Best of the Web Today - August 23, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
A Tad Exaggerated
Amid the controversy over "Unfit for Command" and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, it's worth noting that John Kerry's surrogates continue to overstate their man's Vietnam record. Last Wednesday CNN's Paula Zahn hosted a "town meeting" in Canton, Ohio, where Kerry aide Tad Devine and Bush aide Tucker Eskew answered questions from audience members.
One man took a swipe at Kerry in the course of asking his question. He identified himself as a "former captain and commander of a special forces detachment significantly longer than 4 1/2 months." This brought applause from Bush supporters in the audience. Oddly, Zahn also clapped; presumably the anti-Kerry nature of the remark escaped her and she thought she was just cheering the guy's service. In any case, Devine offered the following defense of Kerry:
When you said you served for more than 4 1/2 months, I take it that you were alluding to Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. John Kerry served two tours of duty in Vietnam, OK: one on a missile frigate, and then secondly, one on a swift boat.
He volunteered to serve there the first time after he got out of Yale. He volunteered to serve there on his first tour of duty. He volunteered to serve on one of the most dangerous assignments in Vietnam, on a swift boat. He was there four-and-a-half months. He won a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. And I think that means that he served this nation well and ably.
In fact, although Kerry served two tours of duty, only one was in Vietnam; the other was in the Pacific aboard the USS Gridley, which spent part of the tour off the Vietnamese coast. Devine's claim that Kerry "volunteered to serve on one of the most dangerous assignments in Vietnam, on a swift boat," is contradicted by Kerry's own account, as the Washington Post reports:
When Kerry signed up to command a Swift boat in the summer of 1968, he was inspired by the example of his hero, John F. Kennedy, who had commanded the PT-109 patrol boat in the Pacific in World War II. But Kerry had little expectation of seeing serious action. At the time the Swift boats--or PCFs (patrol craft fast), in Navy jargon--were largely restricted to coastal patrols. "I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry wrote in a book of war reminiscences published in 1986.
The role of the Swift boats changed dramatically toward the end of 1968, when Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr., commander of U.S. naval forces in South Vietnam, decided to use them to block Vietcong supply routes through the Mekong Delta. Hundreds of young men such as Kerry, with little combat experience, suddenly found themselves face to face with the enemy.
Kerry did of course end up doing dangerous duty, but that wasn't what he volunteered for. Why won't his campaign simply stick to the truth?
The Book Kerry Doesn't Want You to Read
Well, so much for freedom of speech. Check out this report from the left-wing Webzine Salon:
The Kerry campaign has told Salon that the publisher of "Unfit for Command," the book that is at the center of the attack on Kerry's military record by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is retailing a hoax and should consider withdrawing it from bookstores. "No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them, especially falsehoods that are meant to smear the military service of an American veteran," said Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton. "If I were them, I'd be ducking under my desk wondering what to do. This is a serious problem."
Imagine the outcry if the Bush campaign were calling on Miramax to stop distributing "Fahrenheit 9/11," which really does have numerous proven falsehoods. By contrast, the Kerry campaign's claim of "proven falsehoods" in "Unfit for Command"--a book we got around to reading late last week--does not stand up, as we'll detail below.
The first thing that must be said is that by attacking co-author John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Kerry and his supporters have undermined the central rationale for Kerry's campaign--and this is true regardless of the truth or falsehood of the allegations in "Unfit for Command."
Kerry has based his entire campaign on the premise that he is fit to be president because he served in Vietnam. We've treated this as a running joke, and we doubt anyone disagrees that Kerry descended into self-parody when he opened his nomination speech last month by goofily saluting and declaring that he was "reporting for duty." But Kerry appears to be serious about this. He acts as if he really thinks that his Vietnam service is an answer to any objection anyone might have to his record--that it is sufficient to prove he is honest, strong, brave, decisive and wise about national defense.
The 250-plus men who make up Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, however, also served in Vietnam. Indeed, unlike Kerry, many served a full tour of duty there. If Kerry's backers can attack them as liars, Republican stooges and so forth, they can hardly expect that their candidate's Vietnam service will insulate him from criticism. Furthermore, since Kerry has made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign, it seems unreasonable for him to suggest that no one may question it.
