Simplistic euphemisms aren’t always the best means of analysis and taking political tactics personally is not the best way to weigh their importance.

Here’s what Obama said to WV voters today:

One of the saddest episodes in our history was the degree to which returning vets from Vietnam were shunned, demonized and neglected by some because they served in an unpopular war. Too many of those who opposed the war in Vietnam chose to blame not only the leaders who ordered the mission, but the young men who simply answered their country’s call. Four decades later, the sting of that injustice is a wound that has never fully healed, and one that should never be repeated.

The first sentence can’t be disputed. It was also a sad episode that saw our government continue to kill the North Vietnamese till 1 or 2 million succumbed to our superior firepower and military. Exactly what were the Vietnamese fighting for? Liberation from colonial powers. And yet they never posed an actual threat to any US resident except those who went to Vietnam to kill them.

It was sad that our veterans were shunned, demonized and neglected, yes. It was one of many sadnesses. Like the sadness of the 58,000 who did not return alive.

Obama’s second sentence, however, pandered to one point of view, though he did not actually state anything that contradicted the first statement. Which was certainly calculated to create a misimpression, to achieve a political purpose. But before I cover that, let’s look at the third sentence. It also is true: “the sting of that injustice is a wound that has never fully healed”. For some veterans and some families and friends of veterans, the scab on that wound is picked at, but not as much by direct memory as by Republican politicians trying to capitalize on the pain they felt. The ’sting’ is also felt by every Democratic candidate for president in the 34 years since (as well as some running for lower offices) because Republicans have to reopen 34 year old wounds to get elected. If they had to run on their actual records and policy proposals from more recent years, they couldn’t win election to dogcatcher.

So really, the criticism is directed at the misimpression Obama is deliberately exploiting with his second sentence. And what’s his motive in doing that?

He did not say that all people who were opposed to the war acted in injust ways. That would be dumb, asw the majority of Americans were opposed to the war in its final years. He also didn’t say most antiwar protestors acted hurtfully towards veterans. He simply said ‘too many’ did. And since it could well be argued that a handful is too many, the sentence is factually correct. But it still leaves a misimpression and I can guess that that was intentional. I can’t prove it was intentional, however. Such is simply the way most successful politicians parse their words carefully before saying them. It’s not very smart to say things that can be disproven, so Obama’s words could be described as factually correct and astute, despite their probable intent, which was to mislead.

So next, let’s proceed to what his intent was. First, he’s trying to win over some voters to reduce Clinton’s huge pending winning margin in the WV primary. It makes perfect sense to try to achieve that. Second, should he proceed to a general election contest against ANY Republican - but especially an aging hero for his actions as a POW - he’d like to overcome the sting of that old wound. Since he was only 11 when the war ended, why should he carry the weight of a wound he had no part of, not even in any known expression of pre-pubescent opinion? With his nomination nearly secured, Obama is setting the stage for a general election run. And since part of his appeal is that he is the anti-THIS-war candidate, he’s taking pains to make sure voters don’t associate that opposition to any other conflicts and old wounds. Every president has to be able to order troops into conflict in the nation’s defense, and sometimes for the defense of others. So his intent is to reaffirm what he’s stated before: he’s not opposed to ALL wars; he’s opposed to THIS one.

Those are his likely motivations for speaking those sentences. Such motivations seem reasonable, pragmatic and ethical. But if - as I guess likely - he chose his words to be factual AND misleading, what would be his intent in doing that? Was he trying to insult everyone opposed to the war? Not likely. Was he trying to demean every active protester of that war? Again, it would make no sense to pursue that. It can be claimed that he inadvertently threw more people ‘under the bus’ than he sought to do, but before I can go that far, I am mindful of the fact that the bus is metaphorical, no one’s actually been harmed, and to claim harm, one has to take his every utterance as a direct personal attack. Even as a committed activist, I retain sufficient distance and big picture perspective to feel no insult, because all anti-war protestors were not harmed by his words and his motives are seemingly quite clear and reasonable.

There is, however, one other motive in play here. It’s common knowledge that Hillary and Bill were opposed to the Vietnam War and actively demonstrated against it. There is no record of them insulting or injuring returning veterans; in fact, in their public service, they have records of support for veterans that they can be rightfully proud of. It thus is possible Obama’s third motive is to make the distinction that ‘they were Vietnam War protestors and I wasn’t', which is true. And he didn’t say anything to leave the misimpression that they acted dishonorably. So he didn’t really throw them under the bus either.

