8.23.04
Just 71 Days to Go: War Lies
By Mark Grueter
-------------------------------------
As each new dispute between Republicans and Democrats surfaces, we quickly learn again and again that both sides are usually wrong, at the same time. For instance, even though John Kerry has made false statements about his service in Vietnam while refusing to release certain key document for suspect reasons, we can still determine that the attacks on Kerry’s war record are probably untrue and certainly unproven.
Kerry, during a Senate speech on March 27, 1986, said this:
I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared – seared – in me.
On October 14, 1979, Kerry told The Boston Herald the following:
On more than one occasion, I, like Martin Sheen in
‘Apocalypse Now,’ took my patrol boat into Cambodia. In fact,
I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian
border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and
celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own
allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American
troops was very real.
Of course, conservatives gleefully quote these passages as evidence of
Kerry being a liar. First off, Nixon was not president in December 1968,
the Democrat Johnson was. If the event had been “seared” into
Kerry’s memory then this is not something the young activist would
have forgotten. Second, Kerry, according to most accounts, was never actually
in Cambodia, on Christmas Eve or any other time. Nearby, yes, but inside,
maybe not.
Some reports now suggest historian that Douglas Brinkley, author of Kerry’s official biography Tour of Duty, is currently altering the book to indicate that Kerry was actually in Cambodia in January 1969, not December 1968. The Christmas event recalled by Kerry was supposedly life-changing for Kerry, as it was supposedly seared into his head. Again, if these dramatic narratives were true, how could Kerry recall the event as taking place on Christmas in two public statements made over eight years, if it in fact did not?
Ideology aside, shouldn’t journalists be demanding Kerry answer these charges? If there is a legitimate explanation for these apparent discrepancies, why does Kerry not simply give it? I scoured the Kerry-Edwards web site for an explanation of Kerry’s claims regarding Cambodia and Nixon and came up with nothing. Kerry only deigns to answer these reasonable questions about past statements by insisting that the media and his critics stop bringing the allegations up. They are an attempt to smear him; he served honorably in Vietnam and that’s that.
This may or may not be so - if it is, the Massachusetts Senator should have no problem answering detailed questions regarding his service. It is important to question Kerry’s false remarks about his service, just as it is important to question why George W. Bush went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard for two months. Those who claim we need to “move on” from all this and simply forget the past (“healing wounds”) don’t know what they’re talking about. Of course, these questions are relevant now, because they involve matters of character and honesty. (And if the Democrats’ insist that Bush’s false statements regarding WMD in Iraq were lies, then why aren’t Kerry’s false statements about his service in Vietnam lies also?)
Since, both in campaign commercials and at the convention, Kerry has made his service in Vietnam a campaign issue, we might also ask him if he still believes U.S. officers at all levels along with the U.S. government itself is guilty of genocidal acts committed during that war. And if so, why should war crimes tribunals not be held? Here’s Kerry in 1971:
There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapons against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
The animosity directed at Kerry from many of those who served with him on the swift boats was generated after Kerry returned home and began protesting the war. They saw his anti-war activism as cowardly and a betrayal. “Swift Boats Veterans for Truth,” a group of about 250 men, claim Kerry didn’t earn all of his medals of honor and that he joined the Navy only to further his political ambitions. Bitter about his four-month (abbreviated) tour, the gravest charge leveled at Kerry suggests he should not have been awarded his Bronze Star. Kerry received the medal as a result of his pulling Jim Rassmann out of the Bay Hap River on March 19, 1969, an act which is thought to have saved Rassmann’s life. But Kerry critics’ claim that medals such as the Bronze Star are only supposed to be awarded for acts of bravery in the face of enemy fire; and that on that day, Kerry and the other commanders were not under any enemy fire.
Larry Thurlow and two other skippers insist that they and Kerry were not under enemy fire and so Kerry should not have been awarded his Bronze Star. But this contradicts both Jim Rassmann and the “after-action” report, which described the events of that day - a report that states matter-of-factly that Kerry and others indeed were under fire. Thurlow answers this by arguing that Kerry himself wrote up the after-action report, fabricating the part about enemy fire in order to secure himself a medal.
Democrats’ dismiss the specific claims made by Kerry’s fellow veterans by countering that the group is merely a front for the Bush campaign. Even if this is true - which it may or may not be - the detailed allegations themselves deserve a response, do they not? And not only for the sake of full disclosure -- it seems to me it would be much more effective politically to simply counter the charges themselves with evidence instead of feigning superiority to it all, or asking ‘how dare you question my patriotism’?
Kerry could easily put an end to most of this if he would confront the specifics head on, primarily because his opponents don’t offer much in the way of evidence (in regards to the events of March 19, 1969). Did John Kerry write the after-action report of that famous day when he saved Rassmann’s life and when the swift boats either did or did not come under enemy fire? Did he truly earn his three purple hearts, or did he receive at least one, as Kerry’s foremost critic John O’Neill argues, illegitimately (as a result of an injury he inflicted upon himself and not one caused directly by the enemy)?
Unfortunately, Kerry refuses to release both his medical records from the time and his diaries, claiming exclusivity for his biographer Mr. Brinkley. Thus, Kerry feels the sanctity of his own personal history more important than public access to information regarding his character.
Lastly, the medal-awarding process appears to be the cause of much of the controversy. In light of all the fog created by war, how can military officials accurately and fairly disperse medals? And when and if they are unfairly handed out, could that not be a cause of needless jealousy and bitterness? War heroes should be honored in some form, but it is not out of line to question the usefulness of the medal awarding system as it currently exists. In school, we received trophies and honors for individual efforts, but these processes were rarely comprehensive or particularly fair. They were conducted only to make a few kids feel superior at the expense of everyone else. The teachers and coaches never took these proceedings nearly as seriously as the students did, and for good reason: the entire notion is juvenile, arbitrary and not appropriate for the honoring of adults.
Click here for Grueter's previous column.
---------------------------------------
Mark Grueter is a writer living in New York City. He can be contacted here.
©
2004 Me Three