August 30, 2004
He's a Veteran
I’m no Kerry shill, but I’m annoyed and disheartened by the Right’s vapid caviling about the Senator’s war record. Kerry may have invited it by “reporting for duty”, but a conservatism that has conceived and led the noble and necessary war against Islamofascism, the 20th Century’s last gasp of totalitarianism, and which has rightly demanded unwavering respect for our troops, has no business gutting a decorated veteran for cheap political gain.
But not so fast -- Ralph Peters, ex-Army officer and military historian, makes clear the complaints spring from a substrate of real grievance:
[Kerry] had the right to protest against the war — more than most, since he had served himself. But he had not earned the right to lie about the honorable service of millions of others.
Kerry's lies — and they were nothing but lies — about "routine" atrocities committed by average American soldiers and sanctioned by the chain of command were sheer political opportunism. Kerry knew that none of the charges were true.
He'd been there. He may have done some stupid things himself, but atrocities were statistically very rare. Contrary to the myths cherished by film-makers, American troops behaved remarkably well under dreadful conditions.
John Kerry lied. Without remorse. To advance his budding political career. He tarnished the reputation of his comrades when the military was out of vogue.
That is so, and with this insight, the always thoughtful Roger L. Simon broadens and sharpens the contours of Kerry's offenses of thirty years ago:
Back in Vietnam days, most of us on the then-Left realized the war was being fought by a largely working-class army with a great percentage of people of color. Few of us wanted to attack them because we were running around fancy universities protesting while the less economically fortunate were getting blown up.
When John Kerry came back from that war, having gone over for whatever reasons, he personally accused, with little or no evidence, those same working-class soldiers of excessive numbers of atrocities. What kind of a Lefty does that? What kind of a man does that? There were dozens of other ways to oppose the Vietnam War, many of them far more substantive. But he chose the low road. Well, the Law of Karma was the operative law in those days and it has come back to haunt him.
Yet while all this is awful, it was, as I said, thirty years ago, and what is most important is prosecuting our current conflict, which actually is a war of survival. There are more substantive ways to voice the mistrust many of us feel growing in the void of an articulate Democratic Middle East policy, ones that don't involve tarring the service of someone who answered the call to defend our country.
Victor Davis Hanson, another oft-cited military historian, gives us a reasonable and elegant sum from which we can move forward:
Posted by John-Paul Pagano at August 30, 2004 12:34 AMIt is time to drop the mess and leave it at this: A veteran John Kerry, who easily could have been blown up on numerous occasions, came home mixed up and said and did things he probably now regrets, which over the last three decades have provided both rich political capital for him and ammunition for his enemies — depending on the ever-changing perception of Vietnam in the popular memory of a given decade.
So I conclude with empathy for John Kerry, whom I appreciate as a veteran who served his country — even if I would not now vote for him. He should have been aware of the god Nemesis. Still, in a spirit of magnanimity and appreciation for his months on a boat in a very inhospitable landscape, Americans perhaps should remember the words of Pericles, as recorded by Thucydides shortly after the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War: "For there is justice in the claim that steadfastness in his country's battles should be as a cloak to cover a man's other imperfections; since the good action has blotted out the bad, and his merit as a citizen more than outweighed his demerits as an individual."
I find it amusing that some of the more wingnutty righties are claiming Kerry committed atrocities himself - the claim of shooting an unarmed boy in the back, for example - while in the next rant accusing him lying about there being atrocities in the first place.
Were there atrocities? Yes, demonstrably so. Will we ever know the extent of them? Probably not - we just recently found out about one of the worse.
It’s unavoidable in a war, really. You get a bunch of young patriots, have the enemy kill their buddies, and you’re going to wind up with some heated, nasty acts. Just the way it is… an unfortunate reality of warfare.
Posted by: ceejayoz at August 30, 2004 12:50 AMIt would never have been an issue except for the fact that Kerry has used exploited his service as his only political qualification in this election.
It’s overcompensation for the anti-war record. Perhaps it is purposefully being used to distract from his anti-war statements?