"Unfit for Command" is divided into two sections. There are four chapters (2-5) on his Vietnam service and six (1 and 6-10) on his activities as an antiwar protester. The latter section is, on the whole, more persuasive, though there are a few tendentious spots. One of those is Chapter 9, "Kerry's Communist Honors," makes much of the appearance of a photo of Kerry that appears in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon). According to the book, the Kerry photo is "in a hall dedicated to honoring war heroes who had helped the Vietnamese Communists win in their military struggle against the United States and later against the Chinese."
But a report last week in the New York Sun--hardly a pro-Kerry organ--offers a different view:
While the museum clearly honors opponents of the war from America and other countries, it is not clear that the photo of Mr. Kerry is part of that tribute. The picture of the senator hangs among a set of photos devoted to the restoration of diplomatic relations between America and Vietnam in the 1990s.
It was apparently taken as Mr. Kerry took part in a delegation President Clinton sent to Hanoi in 1993. Other photos nearby show visits during that period by former American officials who played key roles in the Vietnam War, including a Navy admiral who has since died, Elmo Zumwalt, and a defense secretary, Robert McNamara. A secretary of state during Mr. Clinton's term, Warren Christopher, is also shown meeting Vietnamese officials.
Still, for the most part O'Neill and co-author Jerome Corsi have Kerry dead to rights on his antiwar activities. He did accuse fellow servicemen of war crimes; he was a leader in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group headed by a fraudulent "veteran" who was a far-left ideologue; the North Vietnamese did use Kerry's public statements to demoralize American prisoners of war. All this has been widely reported in the past.
On the other hand, the chapters on Kerry's Vietnam service are inconclusive--with the exception of Kerry's Christmas-in-Cambodia yarn, from which he has backed away even though he once said it was "seared--seared--in me." O'Neill and Corsi quote various vets who served with Kerry and dispute his accounts of the events that led to his being awarded five medals (three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star). Others who were there, however, back Kerry's versions.
The Washington Post conducted an extensive investigation of the events of March 13, 1969, when Kerry won his Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. "Based on more than two dozen interviews with former crewmates and officers who served with him, as well as research in the Naval Historical Center," the Post concluded that "both accounts contain significant flaws and factual errors":
On the core issue of whether Kerry was wounded under enemy fire, thereby qualifying for a third Purple Heart, the Navy records clearly favor Kerry. Several documents, including the after-action report and the Bronze Star citation for a Swift boat skipper who has accused Kerry of lying, refer to "all units" coming under "automatic and small-weapons fire."
The eyewitness accounts, on the other hand, are conflicting. Kerry's former crew members support his version, as does Rassmann, the Special Forces officer rescued from the river. But many of the other skippers and enlisted men who were on the river that day dispute Kerry's account.
The discrepancy between Larry Thurlow's Bronze Star citation and his claim now that there was no enemy fire--on which the Post reported last Thursday--is the entire basis of the Kerry campaign's claim that "Unfit for Command" contains "proven falsehoods." But Thurlow published a statement on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Web site in which he said he stands by his story, and he told USA Today that he "left Vietnam shortly after the incident and didn't read the citation until he was back home in Kansas a few months later. 'If being under fire is a requirement for getting that medal, then I didn't earn it,' he said." So this is not a "proven falsehood"; it is still in dispute.
Given that there are conflicting eyewitness accounts, what are we to make of all this? We'd suggest that a fair-minded observer would have to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt and regard his version (which is also the official version) as authoritative absent proof to the contrary. But Kerry's detractors deserve the benefit of the doubt too. Their version may be true, even if they can't prove it; or their memories may be sincere but faulty. This, by the way, is exactly the approach President Bush is taking. He has described Kerry's Vietnam service as "noble" but ignored Kerry's demands that he denounce the veterans who disagree.
