CJR Campaign Desk: Archives: “t’s a “slick smear,” says Digby, because “[a]ll these right wing vets get filmed saying ‘he’s unfit to be commander in chief’ without providing any details. They don’t say specifically why, but you are left with the clear impression that 200+ Vietnam vets think Kerry’s lying about his record at best and that he’s a coward at worst.” Digby suggests a way to counteract the slurs, “I think the way to frame this issue is that these men are smearing the United States Military by saying that all those glowing reports and medal recommendations were lies.”
CJR Campaign Desk: Archives:
“It’s a “slick smear,” says Digby, because “[a]ll these right wing vets get filmed saying ‘he’s unfit to be commander in chief’ without providing any details. They don’t say specifically why, but you are left with the clear impression that 200+ Vietnam vets think Kerry’s lying about his record at best and that he’s a coward at worst.” Digby suggests a way to counteract the slurs, “I think the way to frame this issue is that these men are smearing the United States Military by saying that all those glowing reports and medal recommendations were lies.”
This is what I have been saying for months now[1]: anyone who tries to undermine a veteran’s service record by claiming they didn’t earn their medals (Max Cleland left three limbs in Vietnam, and some people think he didn’t earn a Purple Heart?) is attacking the credibility of commanders in the field specifically and the military honor code generally.
fn1. And again, I have to ask, why the continued emphasis on the wounds sustained by then-Lt Kerry? What’s the point there? Why keep on impugning the integrity of his commanders? Are you a decorated veteran? Have you commanded under fire? Have you made the judgment as to whether or not someone deserves a purple heart?