Posted by: Eric Simonson at August 30, 2004 01:00 AMIsn’t it possible that Senator Kerry was trying to blow away the canard that Democrats are weak on national security/defense? By touting his service to the country in contrast to the “chickenhawks” in the Republican party, he was cutting off the attacks that Clinton, Dukakis, and others dating back to the Nixon administration had endured. Why are these not valid arguements when it comes to Bush (the junior), Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al? And as far as his later denunciation of the war, he earned the right to speak against the war by his service. And if people are not willing to search their memories about the things that went on during the war and be honest about the results, they shame only themselves. Furthermore, if you expect anyone to come forward today and admit to atrocities after they have spent decades ignoring and denying them, you have blinders on.
Posted by: John Preston at August 30, 2004 02:01 AMEric, it is heartening for those of us who do not wish to see Bush reelected that you continue to ignore and thus leave uncritiqued Kerry’s economic plans and promises, social programs and benefits, and other campaign issues he is purporting to millions of Americans around the country.
Stay on that one trick pony, and continue to give us hope that a change is coming in November. The war record was never the only issue at the Convention, but, it is to Kerry’s credit that folks such as yourself continue to be blinded to all else that Kerry is saying and speaking about. It means little critique for the his other platform issues which he and Edwards are touting around the nation.
Posted by: David R Remer at August 30, 2004 02:01 AMJohn-Paul, I found your perspective very reasoned, rational, and healthy for American politics. I hope it becomes contagious, as all Americans and all political parties will be served by it.
Posted by: David R Remer at August 30, 2004 02:05 AMI suppose there will be those that state that Abu Ghraib was only a few errant soldiers or that the civilian causualties in Iraq were small colateral damage compared to Sadam’s slaughter( as though that were an appropiate standard for comparison) sometime in the future when discussing the fraud that occurred to engage us in that war.
Those that speak the truth, will they be viewed as traitors, too?
Posted by: Greg at August 30, 2004 03:04 AM> John-Paul, I found your perspective very
> reasoned, rational, and healthy for American
> politics.
David, John-Paul’s conclusion may seem “reasoned” to you, but to me it all sounds like a back-handed compliment. He’s essentially saying “Kerry is without a doubt a conniving opportunist who repeatedly lied and defamed his fellow veterans for personal political gain, but hey, the Vietnam era was tough times.”
See, the thing that is so screwed up about this logic is that John Kerry was not lying about the war crimes and atrocities he discussed!
Everything he said has been shown to have actually ocurred, and he never said that all war crimes were being committed by all soldiers. He said that certain war crimes like free fire zones and burning were widespread and well-known by all levels of command. He said that worse war crimes ocurred, such as massacres and torture, but he never said that those, too, were widespread. The idea that he was painting all soldiers as inhuman psychotics is at best a public misperception and at worst a Republican invention. If the public did come to that conclusion from his testimony (and although I was not alive then, I haven’t seen evidence that they did), you can hardly say it was Kerry’s fault.
I guess J-P is subtly practicing the old “repeat it often enough it becomes true” tactic, couching the real message (“Kerry is a soldier-defaming opportunistic liar”) within a seemingly balanced comment (“Kerry is a soldier-defaming opportunistic liar who, once upon a time, might have actually served his country”). This is the same techique the Bushes just used - President Bush pretends to “respect” Kerry’s service one day, and the next Laura Bush says that the SBVT ads are “fair”.
The truth is that there is no credence to either charge. Kerry served honorably and with distinction in Vietnam and he acted honorably and with distinction in his anti-war testimony. No American came to any harm whatsoever as a result of Kerry’s actions in either context. Period.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 30, 2004 07:44 AMCF, I agree with you about Kerry’s past and Viet Nam. You know it to be true for you, and I know it to be true based on the evidence that is there to validate it.
But, this is the land of the free, where folks can believe what they wish. John-Paul is offering a bridge to the moderates and leftists, to debate issues far more important for Americans today than whether Bush served or didn’t and whether Kerry’s memory is as accurate as folks on the right want it to be regarding their view of his past.
It is a bridge I am willing to cross in this Republican column with John-Paul. One I hope Americans will cross as we have hugely important issues to debate and candidates to flesh out on these issues before Nov. 2. Both Bush and Kerry have failed to provide us realistic numbers for their promise to cut the deficit in half in 4 years.
