From the WSJ Opinion Archives
POLITICS & PEOPLE
Sham Charges Against a War Hero
Calling John Kerry's military service into question is beyond the pale.
Suppose in the 1992 presidential election, after an unconfirmed rumor surfaced about an alleged affair then President Bush had years earlier, Clinton supporters decided to make marital fidelity a central issue.
That would be almost as crazy as the current effort by some Bush backers to focus attention on John Kerry's Vietnam War record and subsequent protests. This is being significantly funded and directed by Texas fat cats and political operatives who have more than a passing relationship with Bush political guru Karl Rove. These are some of the same people who surreptitiously smeared John McCain in the last election. There's a Web site, some vicious TV ads are supposed to start this week, and a man, who was a pawn of the Nixon White House efforts to discredit John Kerry 33 years ago, has written a book attacking Mr. Kerry's Vietnam experiences.
The charges are that Sen. Kerry has exaggerated his war record, maligned all Americans soldiers when he later protested against the war, and learned the wrong lessons from Vietnam.
The goal is to undercut the Democratic nominee's credentials as a commander in chief. As was the case with the attacks on Sen. John McCain four years ago, Mr. Rove and his boss will claim they have nothing to do with these "independent" efforts--by virtue of the law and the politics.
The allegations against Mr. Kerry in Vietnam are that he only served four months, hyped his heroism and didn't earn his medals, particularly his first Purple Heart, presumably because if you got three you could leave early. Think for a moment of that logic. He was cited for a Purple Heart on Dec. 2, 1968, at the beginning of his swift boat tour of duty, after he had volunteered three times: once for the Navy, then for duty in Vietnam and then to command a swift boat; those four months were his second tour of duty. Somehow these hatchet men--and women--want you to believe he faked the first injury, figuring he could get two more Purple Hearts in those treacherous waters--getting wounded, mind you, not killed--and then get out.
They deride his Silver Star, which was pinned on him personally by the commander of U.S. Naval forces in Vietnam, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt; men in his boat say he saved their lives. The Bronze Star was awarded when Lt. John Kerry, wounded, ordered his boat back to pull Army Ranger Jim Rassmann out of the water. All the crewmates on that swift boat that day cite his courage. Yet a TV ad is running this week claiming it's untrue.
Indeed, 10 of the 11 men who served on his two swift boats all have sworn by John Kerry; nine living members were in Boston. Every serious journalist that has examined the record has come to the same conclusion, the Boston Globe and Washington Post most prominently. Even Charles Colson, the White House aide who masterminded the anti-Kerry efforts in the Nixon years, was unable, despite a concerted effort, to find "anything negative" about Mr. Kerry.
A good idea for an enterprising young reporter: Ask John McCain, out campaigning for President Bush this week, what he thinks of these charges?
The next charge is that when he retired and led the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Mr. Kerry accused all of the American forces in Vietnam of committing war crimes. He indisputably engaged in hyperbole back then. Still, what he actually said was that atrocities were widespread, but he never suggested they were committed by most Americans. And his criticism was in the context of the war, not a broadside against his fellow soldiers.
All Vietnam War historians cite atrocities. My Lai was the most publicized at the time, but decorated Vietnam combat veteran David Hackworth has declared "there were hundreds of My Lais." Last year the Toledo Blade won a Pulitzer Prize for documenting how an Army platoon, called Tiger Force, conducted a seven-month reign of terror in the central highlands in 1967, killing countless men, women and children. Just this week, when a Fox News commentator tried to goad Gen. Tommy Franks, the Bush Iraqi war commander, into attacking Mr. Kerry for those old assertions, this Vietnam veteran, to the consternation of his questioner, made clear that atrocities occurred in Vietnam.
All accounts clearly indicate that Mr. Kerry was a moderating influence in the antiwar veterans group, calming the palpable anger and sense of betrayal of so many, and countering the radicals. The Vietnam War was undercut, not by protests at home, but by the war's fundamentally flawed premise and underlying rationale.
Also distorted is the claim that the lesson he derived from Vietnam was that force shouldn't be used. Instead, candidate Kerry proclaims, war should be only a last resort and we shouldn't send American men and women into harm's way without a plan to win the peace too.
Richard Holbrooke, a top Kerry foreign policy adviser, notes that the ambiguities of Vietnam persist in this debate today; John F. Kennedy was a hero in a good war, he notes, while John Kerry was a hero in an unpopular war that didn't turn out well. But he says the lessons that Mr. Kerry learned about complexities and the need "to be careful and methodical and then decisive" are exactly the right ones for today's world. Contrary to critics, Mr. Holbrooke, an architect of America's Balkans policies in the '90s, believes the Kerry approach would have mandated the use of force in Kosovo and earlier than we did in Bosnia: "We had exhausted all diplomatic means and simultaneously created an international coalition to take action."
In Boston last week, the symbol of a nominee who was both a war hero and a war protestor was powerful. The stage was full of admirals and generals and veterans; leftist peaceniks were cheering warriors. That was a good thing.
This presidential contest is between two men born of privilege. What they did three and a half decades ago is revealing about their character then. George Bush, like most of us, ducked; John Kerry fought. In the order of importance for Nov. 2, this should rank about 16th or 17th out of the top 20 factors. The 2004 election should be about the future.
But if Karl Rove's pals persist, that ranking may climb.