What "Unfit for Comand" makes clear beyond dispute is that a great many Vietnam veterans deeply resent Kerry. No matter who is right about his activities in country, he gave them plenty of reason to do so with his behavior after returning to Vietnam. "When I fought in Vietnam and fought for my country, I didn't give up my right . . . to participate in the debate," Kerry said in April 2003. Indeed he didn't--but neither did the men who make up Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Globe Journo Admits: Press Is Partisan
Thomas Oliphant, a columnist for the Boston Globe, debated "Unfit for Command" co-author John O'Neill on PBS's "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" last Thursday. As the segment was wrapping up, Oliphant urged viewers to read "Tour of Duty," Douglas Brinkley's largely favorable Vietnam biography of Kerry. That's when things got interesting, as we see from the transcript:
O'Neill: Jim, one other thing, they can look at swiftvets.com, which is the Web site that has a great deal of information on it.
Lehrer: Is there a Web site that's comparable to that? I'm sure the Kerry--
Oliphant: Yes, it's called the daily press, which is the most difficult thing for these guys to deal with.
So Oliphant thinks the daily press--including, we guess, his own newspaper--is "comparable" to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. This ought to raise eyebrows even among those sympathetic to the Swiftvets' cause; after all, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an advocacy group, whereas the press is supposed to be impartial. But Oliphant believes the Swifties are more than an advocacy group, as he makes clear in his Sunday Globe column:
I have vivid memories of John E. O'Neill's first incarnation as an attack dog trained to go after John Kerry more than 33 years ago, using techniques that are quite familiar as he goes about the same task today. Like Kerry, he was a lot younger then, fresh from the war that still raged in Vietnam and still raged here as well. But then as now he was playing a carefully obscured role that made it nearly impossible to consider him an independent human being.
As The New York Times reported last week, O'Neill had been selected by Richard Nixon's White House to counter the profound impact that Vietnam Veterans Against the War were having on public opinion in the spring of 1971. As the Times also reported, Nixon's political henchman, Chuck Colson, had specifically recruited the Navy lieutenant, like Kerry a swift boat commander in the war, to debate the antiwar movement's freshest star on Dick Cavett's television program.
Those facts, however, only scratch the surface of a put-up-job that resonates today as President Bush tries to campaign against someone who has the military credentials and background he lacks. The more complete truth is that O'Neill was recruited to front for something the Nixon White House was experienced in creating out of thin air--"citizens" groups that supported various embattled administration policies.
Oliphant seems to be saying that the press coverage of this controversy is "a put-up job," with each member of the press "playing a carefully obscured role that [makes] it nearly impossible to consider him an independent human being." Hmmm.
Oliphant goes on to say that Nixon's "navy secretary back then was an elegant fellow from Virginia, who today is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. John Warner's people found nothing to whet Nixon's appetite in 1971." Actually, the Navy secretary in 1971 was John Chafee; John Warner didn't take the post until 1972. Oliphant's "vivid memories" must be seared--seared--in him.
Mr. Bad Example
"Imagine if supporters of Bill Clinton had tried in 1996 to besmirch the military record of his opponent, Bob Dole. . . . The truth, according to many accounts, is that Dole fought with exceptional bravery and deserves the nation's gratitude. No one in 1996 questioned that record."--editorial, Boston Globe, Aug. 22, 2004
"The truth about Dole's war record is considerably less than awe-inspiring. Yet the myth endures, and with the candidate running on the contrast between his and Clinton's military record, his campaign isn't eager to give a more accurate account. Dole, at the behest of his handlers, is less reticent about his service than in the past, but he mainly speaks about his wound and rehabilitation. He has passed up several opportunities to correct the exaggerated versions in biographies, and in the case of his self-wounding has even approved a sanitized account in which his maladroitly hurled grenade goes unnoted. Journalists continue to portray him as a hero, winner of two Bronze Stars. Joe Klein, for example, writes in Newseek that Dole knows 'what guns do. He also knows what politicians do, which is rarely anything quite so dramatic as leading an army into battle.' Such attempts to make political capital out of Dole's war service go beyond the respect due him for the role he played as a soldier with the 10th Mountain Division."--Robert B. Ellis, The Nation, Aug. 12, 1996
Hat tip: National Review's Jim Geraghty.
