Saturday, August 21, 2004
Kerry and Vietnam
Before I get to the point, I should get the following off my chest: I don't need a president who was a war hero, and I certainly wouldn't vote on the criterion of "who was the bravest in combat". I only get one vote, and there are more important elements and qualifications in a presidential candidate ("what policies will he support?" and "is he capable of the job" being high on the list). But I understand, of course, that many people will vote for war heros simply because they are war heros (pity the political aspirant who never had a chance to prove himself in combat), or because they think choices made in combat provide a valuable window on character (which may be true, but there are many such windows, so an exclusive focus on war is hard to justify).
Because many undecided voters like war heros, or at least heroic war stories, the details of what Kerry and Bush did during the Vietnam war is valuable turf in the campaign. We know Bush did very little, and was probably absent without leave from his Air National Guard Unit (and of course Cheney had "other priorities", and won a deferment). Now a group of veterans disputes Kerry's well known story of heroism under fire on a small boat in Vietnam. The Washington Post has a nice review of the evidence, and it looks like Kerry was pretty damn brave, no matter whose story you listen to. The worst the anti-Kerry people can do is insinuate that Kerry may have somehow embellished his rescue of a man overboard by adding hostile small arms fire, but all the accounts written at the time---including those by the Kerry critics---support Kerry on the issue. And even without the small arms fire, Kerry's actions seems pretty heroic.
The real beef of the anti-Kerry vets appears to have nothing to do with what happened on the swift boats. They are still mad at Kerry for becoming an antiwar activist on returning home. They are mad he testified to atrocities being committed by American GIs in Vietnam. And they aren't exactly hiding this bias.
Here is what Kerry said to Congress about Vietnam atrocities. Reading his testimony, I am struck by the courage it took to tell the truth about the ugly side of Vietnam. I respect that more than what he did in Vietnam. A man in peril before you cries out for action in a way that a dirty war on the other side of the world usually doesn't. But Kerry answered both calls. And he wasn't alone either time---he spoke to Congress not by himself but on behalf of thousands of other vets who were sick of the atrocities some of their fellow GIs committed. The so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth don't appear to accept this fact, partly because they take Kerry's accusation personally. I don't believe Kerry said every soldier in Vietnam murdered innocents, but that too many did. And we know that: the My Lai massacre comes to mind, but look no further than the other Senator named "Kerry", Bob Kerrey, who was part of a platoon that massacred a village, as the New York Times Magazine revealed a few years ago.
So who's trying to abuse history? John Kerry, who has the evidence on his side (and, according to everyone, did some pretty brave things), or his critics, who want to pretend American GIs in Vietnam did nothing wrong?
Because many undecided voters like war heros, or at least heroic war stories, the details of what Kerry and Bush did during the Vietnam war is valuable turf in the campaign. We know Bush did very little, and was probably absent without leave from his Air National Guard Unit (and of course Cheney had "other priorities", and won a deferment). Now a group of veterans disputes Kerry's well known story of heroism under fire on a small boat in Vietnam. The Washington Post has a nice review of the evidence, and it looks like Kerry was pretty damn brave, no matter whose story you listen to. The worst the anti-Kerry people can do is insinuate that Kerry may have somehow embellished his rescue of a man overboard by adding hostile small arms fire, but all the accounts written at the time---including those by the Kerry critics---support Kerry on the issue. And even without the small arms fire, Kerry's actions seems pretty heroic.
The real beef of the anti-Kerry vets appears to have nothing to do with what happened on the swift boats. They are still mad at Kerry for becoming an antiwar activist on returning home. They are mad he testified to atrocities being committed by American GIs in Vietnam. And they aren't exactly hiding this bias.
Here is what Kerry said to Congress about Vietnam atrocities. Reading his testimony, I am struck by the courage it took to tell the truth about the ugly side of Vietnam. I respect that more than what he did in Vietnam. A man in peril before you cries out for action in a way that a dirty war on the other side of the world usually doesn't. But Kerry answered both calls. And he wasn't alone either time---he spoke to Congress not by himself but on behalf of thousands of other vets who were sick of the atrocities some of their fellow GIs committed. The so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth don't appear to accept this fact, partly because they take Kerry's accusation personally. I don't believe Kerry said every soldier in Vietnam murdered innocents, but that too many did. And we know that: the My Lai massacre comes to mind, but look no further than the other Senator named "Kerry", Bob Kerrey, who was part of a platoon that massacred a village, as the New York Times Magazine revealed a few years ago.
So who's trying to abuse history? John Kerry, who has the evidence on his side (and, according to everyone, did some pretty brave things), or his critics, who want to pretend American GIs in Vietnam did nothing wrong?
