BY JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, February 12, 2004 3:15 p.m. EST
Kerry's Vietnam Record
By now, you may have heard that John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, by the way served in Vietnam. We're being slightly sarcastic, of course: Kerry has made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. The idea seems to be that military service is sufficient, perhaps even necessary, to establish a candidate's national-security bona fides.
But Kerry wasn't just a serviceman; he was also an antiwar activist. His record in this capacity may be more revealing of his views on national security than his record in the Navy, where, after all, he was just following orders. The conservative weekly Human Events has put online a transcript of Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, and it makes for fascinating reading. Human Events extracts a few telling quotes:
During the question-and-answer part of his 1971 testimony, Sen. George Aiken (R.-Vt.) asked Kerry if the South Vietnamese army and South Vietnamese people "would be happy to have us withdraw or what?"
"If we don't withdraw," Kerry said, "if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic bombing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.
"The war will continue," said Kerry. "So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America."
It is not clear from Kerry's testimony when, where or how he believed these people were, or would be, "murdered by the United States of America." . . .
The transcript indicates that later in the testimony, under sympathetic questioning from Sen. Clifford Case (D.-N.J.), Kerry drew laughter from the crowd when he dismissed the administration's rationale for the war, to keep Communism at bay. "I think it is bogus, totally artificial," he said. "There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands."
Here are some other notable quotes from the transcript (PDF format):
Page 181: "To attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom . . . is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy."
Page 185: "Where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war."
Robert McNamara, of course, was defense secretary to Lyndon Johnson, who had been out of office for more than two years by the time Kerry testified.
Page 186: "The only other important point is that we allow the South Vietnamese people to determine their own future and that ostensibly is what we have been fighting for anyway."
Does Kerry now think the people of South Vietnam "determined their own future" when the communist North conquered their country in 1975, after America's withdrawal?
Page 191: "I think we have a very definite obligation to make extensive reparations to the people of Indochina."
Dennis Kucinich has said the same thing about Iraq.
Page 195: "The United States is still reacting in very much the 1945 mood and postwar cold-war period when we reacted to the forces which were at work in World War II and came out of it with this paranoia about the Russians and how the world was going to be divided up between the super powers. . . . I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those felt needs with any kind of political structure, giving it one name or another. In this name it is democratic; in others it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist."
If we understand this correctly, Kerry thought that fear of the Soviet Union was "paranoia" and that the difference between democracy and communism was merely one of nomenclature. Is this still his view?
Page 200: "I called the media. . . . I said, 'If I take some crippled veterans down to the White house and we chain ourselves to the gates, will we get coverage?' 'Oh, yes, we will cover that.' So you are reduced to a position where the only way you can get your ideas out is to stage events."
Kerry is doing much the same thing in his current campaign. This is from his victory speech Tuesday after the Virginia and Tennessee primaries:
Once again, I express my special thanks to the remarkable brigade of veterans who have crossed this country--Senator Max Cleland--the same band of brothers that I depended on 30 years ago.
Cleland, a former senator from Georgia, is a triple amputee. But not all "crippled veterans" are useful to Kerry. Last week we reprinted a 1992 speech he delivered on the Senate floor in which he rebuked then-Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, who lost a leg in Vietnam, for making an issue of Bill Clinton's lack of military service. At the time Kerrey was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, and Kerry took a high-minded approach: "We do not need to divide America over who served and how." Of late, of course, Kerry has been disparaging President Bush for serving stateside in the Texas Air National Guard instead of in Vietnam.
So in 1971 Kerry's view was that American servicemen in Vietnam were murderers. In 1992, they were no better or worse than anyone else. Today he proudly claims the mantle of war hero.
Kerry was only 27 when he testified before the Foreign Relations Committee, but he was already active in politics, having waged an unsuccessful campaign for Congress. His views might well have changed in the intervening years as he matured. But at the very least, someone who wishes to be commander in chief in a time of war owes the country an explanation of how and why his views have changed.
Oh Yeah, This Ought to Help
"Jane Fonda Defends Kerry"--headline, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Feb. 12
This Just In
"Edwards Aims to Be Alternative to Kerry"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 12
Kerry Gets Drudged
Matt Drudge once said his material is only 80% accurate, so there's a chance this is part of the other 20%. On the other hand, the last time Drudge broke a story like this, it not only turned out to be true but led to the only impeachment of a president during the 20th century.
