The attacks on John Kerry have started to change now from questions about medals and combat to the issue that most Vets really care about: Kerry's activities immediately after his return from VietNam. Clearly Kerry's accusations of war crimes and other atrocities are offensive to the men who served there. Kerry is now trying to deflect these attacks by trying to claim the moral high ground. At a fundraiser last night Kerry said:
"I was taking care of things that made a difference to the life of this nation. You may not have agreed with me, but I stood up and was counted, and that's the kind of president I'm going to be."
Yes Kerry "stood up and was counted". But doesn't it matter that he "stood up" for the wrong side? There were many intellectuals who "stood up" for Stalin, even after the atrocities that he committed became generally known. Does the fact that they "stood up" make them somehow honorable or respectable? This is the essence of the post-modern, morally relativistic arguments - there is no right or wrong, as long as you have the "courage of your convictions". And this is the problem with Kerry's "nuance". Meeting with the North VietNamese communists and, in effect, supporting their allegations was wrong (morally and legally). There is nothing honorable in "standing up" for that. The fact that Kerry does not grasp the concept that there are right and wrong causes should disqualify him from the Presidency.