Molly Tumanic

Weak. That’s my one-word response to Joe Eaton’s April 8th Spectator article “Questioning Kerry’s Record.” Of course, I must agree with Eaton that if you ask people why they support John Kerry, there is a good chance you will get the answer, “He’s the most likely to beat Bush.”

Well, there are two sides to every story, and figuratively speaking, two ways on every street, so let’s take a gander at the other side. Flip the script for a second and ask the same question of Bush supporters – why do you support him? You’ll most likely get the same conservative “mantra” us liberals have had to put up with for the past few years – “Compassionate conservative,” “Iraqi freedom,” “War on terror,” or something about, “Strong wartime leadership.”

It is laughable that a conservative would even entertain the idea of bashing Kerry’s Vietnam record – at least he has a Vietnam record. He wasn’t absent without leave (AWOL) like somebody else I know. And don’t tell me about those photocopied, illegible payroll sheets Georgie-worgie let us see.

At first I didn’t really know how to interpret those, but then retired Army Col. Dan Smith, a 26-year veteran, cleared it up for me when he told the Associated Press, “Pay records don’t mean anything except that you’re in or you’re out. It doesn’t necessarily reflect what duty you’ve actually performed because pay records simply record your unit of assignment and then all of your pay and benefits per pay period.”

And let me add that you don’t get three purple hearts for going AWOL.

Kerry was a warrior in Vietnam. A soldier. A leader. Yeah, the soldiers he fought with did rape people, cut off ears and shoot at civilians.

And it wouldn’t surprise me to learn Kerry partook in some of those heinous activities. These are the kinds of terrible things that happen during war. That’s why people don’t like war. That’s why many people are opposed to the war in Iraq.

To say that Kerry’s remarks were offensive to veterans and current service members is quite a generalization. I personally know somebody who just got back from Iraq, and his stories rival those of Kerry’s in terms of atrocities and horrific incidents. This is war. This is not a game of toy soldiers and plastic tanks, despite the impression that Bush often gives.

This is not a partisan issue. This is about the credibility of a decorated veteran’s military service in Vietnam; it’s about how one man was a soldier and another man simply was not. It’s about how one man gave everything his country asked of him while another man used his last name to avoid his patriotic duties.

So in the face of today’s war, that is, Operation Iraqi Freedom, we look to our leaders for guidance and trust that they will steadfastly follow through with their objectives and do what is best for America.

But one has to wonder who knows more about the art of war – somebody who’s actually been there or somebody who played soldier for a few years. I’ll trust the guy who’s not only survived war but excelled at it – I’ll trust Kerry and his judgments. If Kerry says that we shouldn’t be spending another $89 billion, then there is good reason behind it.

Now that we’re in this quagmire we must maintain our presence there and stand firm until our goals are accomplished. We must not let terrorists or insurgents scare us out of Iraq. Perhaps we need another $87 billion to finish the job.

But you can bet that the reason many Democrats and Republicans alike voted for the Iraq War was because the intelligence they received made it look like this would be a piece of cake. The reason many in the legislature now are uneasy about the war is most likely because fears of overreach start to become real when the price tag for occupying Iraq reaches a billion dollars per week.

Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, recently raised questions as to whether Iraq is going to be ready for self-rule by June 30, the deadline set by the Bush administration.

Lugar voiced his concerns in an April 4 USA Today article, saying, “The real issue is June 30, how we are going to make that transition.” He noted that security in some cities is in shambles and raised the prospect of extending the deadline, something Bush has adamantly opposed.

June 30 will be here in no time, yet a sovereign, peaceful Iraq seems to be nowhere in the near future. It appears those who did vote to go into Iraq grossly underestimated the time, money, and troop commitments America must provide in order to follow through with our mission.