History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
I would suspect that part of the reason we have been so quiet on Rebunk of late is that the presidential campaign, a topic obviously close to all three of us, has recently devolved into a rather unseemly war of words over John Kerry’s Vietnam service, a war of words into which Tom, Steve, and I have simply not wanted to become involved. But I do not want silence on my part to constitute an implication of apathy.
I am astounded that Republicans are going on the attack to impugn Kerry’s service. I’ve read dozens upon dozens of articles, I’ve seen enough of the interviews, and I cannot help but be reminded of Joseph Welch’s withering question to Joe McCarthy during the Army hearings in 1954 when he asked “Have you no sense of decency sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?” It was the perfect question to the perfect man at the perfect time and it seems apposite today as well.
How far are the hatchetmen going to go on this one? An especially intriguing op-ed piece appeared in today’s Washington Post that gets at just this point. Noel Koch, who worked for both the Nixon and Reagan White Houses and who served for a year in Vietnam is clearly disgusted by the attacks on John Kerry, as evidenced by this article. My favorite passages?
No one is better placed than (Bob) Dole to know how arbitrary are the fortunes of war. It is not surprising to hear John Kerry’s wounds belittled by men who have avoided all risk of being wounded. Someday perhaps we will be able to plumb the neuroses of those who avoided Vietnam and have ever after had difficulty living with the choice. But it is surprising to hear Bob Dole doing it. Kerry not hospitalized for his wounds? Bob Dole was not hospitalized for his first Purple Heart either.
“It was just a scratch, he later recalled. “I think one of our grenades hit a tree and bounced back.” He received a Bronze Star, but that came much later, and was a bureaucratic exercise having little to do with his service as a platoon leader in the extraordinary 10th Mountain Division on April 14, 1945, the day the war ended, in Italy.
Bob Dole knows as well as any person how capricious is the gleaning of medals. Some men deserve what they don’t get; some get what they don’t deserve. And who should know better than he that it is craven to belittle a man’s service because it didn’t extend over some arbitrary stretch of time?
Bob Dole spent little time in combat. But as a result of the time he did spend, he lay on his back for years, recovering, and helping others to recover.
Later in the piece Koch writes:
Time in-country, how often a man was wounded, how much blood he shed when he was wounded – it is hurtful that those who served in Vietnam are being split in so vile a fashion, and that the wounds of that war are reopened at the instigation of people who avoided serving at all. It is hurtful that a man of Bob Dole’s stature should lend himself to the effort to dishonor a fellow American veteran in the service of politics at its cheapest.
Why are the Republicans making so much hay of this? Why is the media letting them? Why are both not focused upon the issues? I have my own suspicions here, but I guess I am more curious as to when the sense of decency is going to reemerge from the party of Bob Dole.
Funny how no one has noted Bush saying that he thought that Kerry had a right to be upset about what "we have done to him." But of course there was no GOP involvement. Bush must just be lying. Or stupid. (That or else he was inadvertantly telling the truth. Of course since he cannot decide whether or not we can win a war on terror, maybe he'll just recant again and no one will hold him responsible. interesting how the GOP touts responsibility when it is for others.).
dc
Stephen Tootle -
8/31/2004
Glad you will keep reading.
Derek Charles Catsam -
8/31/2004
Just thought you all want to know that this argument has been picked up over at ephblog with lots of commentary. See:
I realize that Ginsberg resigned after his dual role was noted by the press but I don’t think this proves anything. The official GOP campaign line has been that the “Swift Verterans” have no connection to the Bush campaign and yet they share the same lawyer, a man Karl Roves call a close friend. My question to you is do you honestly believe the Bush campaign was unaware of this fact?
As for your comments regarding 527's, I am not sure what to say. I have mixed feelings about these organizations and do believe they are in fact problematic if one supports campaign finance reform, but there is more than a little irony in George Bush condemning them. He did after all sign them into law. Conservative opposition to the 527's seem to me be based in part because for this campaign there appears to be a leveling of the playing field and the GOP does not have its usual enormous advantage in advertising and they don’t like it. I suspect the level playing field won’t last and it is a result of the relative newness of the 527's and the strong antipathy that George Bush creates. By the next election I am certain the GOP will reestablish its financial advantage regardless as to what happens with campaign finance reform.
