Hitchens and his straw man

Over at Slate, while Fred Kaplan debunks yet another of the Swift Boat creeps' claims, that Kerry wasn't in Cambodia when he said he was (can you think of a stupider way to attack the guy?), they let that Knight of the Keyboard, brave Chris Hitchens, bloviate on why Kerry's service in Vietnam makes him unfit to be president.

It's a classic Hitch piece. He leads off with a paragraph invoking George Orwell that has absolutely nothing to do with the ensuing argument. But Chris Hitchens must mention Orwell. Every time he writes.

Whatever. Hitchens claim is that Kerry was right to invoke his service when he opposed the war in the early '70s, but wrong to invoke it now. Why?

On that previous occasion, though, Kerry was using his service as a warrior to acquire credentials as an antiwarrior. Now, he is cashing in the same credentials to propose himself as alliance-builder and commander in chief. This is not a distinction without a difference.

Perhaps not, but what's your point?

Not sure, because he then goes on a lengthy ramble about his brave vote to oust Bob Kerrey as president of the New School because of revelations that he may have committed atrocities during his stint in Vietnam. He compares John Kerry's killing of a Viet Cong soldier -- who had just been firing rockets at his boat -- probably shooting him in the back, to the Kerrey' accusations in which he was accused of killing old women and children.

Straw man #1.

Then we get to what really provokes crazy Chris' ire:

Meanwhile, even odder things are happening to Kerry's "left." Michael Moore, whose film Kerry's people have drawn upon in making cracks about the president and the My Pet Goat moment, repeatedly says that you can't comment on the Iraq war—or at least not in favor of it—if you haven't shown a willingness to send a son to die there.

By the way, it's "The Pet Goat," but no matter. What has Michael Moore have to do with Kerry's service? I know of no instance in which any of "Kerry's people" have suggested that you can't comment on the war unless you're will to do the Abraham and Isaac thing. Certainly Kerry has not asked Vanessa or Alexandra to serve.

Straw man #2.

Then, of course, comes the classic Hitchens conclusion. It's all about Henry Kissinger.

The Democrats have made a rod for their own backs in uncritically applauding their candidate's ramrod-and-salute posture. They have also implicitly subverted one of the most important principles of the republic, which is civilian control over military decisions. And more than that, they have done something eye-rubbingly unprincipled, doing what Reagan and Kissinger could not do: rehabilitating the notion of the Vietnam horror as "a noble cause."

What Reagan has to do with any of this, I'm unclear. But I know of no Democrat who has tried to rehabilitate the war. What they have tried to do is to use Kerry's military service as a prop for building recognition of the man, preempting the inevitable attacks by the GOP that Kerry is a weak-kneed liberal, and supporting the Dems' creds for securing the nation. Hitchens' argument is simply nonsense.

Let's get this straight:

Kerry, holding strong doubts about the war, nonetheless volunteered to serve. He chose what he thought would be relatively safe duty, commanding a swift boat covering the Vietnam shoreline. But then the decision by Zumwalt was made to use the swift boats for highly dangerous "brown water" duty. He did his duty, apparently (according to extensive naval records) with some valor. Having received three Purple Hearts he returned to the U.S. and became a leader of veterans against the war, and testified to the poor leadership in the war, the dishonesty of political and military leaders, and the basic inanity of the war itself. he then went on to a fairly distinguised career as a district attorney and then a senator who, while not reknowned, was effective, particularly in leading the Iran-Contra investigation and then, with John McCain, addressing the long-festering POW issue, which resulted in thawing of relations with Vietnam.

Bush, as far as we know, supported the war -- its aims and conduct -- but used his dad's connections to vault over a long waiting list to get an assignment defending Texas against the Mexican airforce. Apparently (according to not so extensive TANG records), he did not even fulfill that light duty and lost his wings. He then went on to an undistinguished career as a failed political candidate, a failed businessman repeatedly bailed out by Dad's cronies, then a governor in a state where the governor has, essentially, no power -- not even to stop executions in the state if you buy his repeated argument.

Character matters. As Josh Marshall argues today, Bush's entire adult life has been a long example of moral cowardice, Kerry's has been the exact opposite.

Kerry, when invoking his service, isn't saying that only vets have the right to make the decision to go to war. He is saying that, as a vet, he understands what it means to send young Americans off to serve as cannon fodder, and that he will not make that decision unless he is absolutely sure it is the right thing to do.

Bush didn't care if it was the right thing to do or whether we are doing it the right way.

As for Hitch, he can go Cheney himself.