According to the Drudge Report, "a frantic behind-the-scenes drama is unfolding around Sen. John Kerry":
Intrigue surrounds a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
A serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST, THE HILL and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked.
Drudge says the Kerry rumor is the reason Howard Dean reversed his earlier pledge to withdraw from the race if he lost Wisconsin. He also says three reporters confirm that Wesley Clark, in an off-the-record session earlier this week, declared, "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." (Though, as Editor & Publisher notes, "it would seem strange" that Clark withdrew from the race "if he really believed this.") It could cause him trouble at home, too. Last year Elle magazine carried an interview with Kerry's wife, outspoken ketchup heiress and philanthropist:
As if on cue, the topic turns to Hillary. "I don't think I could have coped so well. I would've been like psheww!" She makes a gunshot noise. "I used to say to my husband, my late husband, 'If you ever get something, I'll maim you. Not kill you, just maim you.' And we'd laugh, laugh, laugh."
By the way, check out the caption beneath the bottom photo on this page from Kerry's campaign Web site: "It's never too early to change the world--women interns are our future!"
An update on Drudge's homepage suggests this is an old story:
CONRESSIONAL QUARTERLY'S CRAIG CRAWFORD SENDS TO ASSOCIATES IN E-MAIL: "Drudge item on Kerry intern issue is something Chris Lehane (clark press secy) has shopped around for a long time--it was one reason the Gore vetters in 2000 shied away from Kerry as a running mate choice--their conclusion that it wasn't bad enough to disqualify him, except for the fact that they couldn't risk it as they were trying so hard to distance themselves from Clinton's personal failings (note: Lehane worked for Gore at the time--and briefly advised Kerry during this campaign). The Kerry camp has long expected to deal with this, and have assured party leaders they can handle it." Crawford reports that Lehane strenuously denies involvement.
The Gore campaign's purported ambivalence points to an inevitable question: Will the Dems dump Kerry if the story turns out to be true? Or will they stand behind their Clinton-era principle that a politician's private life is no one's business but his and his wife's?
Dean: Kerry Is Evil
Here's a prediction: If John Kerry does turn out to be the nominee, Howard Dean will not be his running mate. After largely keeping himself under control since last month's Iowa scream, Dean has been bitterly attacking Kerry, even going so far as to tell CBS News that John Edwards would be a better nominee. Here's what he told the Associated Press:
"What we now see is that John Kerry is part of the corrupt political culture in Washington," Dean said in an interview. He said he came to that conclusion after learning that former New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli contributed to an independent group that ran ads that used images of Osama bin Laden to question Dean's ability to combat terrorism if elected president. . . .
"I intend to support the Democratic nominee under any circumstances," Dean said. "I'm just deeply disappointed that once again we may have to settle for the lesser of two evils."
Gee, isn't it awfully narrow-minded to go around calling people "evil"?
The Kerry-Iran Kerfuffle
Lots of readers have sent us links to an article from the Mehr News Agency that appears on the Web site of the Tehran Times, an English-language newspaper that the World Press Review classifies as "conservative," which means pro-regime:
The office of Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary in the U.S., sent the Mehr News Agency an e-email saying that Kerry will try to repair the damage done by the incumbent president if he wins the election.
The Middle East Media Research Institute also picked up the story. We didn't bother highlighting it, because it appeared to us that Mehr simply received a Kerry campaign press release. Indeed, Little Green Footballs reports that the Kerry campaign says that is precisely what happened.
The Kerry statement itself is typical anti-Bush blather:
It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world. . . . The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of important international initiatives, from the Kyoto Accords to the Biological Weapons Convention, have alienated much of the world and squandered remarkable reserves of support after 9/11. This climate of hostility affects us all, but most especially impacts those who reside overseas. Disappointment with current U.S. leadership is widespread, extending not just to the corridors of power and politics, but to the man and woman on the street as well.
Kerry is almost certainly innocent of trying to make nice to the mad mullahs who run Iran. Still, it's telling that the mullahs' supporters would construe a Kerry press release as propaganda in their favor. At a time when America is under attack by murderous Islamist terrorists, we would feel a lot more secure if, as during the early days of the Cold War, politics still stopped at the water's edge.