I have also never claimed that the pro-Kerry 527 ads are fair, but I don’t think that is the point. Political advertising is never exactly fair and it is often times quite vile. Bush I’s Willie Horton ads after all these years still strike me as one of the most offensive ads I have seen, because in light of the issue of race in this country’s history I don’t think there is anything worse than pandering to such fears. But I’ll concede that this is a rather subjective opinion and I sure others could point to others ads and claim they are equally unfair. However, I have still not seen the Republicans point to any pro-Kerry ad that engages in the same type of outright lies for the purpose of defaming someone. I would think as a historian that this would bother you.
Ultimately the issue is not about political ads, but about policies and I will acknowledge feelings of almost complete rage regarding George Bush’s presidency and the policies he has implemented. The war in Iraq is one example ( I strongly recommend Naomi Klein’s superb article in Harpers on this matter), but there are countless others. Putting aside what I think will be proven to be disastrous foreign policy with long term negative consequences for this country as well as others, what I find equally appalling is the faux common man posturing of Bush while his administration pushes some of the most reactionary economic legislation that causes enormous harm to working people and poor people in this country. The most recent example is change in regulations regarding overtime pay, where many workers will now have the choice under the guise of “family friendly” policies to have “flex time” instead of overtime pay. As someone who works on a daily basis with low wage workers, I can assure you these rules will not result in people having more time to spend with their kids but will result only in even smaller paychecks. The Chamber of Commerce did not put their significant resources behind these changes because they care about families.
Anyhow, I don’t want to take up more of your blog space and despite my disagreement on this matter, I do think you guys run an interesting blog–well actually I find the sport posts sort of boring. But as someone who was close to going to graduate school in history but decided against it, it is enjoyable to follow issues in historical scholarship that I still care about.
Check out the 527s for both sides. Go to their websites. Find out who founded each one, donated most of the money, and runs them. As for the contents of their advertising, judge them for yourself. If you think those ads are fair, and issue-oriented, I could never convince you otherwise.
Republicans always call every Democratic nominee an extreme liberal. This is abjectly stupid, as anyone who bothers caring about policy knows. The GOP misrepresentation machine went into overdrive on this one too, taking a non-representative slice of votes from last year, when Kerry was campaigning a lot and missed more votes than usual rather than his career talies by the same organization(s). Of course i wish one of these candidates would simply embrace liberalism, and make opposing liberalism to be what it is. Liberals were a major impetus behind civil rights -- whether liberal Republicanism or liberal Democrats. It was conservatism, whether in the GOP or the Democrats, that opposed civil rights gains. Liberals provided the safety net of social security. Liberals created the Pentagon and gave us the GI Bill. Liberals support the rights of gays to be treated as equals in American life.
But conservatives in this case apparently prefer to proffer lies and then defend those lies as somehow of Kerry own making, thus ignoring the lies. it's a remarkable bit of anti-intellectual legerdemain, and I am a bit shocked to see Tootle not only defending it, but partaking in it.
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
8/30/2004
I would say that Kerry has run as issue-centered a campaign as any major party candidate i the last two decades. That you are skimming over the lies of the Swift Boat brigades, apparently because you'd rather not have to condemn them (you agree with them? I'm still waiting for a modicum of intellectual honesty from you on this point), and instead are claiming that Kerry's campaign is solely about Vietnam, as if that somehow validates the lies and misrepresentations and obfuscations, well, again, it says a great deal about our view. You are not willing to condemn ads, books, interviews that lie. That lie outright. that so warp and misrepresent the truth as to be useful for nothing other than partisan gain. It just happens that your party is benefitting, thius, apparently, the silence. I've condemned the morphing of Bush with Hitler, and Kerry has yet to be connected to that. So fine -- it's all about whatever it takes to win. I thought you were a principled conservative.
dc
Brian Flynn -
8/30/2004
What would constitute proof in this situation? Do we need evidence that George Bush sat down with the “Swift Veterans for Truth” to plan the campaign? If that is the standard, I would agree there is probably no proof. But I would think for any fair minded person, the fact that the campaigns’ lawyer was donating time for the veteran group as well as documented evidence of Karl Rove’s similar tactics in prior campaigns would suggest a close connection between these groups. To suggest otherwise is simply not plausible.
