sozobe wrote:I believe that men who were prisoners of war were upset by what Kerry said. (Not all of them, mind you -- McCain being a notable example of a POW who has been supportive of Kerry, even when it was politically awkward for him to do so.)
My question is, then what? Was Kerry supposed to say nothing because it would upset them?
Take Abu Ghraib. I'm sure that American soldiers in Iraq were upset at having their honor sullied by what those Americans did at Abu Ghraib. But are the people who knew about the abuses there supposed to say nothing because it would hurt morale?
The POWs in Vietnam were mostly pilots shot down over the North. They had NOTHING in common with the miscreant guards in Abu Gharb. However Kerry accused these pilots and others who also served honorably of systematic and widespread war crimes. These accusations were used by the NV to both advance their political strategy in an ongoing war in which our military people were still fighting and dieing, and to uindermine the morale of POWs, many of whom had undergone torture and long (years) periods of solitary confinement.
Kerry defended himself for the crime of testifying under oath about war crimes which he failed to report as a serving commissioned officer by saying that he never observed any war crimes or atrocities himself, but was merely repeating the testimony of the VVAW given at the infamous Detroit meeting. However, in typical fashion he wanted to have it both ways, and also stated that the search and destroy program was itself a warcrime.
There may be an ex POW somewhere who doesn't loathe Kerry, but I haven't met him (and I know many of them.). It isn't accurate for you to say that McCain supports or supported Kerry. He has declared his support for Bush (whom he doesn't like) and has declined Kerry's officer of a position on his ticket as Vice President. Seems fairly clear to me.