Going for Bloke
Not surprisingly, the controversy over John Kerry's Vietnam service has Josh Marshall in a blogging frenzy. It's mostly what you'd expect, but this passage, in which Marshall faults President Bush for remaining above the fray, made us laugh out loud:
President Bush isn't even man enough to answer a straight question about these Swift Boat ads. (You'll have to pardon my antiquated and gendered language. But I'm not sure English has any more presentable way to convey the same meaning.)
This wonderfully encapsulates the dilemma of the Liberal Man, who can't decide if he's a schoolyard bully or a politically correct postgraduate Sitzpinkler--neither of which, we'd say, is much of a masculine ideal. It's also hard to see how President Bush's refusal to protect Kerry from his critics calls Bush's manhood into question. After all, Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam, isn't exactly a damsel in distress.
Didn't Nixon Do That 30 Years Ago?
"Kerry Urges Bush to End Vietnam Attacks"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 22
More Mush From the Wimp
Yesterday was a banner day for the Boston Globe's editorial page. Not only did the paper falsely assert that no one ever questioned Bob Dole's war record in 1996; it also echoed its sister paper, the New York Times (whose editorial we noted Thursday) in backing the "victory" of Venezuelan ruler Hugo Chavez in last week's dubious referendum. "Unless real evidence of election fraud is uncovered, it's time to conclude that the cause of democracy has won," the paper concludes.
Well, actually, that isn't quite the conclusion. In the online version of the editorial, the following paragraph then appears (quoting verbatim):
i just want to make sure that we are pretty well satisfied there was not widespread fraud. the story today abouyt the exit polls all predicting a chavez defeat is a little unsettling, altho i guess it was operated by partisans.
Help! I'm being held prisoner by a bunch of liberal maniacs!
The Roe Effect
Duncan Currie of The Weekly Standard reports on a new Pace Poll that finds "new voters are trending pro-life on abortion":
Pace Poll researchers slice the new voter demographic into four groups. There are those who believe "abortions should be legal and generally available" (21 percent); those who feel "regulation of abortion is necessary, although it should remain legal in many circumstances" (23 percent); those who say "abortion should be legal only in the most extreme cases, such as to save the life of the mother, incest, or rape" (41 percent); and those who think "all abortions should be made illegal" (13 percent). The survey shows that, essentially, 44 percent of new voters are pro-choice while 54 percent are pro-life. Among first-time Latino voters, pro-lifers outnumber pro-choicers 61 percent to 34 percent; among blacks, the pro-life/pro-choice breakdown is 59 percent/42 percent. Self-described "moderates" similarly tend to be more pro-life (52 percent) than pro-choice (45 percent).
The poll results, in PDF, are here. Forty-five percent of participants are under 25, and an even higher percentage would be under 31, the cohort affected by Roe v. Wade.
If They're Indicted, They'll Be Alleged Gunships
"Suspected U.S. AC-130 gunships have pounded positions held by Sh'ite militiamen in the Iraqi holy city of Najaf and large orange multiple flashes have lit the night sky."--Reuters, Aug. 19
Finders Weepers?
"Nuclear Data Found Missing From New Mexico"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Hart Was Unavailable for Comment
"Ex-Owners of Monkey Business Plead Guilty to False Permits"--headline, Chicago Sun-Times, Aug. 19
When Pigs Fly?
"Avian Flu 'Discovered in Pigs' "--headline, BBC Web site, Aug. 20
Explanation Found for Lobster Decline
"Explanation Sought for Lobster Decline"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 21
"Woman Chows 38 Lobsters in Eating Contest"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 22
The Highest Office in the Land
Hempfest, Seattle's "annual pro-marijuana festival," turned into a Kedwards rally, reports the Seattle Times. "About 100 Democratic activists passed out Kerry/Edwards buttons and stickers and tried to register voters yesterday at the 13th annual gathering at Myrtle Edwards Park along Seattle's waterfront":
Walter Duncan, a 32-year-old graduate student and a Kerry supporter, decided to pick up a clipboard and sign up voters because "this is going to be a close election . . . and this would be a good place to find" Kerry supporters.
To all those who have the munchies, I say, help is on the way. |
