j'accuse

This editorial is shivering some timbers. O'Neill makes some strong accusations, but his main thrust is that

...John Kerry slandered America's military by inventing or repeating grossly exaggerated claims of atrocities and war crimes in order to advance his own political career as an antiwar activist. His misrepresentations played a significant role in creating the negative and false image of Vietnam vets that has persisted for over three decades....

Vietnam was a long time ago. Why does it matter today? Since the days of the Roman Empire, the concept of military loyalty up and down the chain of command has been indispensable. The commander's loyalty to the troops is the price a commander pays for the loyalty of the troops in return. How can a man be commander in chief who for over 30 years has accused his "Band of Brothers," as well as himself, of being war criminals? On a practical basis, John Kerry's breach of loyalty is a prescription of disaster for our armed forces.

These are damning words, and O'Neill states his case eloquently. But does it make Kerry unfit for military leadership, especially in the role of Commander in Chief, which, these days, seems to involve hanging out at the ranch or landing on aircraft carriers while your subordinates hash and carry out plans? If he's really not shilling for the Republican Party, O'Neill should level his guns at Bush, and then tell us who really ought to be president.