I propose a truce

I really think we should end this partisan debate. This web site has now been used for four attacks on the Democratic candidate and three responses (including this one), and I think it is distracting us from our real mission. However I do think there is a lesson to be learned here that applies to our battle with the Washington Post, because those who are attacking John Kerry are using the same technique that the Post uses in its Mideast reporting: namely, they focus on part of the story while ignoring the main part, the part that provides the true picture.* Consider:

1. In the case of "Kerry in Cambodia", they focus on a wrong date and ignore the truth that the event "seared" in Kerry's memory really did take place. In fact, Kerry ran three or four missions into Cambodia in January and February of 1969, albeit not on Christmas of 1968 (a statement that he later corrected). And yes, Nixon was president then, and yes, it was against stated US policy at the time. Sure, you can make fun of him if you want for misremembering a date (who hasn't?), but you shouldn't ignore the real truth of his claim. (See earlier post for authentication.)

2. They focus on the minor nature of his first wound (a small piece of shrapnel penetrated a fraction of an inch and required only a small bandage), but ignore the main truth that Kerry spent 4 1/2 months in highly dangerous combat and was hit by shrapnel three times, and still has shrapnel embedded in his left leg. While these three wounds together don't compare, say, with an amputated limb, he was there, putting his life on the line.

3. They attack Kerry for "building a resume" to bolster his political ambitions. Now he himself says he volunteered because "it was the right thing to do", but the important truth is that, whatever his motivation, he DID IT. He served two tours of duty in the Pacific, including 4 1/2 months in combat. He was hit by shrapnel three times. He fired at the enemy and saved the life of a crewman. Most people doing this receive gratitude, not criticism for their motivation. The criticism seems particularly inappropriate when you compare Kerry's war record with that of his opponent, who used the National Guard to avoid the draft, and reportedly didn't even bother to show up for some of its meetings. (Anyone interested in the comparison should look at http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/02/02_400.html). Now please note: I don't censure Bush for doing that; I'm chicken myself and would have done the same thing, but I do censure those who attack Kerry for not being wounded enough or brave enough or having the right motivation.

Finally, don't we have better things to do than to use this web site to attack either presidential candidate? I believe there is room in our movement for both Democrats and Republicans; I believe we need both Democrats and Republicans. Let's unite and get back to attacking the Washington Post.
----------------------
*My analogy, of course, is with the way the Post focuses on and blows up Palestinian "suffering", while concealing the fact that this suffering (which in many cases is real) arises from their persistent efforts to kill Jews and destroy Israel, and indeed would end if they would only stop the attacks.