If we continue to focus on war records, we will give both these candidates carte blanche to skate into office on the slimmest of margin without ever telling us the truth about how they are going to resolve the problems facing us. And that will be our fault, our arrogance, and our stupidity.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 30, 2004 08:01 AM“Abu Ghraib was only a few errant soldiers “
It was.
John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I don’t appreciate his after-war comments, but I don’t hate him for them either.
David…. for those that actually bothered to read John Paul’s quotes from various authors (before they went on the attack) … they are indeed a good middle ground for the controversy. Some can’t get out of attack mode long enough to actually think though.
Posted by: Aldaron at August 30, 2004 08:31 AMI find it amusing that some of the more wingnutty righties are claiming Kerry committed atrocities himself - the claim of shooting an unarmed boy in the back, for example - while in the next rant accusing him lying about there being atrocities in the first place.
Not to mention all the right wingnuts saying that John Kerry’s accusers must be telling the truth because they are decorated veterans — like Kerry.
And logic meets reality. I hope you folks on the right side of the page noted that Larry “Bronze Star” Thurlow is a liar. We just don’t know whether he was lying then (and he and Kerry weren’t under fire) or he is lying now (and they were).
Posted by: Woody Mena at August 30, 2004 08:48 AMIt doesn’t take a “wingnut” to say that Kerry committed war crimes, he said as much himself!
Kerry made Vietnam an issue.
He said to talk to the people he served with.
He said “bring it on!”
It’s been “broughten”. ;)
Posted by: Brett Kottmann at August 30, 2004 10:57 AMWoody Mena, you lie when you say that Thurlow is a liar.
Unlike Kerry, Thurlow’s story has not changed.
Thurlow has stated that if he received a bronze star due to “enemy fire” it’s wrong.
Care to issue a mea culpa on that one?
Posted by: Brett Kottmann at August 30, 2004 11:00 AMMr. Kottman,
You must be kidding me. Are you telling me that Thurlow didn’t KNOW why he was awarded a Bronze Star? I’ve heard of plausible deniability, but that is really pushing it.
Posted by: Woody Mena at August 30, 2004 11:49 AMDavid:
I like the bridge idea of discussing issues. The problem is that I’ve tried to do that, and have been rebuffed.
I have asked a number of people about how they feel when told that Kerry missed 76% of the public Senate Intelligence Committee meetings between 1993 and 2001. I’ve asked them whether they would call for Kerry to release the attendance records of the private SIC meetings in order to evaluate his campaign’s statements that he was a vital member at those meetings.
As an example, Christopher Fahey responded with a statement that he hadnt thought much about it. So much for the issues, I guess.
To me, his actions as a Senator are an essential part of how to evaluate him. Intelligence issues have come to the forefront now as a real problem for our country. And lo and behold, we have a candidate who was on the SIC during a time when intelligence gathering is shown to have been horribly flawed. I want to know what this candidate did about it—-and so far, all I can find out is that he missed 3/4 of the meetings.
My point is that when I’ve brought up a real issue like this one, I’ve gotten pat answers from the “left”. Stephen Daugherty hasnt even bothered to respond—-so at least Chris is one up in that regard.
Seems to me the only issues that some will discuss are ones where they percieve an advantage. And that pretty much stops it from being a discussion.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 30, 2004 01:24 PM“I have asked a number of people about how they feel when told that Kerry missed 76% of the public Senate Intelligence Committee meetings between 1993 and 2001.”
Interesting. The political scientist in me seems to think that not much of interest goes on at PUBLIC Senate Intelligence Committee meetings. All Senators on the committee as well as the committee’s staffers need very high security clearances to do the committee’s work, since, well, it deals with sensitive intelligence matters.
Also, I’d be interested in knowing whether missing 76% of “public meetings” (operationalized how?) is out of line with the Senate average? Senators are busy people, frequently serving on 4 or 5 standing committees - how many meetings does the average committee member miss?
Posted by: Rick Almeida at August 30, 2004 01:44 PMRick:
I agree with you. I too would like to know what Kerry’s record is and how it compares and contrasts with the norm. Problem is he wont release the records, so we have no way of knowing.
