Except, of course, Kerry defined himself as the morally superior Vietnam veteran almost as soon as he was whisked back to New England to be lionized in luxury, leaving the sons of poor and middle class blacks, browns and whites to fight, bleed and die as American peasant rabble fighting a peasant war.
Rather like Clinton's odious "apology" for slavery - had he apologized for the Democrat Party fighting to re-enslave blacks and to treat them as cattle from 1860 to 1960, and had he thanked the Republican Party for relentlessly defending blacks without reward during that centuries, then the Clinton apology would have made sense - the Kerry "apology" was not for him.
Kerry never asked to be tried for his war crimes. He did not, like Albert Speer, say that he, John Kerry, was an integral part of the problem he confessed. Instead, Kerry took all the perks, benefits and glamour of having served his nation honorably in combat and also took all the perks, benefits and glamour of being that most beloved spoiled brat of the 1960s Left, a war protester.
He disproportionately slammed the poor, the black, the brown and the underprivileged. He disproportionately slammed those who volunteered, as he claimed to do, to serve America, just like JFK had just asked them to do. He slammed the parents of coal miners, nurses and firefighters whose sons died in Vietnam or came home broken men.
All Vietnam veterans, it seems, were equal, but some were more equal than others. What was true then is true now. The accusers of Kerry served with him, served under him, and served over him in combat. Nearly all of them served in Vietnam longer than Kerry and none of them reaped the rich harvest of wealth, fame and power from that service which Kerry has enjoyed.
But while Kerry would doubtless say that all these brave men were equal, the unstated postscript is this: "....but same Vietnam veterans are more equal than others."
![[thumb]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_thumb.gif "Thumbs Up [thumb]"){kind=icon}
