Lots of play going on about the collection of Navy vets who are declaring Kerry “unfit” to be the C-in-C.
Like the kerfluffle over Bush’s National Guard service, I find debates over whether what Kerry was doing over 30 years ago to be a lot less than swaying in my judgment about what sort of President he’d be in 2005. I know I’d hate to be held to too much account today for some of the beliefs I held and actions I followed when I was that age, and I’m a lot closer to it than Kerry is.
Sure, Kerry is also busy running on being a Viet Nam war hero. Though his claim to have been a Vietnam volunteer is at least slightly misleading — his first tour was in the electrical department on a sedate and safe missile frigate offshore, his second tour started when the “swift boats” he volunteered for weren’t being used yet for the dangerous Mekong waterway incursions, and Kerry has said he “didn’t really want to get involved in the war” — he certainly seems to have accorded himself well there. And perhaps that makes criticism of his record from the time, a legitimate action — at least as it reflects on his presentation of himself today.
But I haven’t been convinced that being a decordated hero under fire provides a significant amount of practical experience to be the President over three decades later (were Bush 39 or JFK particularly wiser C-in-Cs for their own wartime experience?). And even if there’s question as to how heroic he actually was, the same proviso applies (as it does, in my mind, to his anti-war protests after he got back to the States), except insofar as he represents himself now.
If the folks making this declaration are making it based on his actions then, as his “former colleagues,” I’m not swayed (unless there’s a horrible skeleton lurking in that closet). And if they’re based on their evaluation of him since then, or today, then I don’t see why I should pay any more attention to them than to any other given set of vets (or citizens).