In any event, though, I wouldnt want to base MY campaign on being average. Lets say Kerry attended the same percentage of private SIC meetings as the average senator on the committee. How does that sound in a campaign ad??? “Hey, I’m John Kerry and I’m average!”
Furthermore, Kerry has talked about how he would make changes in areas such as intelligence gathering etc. So…lets judge him by his record when he has had the opportunity to make such changes. Best I can see is that 76% of the time, he was otherwise occupied. I’d love for him to tell us what he specifically accomplished on this committee.
By knowing what he did when given the opportunity, we have a better idea of whether to give him another opportunity.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 30, 2004 02:11 PMI’ve noticed how little play this story has gotten. Maybe it’s because even the Kerry supporters can’t find a way out of it. Check this thread from his website….
Posted by: George at August 30, 2004 03:02 PMYou do not do the things people did in Vietnam and not have people notice. You do not do the things you do in Abu Ghraib and not have people notice. Even if the American people are decieved about such things, often people outside of our country are not.
The atrocities of Vietnam have been proven and corroborated. Our policies were plain on the face of it. The conservatives here can say it isn’t so, but that cannot alter things. To say Kerry lied is too easy. One must go, case by case and not only demonstrate that Kerry worked from false information, but that he also knew he did so. Until that is proven, it is merely a political charge which can be brushed aside like all the political backbiting.
The question is, if Kerry was being opportunistic, why didn’t he do the expected thing and keep his mouth shut. He could have had an uncontroversial entry into politics, but instead he choose to put himself in the middle of a firestorm of controversy, which in fact got in the way of his political ambitions. He could have been a congressman. Instead, he ended up an assistant D.A. The idea that Kerry’s testimony was a brilliant career move is not supported by his performance in the congressional election.
As I said before, the reason Kerry won’t release his records, is that he knows that the Right-Wing attack dogs are looking for Clerical errors and details to divorce from context and present as lies and misdeeds. It’s a fishing expedition, and you can tell that because of the way their other revelations have been recieved by the press.
The press, not wanting to be caught on the wrong side of a fact check has examined many of these allegations and found them to be inconclusive at best, and badly compromised at worst. If that is a sign of things to come, why bother? Maybe you could find the Silver Bullet to slay Kerry’s candidacy with. Given what’s happened so far, though, it seems this is just a expedition to find more mud to sling.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2004 07:20 PMStephen:
A direct question to you: While I understand why Kerry won’t release his Viet Nam records for the reasons you state, why do you suppose he won’t release his attendance records for the Senate Intelligence Committee?
I’m not including any information from the meetings other than who attended. Since the names of the people on the committee is public, how would it possibly infringe upon anyone to release just the attendance records? The chairman is on record as saying he simply needs a request from Kerry in order to do so.
You have yet to answer on this issue, which is a REAL ISSUE, and not a politicized one, as you suggest the Viet Nam issues are. So let’s hear what you have to say on the issue.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 30, 2004 08:03 PMjoe: You’ve already been told the answer to this question. The information would be without context, with no comparison to the other members of the committee. And without the correct context, people would compare it to a record of perfect attendance rather than a record of average attendance. Kerry would be very well advised not to release his attendance record without them releasing theirs first. Please note that none of them seem to have taken the first step of releasing theirs to guilt him into releasing his, now have they?
Posted by: Jarin at August 30, 2004 10:21 PMJarin:
I beg to differ with you. Stephen has been talking about how we should focus on real issues, yet he has distinctly avoided answering this question. He has not avoided continuing to discuss Kerry’s Viet Nam history—perhaps he feels that is the real issue, even while decrying others for discussing it.
Jarin, as I said earlier, it is Kerry’s job to show us why he should be President. As of now, in the arena of intelligence gathering, I can see only that he has SAID he wants better intel, but his ACTIONS have not demonstrated any attempt to produce any. I doubt that a 24% attendance rate is average, but if it is, then it still doesnt give Kerry the ability to say that he has been working for better intelligence gathering.
Kerry is trying to have it both ways——talk tough but not take action. And for me personally, I’d like to see all the attendance records—and I call for them. Those who favor Kerry want to smokescreen this issue rather than get to the heart of it. They give many reasons why the information might not be representative, might not be salient, might not be accurate etc.
