Both David Broder and Larry Sabato--neither one exactly part of the great right wing conspiracy--reflect on the broader meaning of both Kerry’s use of his Vietnam experience (heroism, to some) in the election and of those who will never forgive him for saying outrageous things about our troops in 1971. That they agree that the waving of bloody shirts and the culture war of the 1960’s has settled into this election--to the surprise, it would seem of the Kerry folks--indicates that even the relatively moderate pundits see the implication of the hubub caused by the Switboats’ shots across Karry’s bow.
Smart and fair-minded observations by Sabato.
He is right, I think: The key to this is the vets’ refusal, so far, to give up and their articulateness in the pressure cooker of fast-paced TV shows and vehement opposition. The reason they are so articulate and determined is that they have lots of practice talking about this with their fellow veterans, and because this is an issue that lies at their center of their lives and self-concepts.
Broder’s op-ed was also very good. I think Kerry was a fool to think his "band of brothers" would honor his service. He was shameful in his charges.
The current justification seems to be that time has proven Kerry right. Nonsense. Kerry spoke of war crimes as the norm, rather than the exception. The fact that you find an oasis in the dessert doesn’t mean there is plenty of water there.