Forums

[sgtclub]

From OpinionJournal Online - appripot of today's topics - explaining why Kerry's military service has become a liability

He talked about Vietnam entirely too much. We noticed this way back in December 2002, when in an interview with Tim Russert he even managed to work Vietnam into an answer about capital punishment. The incessant repetition makes him seem either opportunistic (trying to exploit his service to further his political ambitions) or obsessive (unable to view Vietnam from a healthy distance even after more than three decades). Either interpretation raises questions about his ability to lead the country effectively today.

The adversarial press being what it is, Kerry's single-minded emphasis on his Vietnam experience also invites scrutiny of such matters as the questionable circumstances surrounding his first purple heart--blemishes on an otherwise honorable record.

He became an antiwar activist. Sure, lots of Americans ended up opposing the Vietnam War, but Kerry did so by becoming the respectable face of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group whose stock in trade was accusations that American servicemen had committed war crimes. These claims came in the form of "confessions" from men, some of whom turned out not even to be veterans--and Kerry repeated them in sworn testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971.

Kerry's involvement with VVAW has drawn attention to the group's most unsavory activities, such as a discussion of an assassination plot against pro-war senators that took place at a November 1971 meeting. Kerry played no part in that plot and might not even have attended the meeting, but inevitably a politician is judged by the company he keeps. By signing up with VVAW way back when, Kerry made it harder today to present himself as a war hero. Whereas veterans might ordinarily identify with one of their own, many are furious over what they see as his betrayal back in 1971.

He attacked his opponents for not serving. This didn't start with his response to Medalgate, in which for the first time he raised the tired old question of President Bush's National Guard attendance record. Here he is in Pittsburgh April 19: "I'm tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance. I'm not going to listen to them talk to me about patriotism." Such partisan demagoguery might have played well in the primaries, but it's unlikely to win over many wavering voters in the fall.

Is there anything Kerry can do to get himself out of this mess? Maybe. His war record ought to count to his credit, but he'd be better off talking much less about his own heroism in Vietnam and letting others make the case instead. Probably the best moment in his entire campaign came in Iowa, when Lt. James Rassmann thanked him for saving his life.

Kerry says Vietnam informs his views on foreign and military policy today. USA Today's Walter Shapiro "asked Kerry whether his dissenting view of the war, in contrast to Bush's seeming acceptance of the conflict, had larger implications for the 2004 campaign." The answer:

"I think it is very relevant," Kerry said, "because I think it says a lot of things about . . . what your perceptions are about events that are different from the way that public officials are telling you that they are, and the way that military people tell you they are. I think it tells you something about your willingness to stand up and fight for the principles you believe in and the lessons you learn. And I think that it tells a lot about the kind of leadership we need now in respect to Iraq and the war on terror."

Well, OK, but what does it tell us? It might be worthwhile for Kerry to give a speech explaining what lessons he learned from Vietnam and, crucially, how he would apply these to today's war. If he has any regrets about his actions as a VVAW spokesman, this would be the time to tell the country.

If presidential races were decided on the basis of who has the more impressive war record, Kerry would beat Bush. But they are not, or else Bill Clinton never would have defeated a pair of World War II heroes. For that matter, George McGovern served with distinction in World War II, but he didn't have what the country wanted 30 years later. If Kerry does not learn to run a forward-looking campaign, he will surely go the way of McGovern.