Can We Finally Bury Vietnam (Politically)?

In recent days, there's been a lot in the news and on the campaign trails about Dubya's National Guard service record, or lack thereof. Now the White House is accusing those raising the question of playing "gutter" politics. Never mind that this should be a slam dunk for the President, if he really has nothing to hide.

Regardless of all that, isn't it time we declared a moratorium on the political baggage of the Vietnam days? I mean, back in 2000 I was perfectly willing to call a truce on this when the two presidential candidates impressively served as a battlefield reporter and an Alabama-based National Guard pilot. And it didn't seem to matter to most voters, either. One would think that the Democrats, having made it through two elections with Clinton's war record, would be perfectly happy to close that chapter. However, with the leading candidate sporting an unassailable war record, they seem willing to revisit this yet again.

The fact is, lots of people did different things during the Vietnam era, some of which might possible be relevant to running the modern United States. Assuming their honest about what they did or didn't do (which is what may get Dubya in trouble), what a candidate did back then should be left alone. That's not to say that specific lessons learned while serving in Vietnam (or while fighting the draft) might not apply to a political candidate. If that's the case, let's talk about those lessons and what they mean, not sling mud about how the other guy is a slimebag for not having the same experience.

Please don't think I approve of Dubya's position on all this. He used daddy's money and power to ensure that he would never see actual combat, without the need to flee to Canada or something. That would have been a big mistake for a young would-be politician. Fess up, Dubya. Admit what you did back then. I, for one, will forgive you for it.