Still, he’s smart enough to know that SOME veterans and SOME voters wrongfully associate EVERY protestor with injustice or cowardice or wrongheadedness. And if he can trigger a kneejerk vote against Hillary because of misguided old biases, is that really anything close to despicable? Not really, in my opinion. It’s just shrewd politicking. It’s not likely to make any significant difference in the WV primary, as Clinton will get a blowout win there in any case. Ultimately, his principle and lasting motive is to set the stage for the general election, framing himself as he is, in an effort to overcome the caricature the GOP will trot out again that all democrats are cowardly weenies. And I think that’s a perfectly sensible thing to do.

I won’t leave it at that, though, because there’s even a larger picture than all of that. And someday the nation surely will be ready for an intelligent discussion of that conflict without any remaining wounds reopened by Republican opportunists who enjoy using fear and pain to make their case.

1) The saddest outcome of that war was the Cambodian genocide that followed. Both LBJ and Nixon ordered actions that drew Cambodians into a conflict that wasn’t theirs, which set the stage for the Khmer Rouge atrocities that followed. And our country, weary of the war, including hawks and doves and in-betweeners, turned its head away, for the most part. We drew a line of non-involvement that, in retrospect, was not honorable, even though it was understandable. That remains the most dishonorable fact of that era and neither political party nor any other ideological group is free from the stain of that. Which should remain as a primary school lesson about unintended consequences of war and governmental decisions based on ideology and poor planning.

2) Yes, some war opponents blamed “not only the leaders who ordered the mission, but the young men who simply answered their country’s call”. For a multitude of reasons. Some recognized the draftees as victims but knew the volunteers were fully aware of the moral debates dividing the country and they continued to volunteer when at least two-thirds of the country considered the war to be immoral. So they did question the morality of those volunteers, which included virtually every officer who entered military service between 1969-1974. Some- who were facing the draft themselves - had to wrestle with those moral issues directly. If their draft lottery number was chosen, would they go to Canada? Would they refuse and face certain imprisonment (and probable rape, as avowed pacifists were inviting targets)? Even though many lucked out in the lottery, many of them had reached conclusions to take on the perils of avoiding the war, which did, in fact, mean sacrifices and sufferings still. So such decisions were often rooted in courage not cowardice. And when they saw peers gung-ho to go and kill ‘the Commies’ (or worse, the name-your-ethnic-slurs), was it unreasonable for such folks to feel a moral disconnect with those volunteers?

There were also some who recognized that governments everywhere prey on the nationalistic idealism and naivete and passion of the young, recruiting them as cannon fodder because of their lack of experience and gained wisdom therefrom. War opponents with that view were the most likely to confine the blame to the elected civilian and military leaders of that poorly thought out conflict, and ultimately dishonored, shunned, demonized and neglected no returning veteran.

3) It’s especially important to recognize that the blaming, shunning, demonizing and neglecting was not just a a feature of some in the antiwar crowd. In fact, in the postwar era, all of that may have been a bigger feature of the pro-war crowd. For quite a few years, a number of warhawks felt the troops had dishonored themselves by failing to win - an absolute falsehood. But since many came back as drug users and rock-n-rollers like their stateside peers, they were considered morally suspect. And with a pandemic of PTSD in that returning population, their morality and courage was further in doubt. Numerous politicians, and the VA itself, provided plenty of abuse and neglect far in excess to any insult delivered by most war opponents.

I recall that aspect of the war outcome especially, because they swelled the ranks of the homeless for nearly two full decades after our troops were withdrawn. And liberal anti-war types like myself busied ourselves caring for them, helping them gain long-denied treatment or simply accepting them if they remained distrustful of their government and most of society. And I fully expect to see that cycle repeated long after the last of our troops are withdrawn from Iraq. I only hope we’ve grown smarter and more compassionate as a nation and choose to be swifter and more effective in treating their physical , mental and psychic wounds.

I know also that I never spit on any returning troop. I welcomed my father home and all the men in his squadron, glad that my lottery number never forced me to go and kill people I didn’t consider to be my enemies.

And just because the middle of this presidential campaign is not an advantageous time to conduct this serious and honest discussion of alln the actions, reactions and ramifications of the Vietnam War, I see no reason that Obama should lead such a discussion at this moment. I see the importance of the distinction he’s making and consider it prudent. I don’t feel that I’m being thrown under any bus, nor are the tens of millions of my peers who also opposed that war.

I honestly don’t believe I would feel differently if I was still supporting Clinton’s candidacy. I’ve found cause to criticize Obama before and feel certain such criticism will be necessary again at times, as I labor under no delusions of him as an omnipotent. And in this instance, I think he’s perfectly justified to make those remarks. He is a smart and effective campaigner. And I respect that he takes care to aim for truthfulness even in the moments when he may intend to leave some misimpressions. That, to me, is far more acceptable than the blatant lies of McCain, Bush, Cheney and their ilk.