MSNBC Special.....I finally "got it"

[wadestock]

It wasn’t until I saw the recent MSNBC specials that were run on Bush and Kerry that I really “got it”.

“THE CHOICE” was well done ….but many felt biased in Kerry’s favor….
The MSNBC specials on each had no detectable “biases”. They were excellent....much a copy of THE CHOICE....but providing some new insights...especially about O'Neill and personal gripes about Kerry.

After watching the MSNBC special on Kerry it became clear to me why O’Neill was all pissed off in the first place and how they’ve attempted to twist everything about Kerry.

If you watched THE CHOICE...you knew the basics...how O’Neill was brought in by Nixon and how they tried to bring Kerry down because he was the most articulate outspoken opponent to the war. He was indeed the poster child of the anti-war movement. Several times in both these specials they referred to him as being “the first one of the soldiers” to essentially break rank...to essentially be willing to face the public directly and go on stage and try to end the war. This in an of itself is extremely significant.

But the MSNBC special filled in some important little holes in all of this...especially regarding O’Neill, vets, and why the specific PERSONAL gripe about Kerry.

Here’s the rub...IMHO

You see...it’s a bit more than the simple fact that he said that he had committed war crimes/atrocities while in no-fire zones, etc….
They perceived a very STRONG IMPLICATION by his comments regarding “committed on a daily basis”...THATS THE KEY PHRASE....

and took this to construe that THE MAJORITY of soldiers at the time were involved with such incidents. It very quickly..(and for no good reason)...turned into a “true blue attitude”.... we’re doing the right thing in Nam attitude....AND DON’T LISTEN TO KERRY BECAUSE WE’RE GOOD GUYS.

So...the real rub was not that he brought out the truth about atrocities being committed....(which have since been clearly documented as being true)...and this in fact was generally known in Nam at the time...but the fact that WHILE people were in battle over there....THEY INTERPRETED HIS REMARKS TO MEAN THAT “MOST” OF THEM WERE CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN SUCH BEHAVIOR.

FACT....
THEIR PROBLEM...
THEIR MISINTEPRETATION...

THIS WAS THE PERSONAL RUB THAT THEY WANTED TO OWN...FOR GOOD FOR FOR WORSE....THE PERSONAL INSULT THEY TOOK TO BED AT NITE. There were a few comments by O’Neill that were important to bring this out. This then leads into O’Neill going on stage in the Dick Cavett debate with Kerry. The exact language of how he went at Kerry is then understood much better in this context.

It’s really a convoluted catch 22 in a way. Nobody at the time really gave much credence to what O’Neill was saying. Kerry was the clear news breaker at the time. Because of him, an entirely different public image was created regarding Vietnam. This public swing was necessary to turn around the Nixon gung ho attitude at the time. It was a great moment in US history when the war came to a close. In essence, thousands of lives were probably saved because of Kerry’s willingness to go it alone and stand in front of everyone to tell the story.

But here we are over 30 years later and there is some new warped sense of what Kerry stood for or what he may be made of because of this warped view of history.

There’s nothing really to be confused about. Kerry was calm, compassionate, and above personal interest when he did what he did back then. He became a galant spokesman for Vietnam Vets against the war and then went up to the plate, taking on Nixon himself, to try and do the right thing by bringing the war to a close.

O’Neill and all the personal insult that they felt at the time...whether it being magnified by still being in the war, having to grapple with possible insinuations that the war was unjust...whatever...was THEIR PERSONAL INTEPRETATION...applicable BACK THEN...at that time...at that place. I don’t know anyone that went to that war that wasn’t severely hurt in one way or another. For Christ’s sake the entire country was torn apart by it. They just found a neat way to find a scapegoat at Kerry’s expense.

But of course there is nothing in any of this to bring against Kerry....it doesn't apply....it doesn’t make sense....it doesn’t work....because the entire war was a no-win situation....there would be no great honor in it....or any true honorable way to get out. It is very important to note that there was a no-win equation that had to be faced COMING OUT of the war. Kerry doesn’t own that no-win situation...and he clearly didn’t make that no-win situation.

There is one redeeming thing in all of this.
This one person....standing alone in front of the microphone...willing to take the shots....made it just that much less worse than it could have been.

He was a much greater hero in the lives he saved AFTER the war than what he did even in the war itself.

[Pump Man]

1. Yea you right

http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx

[American Tragedy]

2. Kerry said that he had been told by over 100 men of wartime atrocities

commited on a daily basis. He never said that it was everybody. He was passing on accounts that he had received and it would have been irresponsible not to tell the Senate about them. And although I wasn't around during the Vietnam war, I have been told by plenty of boomers that such things occurred.