Whether the Kerry campaign has a connection with the anti-Bush 527 groups is completely beside the point. Although I have not read of any direct connection, I am certain that the Kerry campaign is thrilled that these groups are running anti-Bush ads. But the problem here is not that there are outside groups supporting Bush, but the particular content of the “Swift Veterans for Truth” campaign. I am sure that there might be some inconsistencies regarding Kerry’s recollection of his time in Vietnam, but again almost all of the evidence shows that the allegations made by this veteran’s group are outright lies or, at a minimum, serious distortions of the truth. The very fact that they have received so much attention (and calls that Kerry must somehow disprove completely unsupported allegations) is a very depressing sign of how impoverished political discourse has become in this country.
No one that I am aware of has shown any similar ad by Move On or any other left/liberal 527 group that has engaged in similar factual distortion. (All one hears about is the Move On ad where Bush morphs into Hitler, but I will even concede someone’s right to find this ad offensive and it may not be especially effective politically, but it certainly is not a factual allegation.) Ads questioning Bush’s military service are an entirely different matter. There are legitimate questions regarding Bush’s time in the National Guard including how he managed to get in there in the first place and where was he during most of his time. In fact the available evidence is far more damning to Bush and that is precisely why the Republicans have worked so hard at changing the nature of the debate. Perhaps George Bush is not running on his military record–no surprise as DC notes--but his military service is certainly relevant in light of his macho posturing “Bring it On” which would normally just be typical pathetic frat boy behavior, except he is in a position to ask others to sacrifice their lives.
Again none of this is coming from a person who is especially supportive of John Kerry. As a lawyer who represents welfare recipients and low wage workers in employment matters, (and on a personal level as a gay man), I have been amused at how Kerry is being characterized as some far left liberal in light of his rather unimpressive record on these issues from my perspective. However, I am well aware that my politics are “outside the mainstream” and I will certainly support Kerry because as the current campaign clearly shows George Bush and his cronies are determined to hold onto power at any cost.
Stephen Tootle -
8/30/2004
In addition to the website, I would also encourage readers to check available transcripts of Kerry's stump speeches, campaign commercials, and transcripts of television talk shows with people from the Kerry campaign. Kerry has positions on issues, as well as a voting record, but he has not done a good job articulating his vision. If you think he has run an issues-centered campaign thus far, there is probably nothing I could do to convince you otherwise.
Derek Charles Catsam -
8/29/2004
I would also encourage them to listen to his speeches and to read newspaper coverage. I do not know what else to say -- if you are really saying that Kerry has not addressed an array of issues, you are wrong. That he has not done so to your satisfaction is not the point. That he has position papers that readers can access is prima facie evidence that you are wrong that he is campaigning solely on Vietnam. How can you be referring people to position papers if they do not exist? they do exist. They are not about Vietnam. I am not certain what is so complex about this that you continue to get it so very, very wrong. And if vagueness is a problem, I am not certain that either candidate is exactly awash in specifics.
dc
Stephen Tootle -
8/29/2004
John Kerry has not been campaigning on a whole range of issues. He has been pretty vague. I would encourage readers to go to Kerry's website and read his position papers and decide for themselves.
Derek Charles Catsam -
8/29/2004
Steve --
Nope, it would not be "morally inferior" to assert that when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc. etc.
And I like the parallelism between Bush's 'war record' (ahem) and Kerry's. Conservatives apparently hate relativism, except for when they don't. You make it sound as if cirticizing Kerry's war record and criticizing Bush's war record (again, ahem) are comparable. except the proiblem is that they are not.
