Friday, February 13, 2004
The Little Voice That Isn't
The GOP hooey machine has managed, in the last few days, to cajol the media into pretending that the issue at the heart of the flap over George Bush's military record is the service itself. Even the occasionally honest Paula Zahn is on board.
The question is not the president's service, it's his honesty.
The issue of who had to fight the Vietnam War and who did not is bigger than George W. Bush. It was a national blemish that has never really been examined with the kind of public soul-searching that it deserves. The fact is that many wealthy kids didn't have to go, while many poor kids did.
On this issue 201k agrees with New York Rep. Charlie Rangel, who believes that in the future any military draft should include everyone's kids. That way, he argues, those in the Congress casting their votes for war will know their own kids will have to go. This was not the case during Vietnam, and George W. Bush is not personally responsible for that. He was just one of many who benefited from an unfair system.
But he is responsible for what he does now. And that's the problem.
The President's surrogates are pointing to Bill Clinton's non-service as if it proves hypocrisy on the part of Democrats. What hypocrisy? Bill Clinton opposed the war.
Further, Bill Clinton bore the burden of his non-service for two terms. Every time the question of sending troops somewhere in the world arose, Republican partisans cried foul, arguing he had no right to be Commander-in-Chief. Far from getting a pass on his non-service, he had to answer for it constantly.
The GOP points to John Kerry's anti-war activities after his service as if it proves something horrible about his character. What it really proves is that John Kerry is a man of integrity; he served with distinction in the war, turned against it, and came home and fought it, also with distinction. He was consistent in his committment to his convictions.
George Bush supported the war in Vietnam. And like others who did, he was lucky enough to get a state-side position so he wouldn't have to go there and fight it. Also like many, he perhaps didn't take that position too seriously, and was eventually allowed to walk away from it. That's the way it was then, and he should not be held personally responsible for the system that permitted it.
But he is responsible for how he acts now. And what he does is go out of his way to portray himself in a blatantly military way.
George Bush knows he didn't fight in Vietnam. He knows he failed to accomplish his medical examine and was grounded, after which he never flew a jet again. He knows it. So when someone came to him with the idea of jetting out to an aircraft carrier to parade around in a flight suit for the cameras, he should have said no.
This stunt, like many others his handlers have come up with, was done for the express purpose of giving him a military-looking photo op. And it was only one of many. In fact we cannot remember the last time the president spoke to a non-military audience. At every event he is surrounded by flags, ships, and uniforms.
In January of 2002, President Bush said, "I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war." A joke, perhaps, but an uncomfortably revealing one. It's not one that someone should make, who knows, in his heart, that he had not been to war. There should have been a little voice that stopped him from saying it.
It is not George Bush's service record from thirty years ago that bothers 201k. It is the lack of that little voice. It is a question of internal honor, and external honesty.
He should not be held responsible for the draft system of yesteryear. But knowing what he does about his own service, he should have had the integrity to resist basking in the reflected glory of the US military.
President Bush brought upon himself this unpleasant examination of his record, and he has from the beginning had it in his power to make it go away. He should be honest with himself, and the country, about his service. We are a forgiving nation; few will hold him accountable for his actions of thirty years ago.
It is what he does now, and how he handles and acknowledges his past, that is the true test of his character.
The question is not the president's service, it's his honesty.
The issue of who had to fight the Vietnam War and who did not is bigger than George W. Bush. It was a national blemish that has never really been examined with the kind of public soul-searching that it deserves. The fact is that many wealthy kids didn't have to go, while many poor kids did.
On this issue 201k agrees with New York Rep. Charlie Rangel, who believes that in the future any military draft should include everyone's kids. That way, he argues, those in the Congress casting their votes for war will know their own kids will have to go. This was not the case during Vietnam, and George W. Bush is not personally responsible for that. He was just one of many who benefited from an unfair system.
But he is responsible for what he does now. And that's the problem.
The President's surrogates are pointing to Bill Clinton's non-service as if it proves hypocrisy on the part of Democrats. What hypocrisy? Bill Clinton opposed the war.
Further, Bill Clinton bore the burden of his non-service for two terms. Every time the question of sending troops somewhere in the world arose, Republican partisans cried foul, arguing he had no right to be Commander-in-Chief. Far from getting a pass on his non-service, he had to answer for it constantly.
The GOP points to John Kerry's anti-war activities after his service as if it proves something horrible about his character. What it really proves is that John Kerry is a man of integrity; he served with distinction in the war, turned against it, and came home and fought it, also with distinction. He was consistent in his committment to his convictions.
George Bush supported the war in Vietnam. And like others who did, he was lucky enough to get a state-side position so he wouldn't have to go there and fight it. Also like many, he perhaps didn't take that position too seriously, and was eventually allowed to walk away from it. That's the way it was then, and he should not be held personally responsible for the system that permitted it.
But he is responsible for how he acts now. And what he does is go out of his way to portray himself in a blatantly military way.
George Bush knows he didn't fight in Vietnam. He knows he failed to accomplish his medical examine and was grounded, after which he never flew a jet again. He knows it. So when someone came to him with the idea of jetting out to an aircraft carrier to parade around in a flight suit for the cameras, he should have said no.
This stunt, like many others his handlers have come up with, was done for the express purpose of giving him a military-looking photo op. And it was only one of many. In fact we cannot remember the last time the president spoke to a non-military audience. At every event he is surrounded by flags, ships, and uniforms.
In January of 2002, President Bush said, "I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war." A joke, perhaps, but an uncomfortably revealing one. It's not one that someone should make, who knows, in his heart, that he had not been to war. There should have been a little voice that stopped him from saying it.
It is not George Bush's service record from thirty years ago that bothers 201k. It is the lack of that little voice. It is a question of internal honor, and external honesty.
He should not be held responsible for the draft system of yesteryear. But knowing what he does about his own service, he should have had the integrity to resist basking in the reflected glory of the US military.
President Bush brought upon himself this unpleasant examination of his record, and he has from the beginning had it in his power to make it go away. He should be honest with himself, and the country, about his service. We are a forgiving nation; few will hold him accountable for his actions of thirty years ago.
It is what he does now, and how he handles and acknowledges his past, that is the true test of his character.