What Would We Do Without Experts?
"His Real Goal Is Votes, Experts Say"--headline (referring to President Bush), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Feb. 12
Should We Wait Until the Threat Is 'Imminent'?
"World May Be Headed for Nuclear Destruction, ElBaradei Says"--headline, Reuters, Feb. 12
His Putter Is Still at Large
"Bin Laden's Driver Held at Gitmo"--headline, CBSNews.com, Feb. 11
Post It, Note!
Several readers have written to ask what happened to the musings on media bias that appeared on ABC News's blog, The Note, and that we quoted extensively on Tuesday. You can now find them here.
Although The Note claims its archive is "updated all the time," it is impossible to get a permanent link to the current day's entry, and it appears the archive is actually updated only in spurts. As we recall, no entries from February appeared in the listing on Tuesday, though it's since been updated, and all Notes up to yesterday are available.
Note to Mark Halperin: You really ought to have your archives update automatically, so the likes of us can immortalize your work.
Great Moments in Public Education
Robert Will Harris, a fourth-grader in Rice, Texas, suffers from Stahl's ear, a deformity that "causes points to form on the ears." The Associated Press reports his teachers decided to make a spectacle of him:
The boy says the teachers pulled him from his class twice in one day and took him to their classrooms to show his ears. Officials with the Rice Independent School District acknowledge the incidents happened, but say the teachers meant no harm. They say the teachers were simply trying to teach genetics and family traits.
"His parents say they no longer want their son used for show and tell," the AP adds. Who can blame them?
A Tough Job, but Someone's Gotta Do It
"Lawmakers vowed on Wednesday to look at indecent shows on cable and satellite channels."--headline, Reuters, Feb. 11
A Senseless Act of Violence
"LeBron Gets Shot to End Nets' Winning Streak"--headline, MSNBC.com, Feb. 11
Not Too Brite--CXXXIII
"Four Nigerian men were charged with plucking out the eyes of a 13-year-old schoolboy for use in witchcraft," Reuters reports from Lagos.
Oddly Enough!
(For an explanation of the "Not Too Brite" series, click here.)
Dispatch From the Porn Belt
At Harvard (Middlesex County, Mass., Gore by 31.2%), the Committee on College Life "voted to approve a student-run magazine that will feature nude pictures of Harvard undergraduates," the Harvard Crimson reports. Camilla Hrdy, one of the students who proposed the magazine (called H Bomb), says that "initially there was some concern about the nudity aspect," but members of the committee "got past the fear of porn."
Harvard was founded in 1636, but its classrooms were off limits to women for more than three centuries thereafter. You can't help but wonder if Harvard didn't finally go coed for prurient reasons.
(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michael Segal, Edward Morrissey, Steve Sturm, Jim Orheim, Barak Moore, Christian Durrett, Mark Brown, Bill Williams, Steve Roberts, Peter Rice, Bob Batts, Ethel Fenig, Jeffrey Shapiro, Erik Moy, Tom Linehan, Jason Levine, Raghu Desikan, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, Karen Giles, Bill Fox, Michael Dowding, Jeff Rowes, Jennifer Ray, James Conner, Napoleon Cole, Griffith Casey, Michael Hopkovitz, Edward Hildebrand, Nathan Sales, Justin Taylor, Mike Paranzino, Thomas Dillon, Michael Nunnelley, Robert LeChevalier, Yehuda Hilewitz, Jerome Marcus, Scott Becker, John Courtade, Ken Shotwell, Thomas Thompson, Lyle Katz, Lisa Murdock, Gabe Sunshine, Harold Pascal, Bernard Slattery, David Brown, Bill Krebs, Jared Silverman, Steve Ginnings, Michael Zukerman, Rosanne Klass, Jim Waldeck, Ian Colle, David Bookless, John Gaylord, Joe Deltoro, Lonnie Usery, Fred Worth, Chris Craft, Eric Ivers, Eric Winter, Skip King, Nancy Zimmerman, Ben Filippini, Ben Gastel, Brian Pleshek and John Williamson. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004687 |
