War records? Who cares?

I'm sure we have all heard about John Kerry's war record being put under extreme scrutiny. Its all bull shit... the scrutiny, that is. The only thing that might come of this is that, in the future, we might be able to elect a President who doesn't have to speak ad naseum about his service (or lack thereof) to the military, and, in an abstract kind of way, the United States. Does it really matter that John Kerry served in Viet Nam? Not to me it doesn't. Does it matter to me that George Bush served (or didn't serve, as the case very well is) in the Texas National Guard? No, although it does matter that he lied about it.

It clearly isn't important to people anymore. If it were so important, would we have elected a draft-dodger (Clinton) over a decorated veteran (Bob Dole)? If it were so important, wouldn't we have some real problems with Bush's lies about his tour of duty? If it were so revered, would we dare contradict US Navy records, a whole host of heroic medals and the first hand corroboration of John Kerry's comrades? It clearly isn't important anymore, but it serves a useful political purpose.

Of course, when an issue only serves a political purpose, it really isn't important anymore.

The problem is that when it serves a political purpose, it is controlled by only the politicians. Having adopted the language surrounding the issue, they can spin whatever story they want. The public doesn't really care enough to look into it themselves, so they will simply respond to what the politicans say. If the politicians say that war medals are worthless, then they are. If the politicians say a murky national guard history is as strong as a bona fide, officially recorded tour of duty, then so be it. It is all up to those who can control the dialogue.

Controlling the dialogue and controlling the debate is what gets you elected, and that is what politicians are all about.