By the way, I do believe the lawyer advising the Swift Boat vets who ran the ads was also a lawyer for the Bush campaign. I could be wrong. Except I'm not. He recently resigned from the Bush campaign, but of course this resignation is just a wee bit post facto.
While I am not an enormous fan of the 527s, once again I like how you are parallelling the Swift Boat ads (and the concomitant vendetta) with all ideological ads. We are having a discussion about specifics. If you have specific ads that Kerry is supporting in one way or other, how about blogging about them so that we have specifics rather than pass off what the issue is here, which are some rather specific ads in a particular context.
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
8/29/2004
OK, so Kerry does not have a foreign policy. He does not have views on economic policy. He does not have ideas on, say, taxes. Or the UN. Oh wait. He does. And he has articulated them, including in his convention speech, which, as you might recall, I blogged rather extensively not so long ago. So unless by "pretty much running on his record in Vietnam" you actually mean something along the lines of "he has been campaigning on a whole range of issues" then you are simply wrong.
dc
Stephen Tootle -
8/29/2004
Ok, I will make you a deal. I will blame the GOP and George Bush for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads if you will blame the Democratic Party and John Kerry for the content of the $63 million worth of ads from the left-leaning 527s. Then we can both be morally superior.
Also, I have never attacked Kerry's war record. You just wrote: "Good point that Bush did not run on his military record. I wonderwhy that might be. Oh, wait. I don't."
Here is what Brian said:
"That aside any claim that the Bush campaign is not behind the attack on Kerry's military record is either profoundly stupid and/or intellectually dishonest."
Here was what Derek said:
"I agree 100% with Brian about the role of Bush's campaign and its role here."
My reply for this claim is that you should either prove this claim or stop repeating it. To do otherwise would be morally inferior.
Stephen Tootle -
8/29/2004
I am not lying, and I have been paying attention. I am not going out on a limb to say that Kerry is pretty much running on his record in Vietnam. Go back and read his convention address. Or better yet, watch it again. And I am not "defending those lies." Yes, I would like "some integrity in this." How would you suggest going about getting some?
I would like Kerry to defend himself and get past the issue. He needs to admit that he stretched some of his war stories for dramatic effect. I think he is avoiding these issues to avoid that admission. It is just a guess though. The actual evidence is that Nixon was not the President in December of 1968, and that MLK was shot in April 1968, but Kerry won't even admit that he misspoke. He needs to.
This campaign should not be about Vietnam.
Derek Charles Catsam -
8/28/2004
Steve --
You are either lying or have not been paying attention if you think that Kerry is running solely on Vietnam. It's much more than "I am a smart war hero." Again, folks who are paying attention know this. But if "I am a smart war hero" is flawed, what praytell can we say about its opposite? In any case, the vitriolic lies against Kerry are slowly being revealed for what they are even as you keep defending those lies. One would think that you'd at least want some integrity in this effort to besmirch Kerry's record. I've stood up against people calling Bush all sorts of things -- I've even stood up and defended him against claims that he is a "liar" absent the actual evidence. I think it's too bad you wont do the same. I guess I expected too much.
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
8/28/2004
Steve --
But the GOP (and it is the GOP) is lying and misrepresenting Kery's record. It would be nice to see someone other than the piece I cited and McCain (sort of) from the Republican side condemn the fallacious attacks. And they are almost all fallacious. See
Good point that Bush did not run on his military record. I wonderwhy that might be. Oh, wait. I don't.
I agree 100% with Brian about the role of Bush's campaign and its role here. Again, it's sad. the republicans were losing on the iossues. They've turned it around by attacking a man who served and served well in Vietnam in service of a man who did not. It's nice to see you guys lining up behind this with nary a peep. It's even nicer to know that this is another example of why I'll never have to take seriously GOP claims of moral superiority. But keep defending it Steve. Keep defending it.
dc
Brian Flynn -
8/28/2004
As a long time Massachusetts' resident, I am no great fan of John Kerry and there is a certain irony that people on the left are in the position of claiming that our candidate really did kill Vietnamese civilians. That aside any claim that the Bush campaign is not behind the attack on Kerry's military record is either profoundly stupid and/or intellectually dishonest.
