This page was last updated on May 8, 2004.

Conduct unbecoming; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 3, 2004.

You have to wonder why Sen. Kerry went down the Vietnam road.  Though we knew that President Bush #1 and Sen. Dole were decorated combat veterans of World War II, these men tended not to make a big deal about it.  On the campaign trail, Mr. Kerry can hardly carry on a conversation without bringing up Vietnam.  Why did Sen. Kerry decide to make his Vietnam service a campaign centerpiece?

I believe Kerry took the Vietnam road in an effort to provide cover for his national defense record in the U.S. Senate.  If Kerry had a good national defense voting record, he would have used it long ago.  Instead, he decided to shield his post-war national defense record with his Vietnam service.  That is, if anyone criticizes his post-war actions, Kerry claims they are attacking his patriotism and war record.  I believe Sen. Kerry felt this would keep critics away from his national security record, but he was wrong.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

With respect to Vietnam War era service, the editorial says, “It’s time to put this matter aside and address the issues of today.”

I agree, but I wonder why the Times waited until now to make this proclamation.  Indeed, when President Bush’s National Guard service was the sole target, the Times itself threw rocks at least twice.^1,2  Actually, it was at least three times when you count the subject editorial.  The editorial said no one could speak without “moral ambiguity” unless they “Were drafted or enlisted in the Army or Marine Corps” or “Had their feet on the ground in Vietnam and other hotspots in Southeast Asia, were in the brown water Navy or flew in combat zones.”  Translation: National Guard service was not honorable service.

That was then, this is now.  What happened?  Could it be that what used to appear to be a “slam dunk” issue for Sen. Kerry has become something far less, perhaps even a millstone around his neck?

Though the editorial says it does not care “who started it,” we should remember it was Sen. Kerry and Democrats.  At every turn, Kerry makes sure to tell everyone that he served in Vietnam.  In nearly every photo op he was/is seen saluting.  He even has a commercial showing him walking out of a Vietnam jungle.

But that wasn’t enough; Kerry and Democrats had to denigrate President Bush’s service.  The liberal press was more than happy to “carry the water.”

When Democrats and the press attacked President Bush, he made public all of his service records to show “AWOL” and “deserter” charges were nothing more than wishful thinking by Democrats.

Despite these attacks, it is useful to remember that neither President Bush nor anyone in the administration or campaign ever questioned Sen. Kerry’s Vietnam service.³  Indeed, campaign chairman Marc Racicot said Mr. Kerry has “an honorable record of [military] service.”  I agree.  It took courage to put himself in harm’s way and most reports indicate Kerry served honorably.

In the 1990s when they had an admitted draft dodger -- Bill Clinton -- running for president, Democrats said what happened in the Vietnam years was not relevant.  In 1992, Sen. Kerry defended Clinton’s service avoidance saying, “We do not need to divide America over who served and how.  I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways.”⁷

Eventually, making Vietnam a central theme backfired for Kerry when other veterans, including some who served with Mr. Kerry, finally became fed up and began to speak out.^4,5,6  It turns out not everyone in the Kerry “band of brothers” is a happy camper.  However, attacking Vietnam veterans now as he did in the 1970s would be political suicide for Kerry, so he is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Then there is  “medalgate.”  I do not care a lot about medalgate.  What really has/had Kerry in trouble is/was his constantly changing story about what he did or did not throw away.  Ask former Presidents Clinton and Nixon; lying about an act can get you into a lot more trouble than the act itself.

When liberal ABC News goes after a Democrat presidential candidate, you know the lie must be flagrant.  Caught in conflicting accounts of medalgate on videotape, Kerry decided to change subjects and accuse VP Dick Cheney and political advisor Karl Rove of draft dodging.  When reporters asked Kerry if he knew anything of Rove’s record, he admitted he did not.⁷  Kerry simply lashed out in panic and did not care if what he said was true.  Further, Kerry once again personally attacked President Bush’s service saying, President Bush “can’t even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard.”  It is pretty bad when Charlie Gibson on Good Morning America can force a presidential candidate into panic mode.

Now that the Vietnam strategy has backfired, Democrats and Sen. Kerry want the story to go away.

The editorial concludes with the following paragraphs.

“If you’ve never been shot at, if you’ve never seen combat, if you’ve never been wounded, who are you to judge whether or not a wound is minor?  Inches can make the difference between a so-called minor wound and horrible injury or death.

“War is hell, and unless you’ve been to hell and back, don’t be so quick and self-righteous to judge those who have been.”

Therein lies the problem for Kerry, Democrats, and the liberal media.  The men taking Sen. Kerry to task for his wartime and immediate post-war actions are Vietnam veterans who meet the Times’ criteria.  Some served with Kerry in combat, some were in the chain of command immediately above Kerry, and some were prisoners of war when Kerry testified before Congress that our soldiers routinely and systematically committed war crimes in Vietnam.  If they are not entitled to speak, who is?

Once again, I think we need to wonder why the Times wants to drop this topic now instead of six months ago.  No we don’t; most of us know the answer.

1. Spin control; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 11, 2004.

2. Jogging Around - On Guard; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 18, 2004.

3. The Bush “Smear” Machine; Fred Barnes; The Daily Standard; May 3, 2004.

4. We Know the Truth; Swift Boat Veterans for Truth; National Review; May 4, 2004.

5. Brothers Against Kerry; Kate O’Beirne; National Review; May 5, 2004.

6. Kerry Purple Heart Doc Speaks Out; Byron York; National Review; May 4, 2004.

7. Citing His Vietnam Service, Kerry Assails Cheney, Rove; Dan Balz; The Washington Post; April 17. 2004.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.