Associated Press

It's hard to see Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) as much of a partisan. As he wraps up his first and only term in the Senate, the centrist Democrat hasn't developed a reputation for being especially ideological; he doesn't seem to care for the usual political games; and he's generally been a non-presence when it comes to hitting the campaign trail, even for his allies.

So when Webb appeared alongside President Obama in Virginia Beach yesterday, it raised eyebrows. When the senator delivered a blistering, almost angry critique of Mitt Romney, it was even more surprising.

Introducing President Obama in Virginia Beach, retiring Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), condemned Mitt Romney for failing to mention veterans or the military in his GOP convention speech.

The omission was all the more damning, Webb suggested, because Romney is of an age where he might have served in Vietnam but did not.

"If nothing else, at least mention some word of thanks and respect when a presidential candidate who is their generational peer makes a speech," said Webb, a former Navy secretary and decorated Marine who served in Vietnam. Romney was exempted from the draft, first as a student and then as a missionary.

"This was a time when every American male was eligible to be drafted. People made choices," Webb said. "Those among us who stepped forward to face the harsh unknowns did so with the belief that their service would be honored."

Webb proceeded to connect Romney's indifference to national security to the Republican's infamous "47 percent" remarks, in which he indirectly suggested veterans who rely on benefits are lazy parasites, dependent on government handouts. "In receiving veterans benefits they are not takers -- they are givers," Webb said.

But it was of particular interest to see the senator reflect on the Vietnam War era, and the decisions made at the time. The Romney campaign released a photograph this week of Romney in 1968, laying on a French beach alongside a giant "I Love Ann" sign he'd drawn for his future wife in the sand. It's a nice photo, and some wondered why Team Romney hadn't released it sooner, perhaps to help "humanize" the widely-disliked candidate.

The answer, I suspect, is the historical context -- while Romney was writing love letters in French beaches in 1968, Jim Webb and a whole lot of other men were on a very different foreign soil, engaged in a very different activity.

And though it hasn't been a campaign issue, Webb seemed eager to remind folks' memories yesterday.

Though the emotion of the delivery may not come through in the transcript, take a look at these remarks Webb made yesterday -- in a part of Virginia home to large veteran population -- before introducing the president.

"Governor Romney and I are about the same age. Like millions of others in our generation we came to adulthood facing the harsh realities of the Vietnam War. 2.7 million in our age group went to Vietnam, a war which eventually took the lives of 58,000 young Americans and cost another 300,000 wounded. The Marine Corps lost 100,000 killed or wounded in that war. During the year I was in Vietnam, 1969, our country lost twice as many dead as we have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over the past ten years of war. 1968 was worse. 1967 was about the same. Not a day goes by when I do not think about the young Marines I was privileged to lead.

"This was a time of conscription, where every American male was eligible to be drafted. People made choices about how to deal with the draft, and about military service. I have never envied or resented any of the choices that were made as long as they were done within the law. But those among us who stepped forward to face the harsh unknowns and the lifelong changes that can come from combat did so with the belief that their service would be honored, and that our leaders would, in the words of President Abraham Lincoln, care for those who had borne the battle, and for their widows and their children.

"Those young Marines that I led have grown older now. They've lived lives of courage, both in combat and after their return, where many of them were derided by their own peers for having served. That was a long time ago. They are not bitter. They know what they did. But in receiving veterans' benefits, they are not takers. They were givers, in the ultimate sense of that word. There is a saying among war veterans: 'All gave some, some gave all.' This is not a culture of dependency. It is a part of a long tradition that gave this country its freedom and independence. They paid, some with their lives, some through wounds and disabilities, some through their emotional scars, some through the lost opportunities and delayed entry into civilian careers which had already begun for many of their peers who did not serve.

"And not only did they pay. They will not say this, so I will say it for them. They are owed, if nothing else, at least a mention, some word of thanks and respect, when a presidential candidate who is their generational peer makes a speech accepting his party's nomination to be Commander in Chief. And they are owed much more than that -- a guarantee that we will never betray the commitment that we made to them and to their loved ones."

To put it mildly, this was not a standard introduction to a presidential appearance.

We haven't talked about this since June, but there are legitimate, unanswered questions about Romney from that era, and there's some evidence to suggest the Republican has been far from honest with the public about his actions.

Associated Press

Romney in 1965, seen on the far right, protesting in support of the Vietnam War.

At this point in American politics, whether a presidential candidate avoided service in Vietnam is probably an issue that has lost its electoral salience. While the controversy undercut Bill Clinton -- and to a lesser extent, George W. Bush -- its relevance in national campaigns seems to have come and gone.

So, when the AP ran a 1,200-word piece yesterday on Romney's Vietnam-era deferments, it's tempting to think the story just doesn't matter. As the argument goes, his unwillingness to serve, though perhaps embarrassing, doesn't seem to tell us anything important now.

But these assumptions aren't quite right. The story matters in large part because this appears to be yet another area in which Romney hasn't been honest with the public.

Though an early supporter of the Vietnam War, Romney avoided military service at the height of the fighting after high school by seeking and receiving four draft deferments, according to Selective Service records. They included college deferments and a 31-month stretch as a "minister of religion" in France, a classification for Mormon missionaries that the church at the time feared was being overused. The country was cutting troop levels by the time he became eligible for the draft, and his lottery number was not called. [...]

[B]ecause Romney, now 65, was of draft age during Vietnam, his military background -- or, rather, his lack of one -- is facing new scrutiny as he courts veterans and makes his case to the nation to be commander in chief.

This scrutiny is turning up some underappreciated details, which raise some legitimate questions. Indeed, there's clear evidence to suggest Romney hasn't told the truth about his actions during the war.

In 1965, as an undergraduate at Stanford, Romney not only supported the war in Vietnam, he participated in pro-war protests. That same year, he sought and received his first deferment.

A year later, Romney received a longer-than-usual 4-D deferment, which allowed him to do Mormon missionary work in France, despite the fact that other "young Mormon men elsewhere were denied that same status," and the Mormon Church, which backed the war, "limited the number of church missionaries allowed to defer their military service using the religious exemption."

By 1969, Romney had completed his work in France, but sought and received new deferments.

Many years later, in 1994, Romney said, "It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft." That wasn't true -- he took several steps to remove himself from the eligibility pool.

By 2007, Romney, a presidential candidate, argued. "I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there, and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam."

But that's not what he said in 1994, and if "longed" to serve in the war he protested to support, Romney probably shouldn't have gone so far out of his way to make sure he didn't have to go.

Again, I can appreciate why this all seems like ancient history. But if Romney has misled voters about his decision to avoid military service during a war -- and there's ample reason to believe he has -- that's clearly a legitimate campaign issue. For that matter, if Romney benefited from preferential treatment, unavailable to those who weren't born into a wealthy and politically influential family, that matters, too.