Bush did not run in 2000, and is not running now, on his service record. Kerry is running on his service record. So I guess it matters for Kerry but not for Bush. I guess I can have it both ways. It is fair to evaluate candidates on issues that they choose to place at the center of their campaigns. What could be more fair than to evaluate candidates on what they choose to be evaluated upon?
Also, it does matter that actual, official Democrats, including their minority leader (just yesterday) and Chairperson (last Sunday)-- representing the Party-- are attacking Bush's service record while no Bush campaign officials are attacking Kerry's record. Just to be clear:
The official line of the Democratic Party and the Kerry campaign is that Bush's service was dishonerable. The official line of the Republican Party and the Bush campaign is that Kerry's service was honerable.
Stephen Tootle -
8/27/2004
Ok, I'll bite. So long as a candidate raises an issue, it is fair game for the political opposition to oppose it. But Kerry did not raise an issue, he elevated an event in his life to represent all of the reasons why he should be elected President. He should expect scrutiny. Until he admits he fudged some statements about his Vietnam service, I think this issue will continue to fester. On the other hand, if he admits that Nixon wasn't President in Dec. 1968, that he wasn't in Cambodia, and that he wasn't in Vietnam when MLK died, I think the issue would die after a week or so. He should just say he mixed up the dates.
I don't "embrace" the idea of going after anyone's service, but if that is what Kerry chose to campaign on, to the exclusion of many other issues, then what did he expect? And the Bush Administration and the GOP have not done anything but praise Kerry's service. Therefore, the GOP did not "suddenly decide that serving was a character flaw." That said, I am sure you would agree that heroic military service does not always translate to good political leadership. I wouldn't have voted for a President LeMay, Patton, or MacArthur. To mix metaphors (because I taught four classes today and tired) it is a chit, but not a sure-fire winning hand.
Kerry's campaign thus far has amounted to "I am a smart war hero."
Forget it. This is silly.
Derek Charles Catsam -
8/27/2004
Just so that I know, could conservatives please tell us which it is: Does Vietnam service matter, or doesn't it? For a group that has spent a whole lot of time trying to say that it does not matter and should be irrelevent, why are they spending so much time then trying to denigrate his record? Because of course if implicit in this is that, well, Vietnam service does matter, then I'll take that, because so far for all of the criticism, Kerry's record looks pretty damned good, especially with gary trudeau's $10,000 still sitting on the table for anyone who can prove that Bush was where he was supposed to be for two months. Again -- it does or it does not. I am a little tired of the same folks who three weeks ago claimed it did not matter now saying that Kerry somehow was not what he could have been when he served, and THAT does matter. It's like the kid who changes the rules in the middle of the game when he is losing, then thinks no one noticed. So, Bush folks, which is it: Vietnam service matters? Vietnam service does not? You cannot have it both ways, try though you will.
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
8/27/2004
Steve --
So as long as a candidate raises something first, then anything, however slimy, is fair game? Nice to know that's the standard to which you think acceptable public dialogue has devolved. Odd too that you embrace the idea of "going after" anyone's service. Didn't realize that the GOP suddenly decided that serving was a character flaw. It wasn't in 1996. Or in 1992. Then again, republicans are oddly inconsistent on service when it does not behoove their candidate. I guess military service is just another chit to call on, like a square jaw and an expensive suit and a handsome family. Sigh.
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
8/27/2004
Ralph --
Thanks. I just hope it gets to some discussion of the issues. I really think my side wins on that front, but even if they do not, they will have lost for the right reasons -- I also do not have any interest in this becoming about Bush's service in Vietnam or Cheney's Halliburton ties either.
