaign went on the attack over “unanswered questions” on Bush’s National Guard service – just weeks after he’d publicly asked other Democrats not to do so.
So much for not dividing America “over who served and how.”