National Review: The Vets Became Upset When They Read Brinkley's BookRoundup: Media's Take
Editorial, in the National Review (Aug. 26, 2004):
Speaking on behalf of Vietnam veterans in
his Senate testimony on April 22, 1971, John Kerry said, "We wish that a
merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service..." Thirty-three
years later, it's clear that his plea fell on deaf ears. Kerry recalls his Vietnam
service in virtually every campaign speech he makes. At the Boston convention,
his four-month stint in Vietnam was repeatedly invoked as his primary qualification
for the presidency.
Kerry's problem is that those who served alongside him haven't forgotten either. Many Vietnam veterans remember that Kerry slandered their service when he claimed they were responsible for widespread atrocities. These veterans include 250 of his Swift boat comrades, whose organization, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, has taken to the airwaves to accuse him of lying about his record and betraying his fellow veterans. In particular, they say that in telling the U.S. Senate about non-existent American war crimes, he did something that our POWs refused to do under torture.
The book that has thrown Kerry on the defensive is not Unfit for Command so much as Tour of Duty, the authorized biography written by the pro-Kerry historian Douglas Brinkley. Until the book's publication in January, Kerry's fellow Swift boat veterans were unaware of his exact version of their alleged atrocities and his alleged heroics. Some of them had come to Kerry's rescue in the past, when he was accused of committing war crimes of his own (these statements are now used to challenge the Swift boat vets' consistency). The vets intended to refute Kerry's allegations of atrocities, but found that their eyewitness accounts contradicted Kerry's version of his exploits.
should it matter? First, there is the fact that Kerry has put his Vietnam experience
at the center of his campaign. If it turns out that his account of that experience
is based on exaggerations or lies, it is a damning indictment of his candidacy,
on his own terms. Even if Kerry had not made Vietnam such a large part of his
campaign, this controversy would be important, since dishonesty (even relatively
minor incidents of it) with regard to war stories and decorations has ruined careers.
Finally, there is Kerry's 1971 testimony, which he has never retracted and which
still stands as testament to his belief that the American military was a criminal
force in Vietnam. The Swift boat vets can be forgiven for asking whether someone
who believes this country would order such crimes, and that its men in uniform
would "routinely" carry them out, is fit to be commander-in-chief.
comments powered by Disqus
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Humans Hard-Wired to Teach, Anthropologist Says
- Parents outraged after students shown ‘white guilt’ cartoon for Black History Month
- Maryland is once again considering retiring its state song
- One of the last remaining Nazis goes on trial in Germany
- Inside story finally told of the young US diplomat who cracked the case of the murder of 4 nuns in El Salvador in 1980
- A historian’s advice to students thinking of getting a PhD in a tough economic climate
- German historian Heinz Richter cleared of charges
- English professor uses literature to help cure historical amnesia
- WSJ features an article by a conservative calling for the abolition of Black History Month
- Mary Beard, herself a bestselling author, wonders why more women historians aren't