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
8/27/2004
Guys --
You know, i actually admire Dole a great deal, and I do not think that he was merely cultivating an image of being a nice guy. I do not even necessarily think he is nit a nice guy anymore -- politics is by its nature notnecessarily the nicest endeavor. I just think he is wrong to be doing what he is doing, and i do not quite get it.
dc
tom plotts -
8/27/2004
But it doesn't make it fair to lie about it, because that has implications going well beyond this silly campaign.
I'd agree that this di*k measuring stuff needs to end soonest, but I think it's also fair to point out that Kerry's maneuvers re: his service are partly in response to the remolding of the presidency as a macho job.
That said, I hope your relocation to our fair state is going well, Prof. Tootle. It's a nice place to have a teaching gig.
tom plotts -
8/27/2004
This has always been about Kerry and other vets turning on the war. Part of the problem is that you're dealing with people who can't or won't deal with the possibility that in a high stakes game, they were on the wrong side.
I mean, who wants to bust their butts in the service of bad people?
Since we don't pay military folks at "market" value, we cloak them in all sorts of fluffy hero rhetoric that many, after awhile, begin to believe this alternative form of currency. By protesting/questioning a conflict, you question their heroism and self-image as forces for good. This is a hard pill to swallow for so many fellow vets, since it suggests that they've been suckered on multiple accounts. The first by sacrificing their own interests for that of power, and second, for then being used for less than noble ends.
This seems to me a powerful incentive for many veterans to turn off their otherwise functioning brains and go along with this kind of crap in a desperate attempt to continue to see themselves as they aren't, and to see their nation as something it isn't.
Some of my conversations with vets are really heartbreaking, because so many of them come down to "what, you mean this was all for nothing?" Imagine being in that position when the stakes are life and death.
We're the only western military that tries to field a volunteer army on much less than professional pay, and this has to end. We need to either emulate the British model--the soldiers know it's just a job, but they're paid quite well for it--or return to a draft in which case military service as seen as a brief obligation without the burden of being a Praetorian.
Stephen Tootle -
8/27/2004
It is true enough that I haven't wanted to (to quote Eisenhower) "get in the gutter." But I will emerge from my shell to comment on one point. It is fair for Republicans to go after Kerry's wartime service because he made that service the centerpiece of his campaign.
Ben H. Severance -
8/27/2004
It is amazing how so many people can get wrapped around a bizarre controversy. Didn't terrorists hijack two planes in Russia the other day? Anyway, while Kerry is partly to blame for this medals dispute (he has harped on his war record from day one), the depths of smear that the SBV have stooped to is extraordinary. And yet, their whole attack has come unraveled in the light of hard evidence: the Navy's official reports on the events in question (Task Force Report 115) and the citation awards of the very men who are rebuking Kerry, all of which corroborate the Democratic nominee's version of things. But like most fanatics who cannot admit flaws in the face of what they despise, the SBV and Dole and Pat Buchanan steadfastly and pathetically maintain that Kerry is not a war hero. In their mind, Democrats can't be fighters, so down with John Kerry (and CMH winner Bob Kerrey) and Max Cleland, and Wesley Clark, and John McCain, that free-thinking Republican who doesn't fit into the party mold of jingoism. For some reason, they'd rather have an AWOL punk in the White House, than a man with the courage to do his duty in a war zone and the patriotism to condemn a government for it's unjust policies.
Ben H. Severance -
8/27/2004
Agreed. For the last eight years, Dole has tried to cultivate an image of moderation and bipartisanship. But his recent plunge into this anti-Kerry campaign demonstrates that he is as mean-spirited as ever.
Ralph E. Luker -
8/27/2004
Nice catch on the Washington Post op-ed, Derek, and good commentary on your own part. We'll survive this, I think, and I think we'll probably survive the whole campaign season. But I'll surely want to bathe fairly regularly in the meantime.
tom plotts -
8/27/2004
Apparently, given Dole's recent attempt to rescucitate the Swifties charges, it appears that the lack of decency and the party of Bob Dole are one and the same.
Nice to see "Hatchet" Bob back to Nixonian form.