But I dont hear Kerry supporters saying this: Hey, Kerry is great. Lets get out all the information so we can prove that. Lets call for all the attendance records to be on display, and that will be part of our proof that Kerry is is great.
Why dont they call for this?? Because deep in their hearts, they KNOW he didnt attend the meetings. They know he talked the talk, but didnt walk the walk.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 31, 2004 07:42 AMHere’s my point to this attendance thing. The public meetings can be verified; why doesn’t a Kerry defender just pull the attendance of other members and prove the argument that his attendance is in line with his colleagues? FactCheck seemed to have no problem pulling Kerry’s attendance record. Or better yet, why doesn’t the truth seeking NY Times do it for them?
The only conclusion is, just as the thread on the Kerry site demonstrates, there is really no way to defend the charge. Otherwise, someone would have done it by now.
Posted by: George at August 31, 2004 12:06 PMGeorge asked: “why doesn’t a Kerry defender just pull the attendance of other members and prove the argument that his attendance is in line with his colleagues?”
Good question George, which begs the inverse question. Why doesn’t a Republican simply pull the records and divulge them for themselves as well as Kerry and demonstrate what you suspect?
George said: “The only conclusion is, just as the thread on the Kerry site demonstrates, there is really no way to defend the charge.”
No, George, there is another conclusion that can be drawn. Just as the absence of revelation by Republicans in the Congress demonstrate, there is no evidence to prove the charge. It is just as logical as your proposition. In the absence of the facts and data regarding attendance, any conclusion is simply a biased guess. I suspect their is a bi-partisan agreement or rule that prevents either side from revealing the records which would be damning to both sides, as well as vindicating.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 12:32 PMI suspect their is a bi-partisan agreement or rule that prevents either side from revealing the records which would be damning to both sides, as well as vindicating.
Then why was FactCheck.org allowed to verify Kerry’s attendance? And I think, given Kerry’s Fast Response section of his website, he would want to do the comparision. Instead, he offered the smoke screen that even his own supporters didn’t buy.
But let me do some searching and see what I find….
George and David:
The only way that the attendance records can be publicly displayed is if the members (or member) requests it. So, Kerry can ask for his records to be revealed, but he cannot ask for anyone else’s to be revealed.
That being said, its not hard to imagine that if Kerry attended a high percentage of the private meetings, he would have no reason to not publicly display his record. This would simply win the argument and shut the Republicans up.
But he hasnt done so. Its also not hard to imagine that he missed a lot of the meetings, and doesnt want to have to admit it. Now, its true that he might have the same abysmal attendance record that other committee members have, but they are not running for President, so it wouldnt harm them as much as it would harm Kerry.
The bottom line is that we just dont know. What we DO know is that one man holds the answers in his hands. It is up to John Kerry to decide whether to allow the truth to be seen. What will he do….what will he do?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 31, 2004 02:10 PMGeorge:
The public records are available—and FactCheck.org did in fact check those. The Kerry campaign intimated that Kerry had attended more of the private meetings, but has not provided any evidence of that. Its possible for FactCheck to see how Kerry’s attendance compares to other committee members, if they choose. Their goal was primarily to see if the 76% absence rate for Senator Kerry was accurate, and they concluded it was.
The private records are available only at the request of the person whose attendance is being checked, i.e.; Kerry himself.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 31, 2004 02:32 PMRight JoeB. I will still try to answer David’s “comparison to others” by trying to find the attendance stats two comparable GOP Senators who served during the same time. Although again, I feel that this information is known by the media and by Kerry and, therefore, is not being used as a defense. That’s why I feel the news might not be that good.
But for my friend David, I’ll keep looking….
I do know that Senator Bob Kerrey had perfect attendance at public meetings during his tenure (according to NewsMax) but as a chairman that might not be a fair comparison.
Posted by: George at August 31, 2004 03:57 PMI just requested the information from FactCheck.org’s Brooks Jackson to see if they have done the comparison. I’ll update it in a later blog if they respond.
Posted by: George at August 31, 2004 04:03 PMThank you George, that information would be very valuable in assessing the validity of arguments pro or con on this issue. Appreciate the effort.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 04:53 PM
