We can't allow George Allen, George Bush, or the GOP frame the debate on Kerry's recent comments.
Jim wouldn't shake Kerry's hands for 30 years because of what Kerry did after Vietnam. There are a lot of veterans that are still upset with Kerry, and now even Webb for taking Kerry's endorsement during this campaign.
I know Jim Webb does not agree with Kerry's "botched joke", because he has a son over in Iraq.
We have thousand of veterans, families, and servicemen and women that are supporting Jim Webb here in Virginia.
But, make no mistake the GOP and Allen's F Team are already trying to compare the Liberal Massachusetts Senator to Historical Conservative Virginian Icon Jim Webb.
Here's a little taste of history during the 2004 Presidential Campaign and Jim Webb's thoughts then.
Veterans face conundrum: Kerry or Bush?
By James Webb
2/18/2004
Both Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and President Bush have had their attackers and defenders on the issue of Vietnam War service. But given Kerry's infamous anti-war activities, it is striking that many Vietnam veterans have chosen either to support him or maintain a skeptical distance from both camps. Indeed, Kerry's wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, which jump-started his campaign, often are attributed to his support among veterans.
Having been involved in veterans' issues since the 1970s, I know many veterans who in earlier days spoke of their disdain for Kerry but are now holding their fire. Kerry's negatives, however, do not automatically become Bush's positives, particularly when the focus of many now is on America's involvement in postwar Iraq. And in that context, the most important question is how GÇö or whether GÇö each candidate proposes to end the United States' military presence there.To be sure, Kerry deserves condemnation for his activities as the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). In the early 1970s, this small organization GÇö never more than 7,000 veterans out of a potential pool of 9 million GÇö became the darling of the anti-war movement and the liberal media. Its activities went far beyond simply criticizing the politics of the war to repeatedly and dishonestly misrepresenting the service of Vietnam veterans and the positive feelings most felt after serving.
Kerry and his VVAW compatriots portrayed their fellow veterans as unwilling soldiers, morally debased and haunted by their service. While this might have fit a small minority, the most accurate survey, done by the Harris Poll in 1980, showed that 91% of those who went to Vietnam were "glad they served their country," 74% "enjoyed their time in the military" and 89% agreed with the statement that "our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in Washington would not let them win."
Kerry's own comments were filled with hyperbolic exaggerations that sought to make egregious acts seem commonplace. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 1971, he testified that fellow veterans had routinely "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." With those words, he defamed a generation of honorable men. No matter how he spins it today, at a minimum, he owes them a full and complete apology.
The view that Kerry remained on the "wrong side" of the war was compounded by his failure to consult with leaders of America's million-plus Vietnamese community while playing a dominant role in the normalization of relations with communist Vietnam during the early 1990s. Many Vietnamese-Americans believe Kerry has been an apologist for the Hanoi government on such key issues as human rights. Kerry personally has bottled up the Vietnamese Human Rights Act, which twice passed the House by wide majorities, so that it cannot even be debated on the Senate floor.
But in the zero-sum game of a presidential campaign, to go after Kerry is to give a free pass to Bush, whose actions then and now deserve no prizes. Recent statements defending Bush claim that the National Guard was not a haven for those who wished to avoid Vietnam; but it clearly was. According to the National Guard Association, only some 9,000 Army Guardsmen and 9,343 Air Guardsmen served in Vietnam. Considering that nearly 3 million from the active forces did so, one begins to understand why so many of America's elites headed for the Guard when their draft numbers were called.
Bush used his father's political influence to move past many on the Texas Guard's waiting list. He was not required to attend Officer Candidate School to earn his commission. He lost his flight status after failing to show up for a required annual physical. These facts alone raise the eyebrows of those who took a different path in a war that for the Marine Corps brought more casualties than even World War II.
The Bush campaign now claims that these issues are largely moot and that Bush has proved himself as a competent and daring "war president." And yet his actions in Iraq, and the vicious attacks against anyone who disagrees with his administration's logic, give many veterans serious pause.
Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.
There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves.
At the same time, those around Bush, many of whom came of age during Vietnam and almost none of whom served, have attempted to assassinate the character and insult the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. Some have impugned the culture, history and integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe, that have been our country's great friends for generations and, in some cases, for centuries.
Bush has yet to fire a single person responsible for this strategy. Nor has he reined in those who have made irresponsible comments while claiming to represent his administration. One only can conclude that he agrees with both their methods and their message.
Most seriously, Bush has yet to explain the exact circumstances under which American military forces will be withdrawn from Iraq.
Nor has Kerry given us a picture of how his strategy would differ from the course that has been set.
Once these answers are given, all of us will be able to understand more clearly the true legacy of the past.
James Webb was secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration, and a Marine platoon and company commander in Vietnam. He also is an author and filmmaker.
Link to the USA Op-Ed,
http://www.usatoday....Comments
Forget it.... (Nick Stump - 11/1/2006 6:03:49 PM)This is a one new cycle screwup. We don't need to be running against John Kerry to win this race. Jim has to stay out there with his message. Kerry is old news. He served honorably. Anybody in the Vietnam War who jumped on one of those swift boats, my hat's off to him. I was there and I know how dangerous their work was. That said, to rehash the Swiftboat stuff and to re-examine Kerry's service is just playing into the hands of Karl Rove.This is just a "stalking horse" to distract voters from the real issues. Don't fall into this stupid-ass Kerry trap. It's all the the Republicans have left. They can't run against the Democrat and John Kerry bumbles when he speaks. This is not what we should be talking about. This country has real problems -- John Kerry is not one of them.
I'd suggest talking about Jim Webb's vision for America.
Wishing Kerry was old news.. (drmontoya - 11/1/2006 6:19:16 PM)Unfortunately We (Democrats) can't control the liberal media. I know we dont' want to talk about this story and we don't want to run against Kerry but.IF we dont' talk about it, will that make the other guys shut up?
No, the "liberal media" and the pundits will spend days talking about Kerry's comments,
They pay no attention to those of us who blog.