PressThink: Swift Boat Story a Sad Chord

Swift Boat Story a Sad Chord

That we are still fighting about the Vietnam War is sad. Watching an old political fight try to finish itself thirty years later in either the wreckage of the Kerry campaign or its triumph over the attempt to wreck-- that's sad. William B. Rood of the Chicago Tribune spoke out Sunday; he was a commander of a swift boat who had first hand knowledge. Rood thought it was sad that we're still fighting about this.

Asked if Mr. Kerry had lied about his war record, Mr. Bush said, “Mr. Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record.” — New York Times, Aug. 24

It’s sad. That’s my comment on the Swift Boat Veterans campaign to impeach the honor of John Kerry and question whether he deserved his medals. The whole thing is sad. I admit it’s not a very interesting opinion. It adds nothing to the debate to say: how sad for all of us. How sad for Kerry to be subjected to this. How sad for the Swift Boat Veterans that they have to take such measures. “Vietnam has moved on and we haven’t,” wrote Jeff Jarvis.

That we are still fighting about the Vietnam War is sad. Watching an old political fight (among veterans, but involving the nation) try to finish itself thirty years later in either the wreckage of the Kerry campaign or its triumph over the attempt to wreck— that’s sad. I’m with Meep, a voice at Jarvis’s weblog, Buzzmachine: “Are boomers going to be eating their livers in retirement because of Vietnam? Sounds like it to me.” Me too. That’s a sad thing to say about boomers, and I was born near the crest of that boom.

Now if you like sad as the best mood for consuming Swift Boat stories, if you think it fitting, then pay especially close attention to what the Chicago Tribune published over the weekend: This is what I saw that day by William B. Rood, a brilliantly disciplined and moving work of first-person journalism, which is also a moral statement, for while it defends John Kerry and his military record—and thus makes news—that is not the heart of what Rood meant to say. He was there with Kerry on one of his Swift Boat raids. His moral statement begins with this:

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us—the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry’s service—even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But with the Swift Boat Veterans campaign heating up, Kerry—who could become president—calls him and says: please, tell what you know. Rood’s intention never to speak comes under severe pressure. If he’s going to break with that policy, it requires a reason. We are free to speculate on the real reason; I’m interested in what William Rood says it was:

I can’t pretend those calls had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this. What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it.

Rood is an editor on the Chicago Tribune’s metropolitan desk— a career journalist. His published account broke 35 years of silence about events on Feb. 28, 1969 that resulted in Kerry’s Silver Star. You cannot understand Rood’s statement Sunday unless you also attend to this earlier silence, through which he has been speaking since ‘69. It says: wars don’t end until we stop fighting in them.

And so part of Rood’s “statement” is his intention to speak once about Feb. 28, 1969, and be done with it— in other words, return to his silence after breaking form once because of the high stakes in an election for president. He made the same point in other ways, by setting limits you would not set if you wanted to “get your voice out there.” Rood did not want his voice out there; he did not want to keep fighting that war. But something compelled him to testify— loyalty to men other than John Kerry:

Kerry’s critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they’re not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us.

Rood’s point is that we need to stop this. And he’s defending his right to privacy (even while speaking publicly) by restricting his statements to a careful minimum: only what he knows from direct experience serving in battle with Kerry, and the background knowledge needed to understand that eyewitness account.

Thus he engages in anti-frenzy behavior, even though he knows his statement will contribute momentum to the Swift Vets story, via the news cycle. This is from the Tribune’s news account of the statement (emphasis is mine):

Rood declined requests from a Tribune reporter to be interviewed for this article. Rood wrote that he could testify only to the February 1969 mission and not to any of the other battlefield decorations challenged by Kerry’s critics—a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts—because Rood was not an eyewitness to those engagements.

It’s journalism as its most elemental: This is what I saw that day. It’s journalism at its most disciplined: Rood testifies only to what he knows, and declines to go beyond that. It is also a compelling and vivid eyewitness account that helps you understand war. For 35 years he had refrained from giving any account of that day, precisely because Kerry’s involvement guaranteed it would be politicized.

And politicized it was at the moment Rood finally wrote about it. Here is the lead his own newspaper ran when it extracted nuggets of news from This is what I saw:

Swift boat skipper: Kerry critics wrong
Tribune editor breaks long silence on Kerry record; fought in disputed battle
The commander of a Navy swift boat who served alongside Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry during the Vietnam War stepped forward Saturday to dispute attacks challenging Kerry’s integrity and war record.

That’s the news, right? “Skipper: Kerry critics wrong.” If you’re scoring the debate, William Rood comes down on Kerry’s side. But Rood was saying something else when he added: This is my one statement. I will give no interviews. I will make no television appearences. I will not elaborate. I don’t care if your radio show needs a guest who was there. I am not interested in continuing this story. I actually don’t want to be a party to it. I will make no more media from my story.

He notes that the “survivors of all these events” are scattered across the country, and he gives us little sketches of them in peacetime— people who are “not in the public eye.”

Jerry Leeds lives in a tiny Kansas town where he built and sold a successful printing business. He owns a beautiful home with a lawn that sweeps to the edge of a small lake, which he also owns. Every year, flights of purple martins return to the stately birdhouses on the tall poles in his back yard.
Cueva, recently retired, has raised three daughters and is beloved by his neighbors for all the years he spent keeping their cars running. Lee is a senior computer programmer in Kentucky, and Lamberson finished a second military career in the Army.

With the debate over that long-ago day in February, they’re all living that war another time.

And Rood finds it sad that we’re doing that too, “living that war another time” during a presidential campaign, via a scandal story. What I admire about his account is the way it limits itself to a small territory within the Swift Boat Veterans’ contested claims— the day Kerry won his Silver Star. (There were only three officers who commanded boats that day: Rood, Kerry and a third who was later killed in action in 1969.) He makes no attempt to evaluate the strength of the group’s case overall. He declines to characterize Kerry’s credibility overall. He does not speak in any way excessively, or in the manner of Ed Cone’s ingenius Sunday column, “Don’t talk while I’m interrupting.”

My candidate is a hero. Yours is a zero. One cannot compare the youthful hijinks of my guy with the youthful wantonness of yours. My guy makes mistakes, yours commits sins of the worst kind. And likes it. My guy was misquoted, or simply misspoke, while your guy was caught on tape saying exactly what I expected him to say.
The mainstream flows right by my house while you live somewhere way out past the flood plain with the other weirdos. You are not in touch with the values of America, which I and those like me just happen to exemplify. You and your ilk have poisoned the culture, and I know the antidote.

What is the opposite voice to that voice? I say it’s William Rood, practicing a journalist’s discpline: This is what I saw that day, what I recall from experience, what I could verify by checking the record and the recollections of others. To go beyond that is to contribute to the frenzy; I decline to do that.

Plus: “There’s no final authority on something that happened so long ago—not the documents and not even the strained recollections of those of us who were there,” he wrote. It’s sad when people forget this, and feel they have found that final authority. Their zeal is sad.

It’s sad to me that the Swift Boat Veterans named themselves “for Truth,” but it would be equally sad if a Kerry Defense Squad did that. The Swift Boat Veterans were built for politics, and for stressful action in the theatre of a presidential campaign. Some of that action has been successful.

It’s sad that Kerry seems to have lied about or misrepresented his experience in Cambodia, one of the stories on which his truthfulness has been attacked. (See John Leo. On the other hand see Fred Kaplan in Slate.)

It’s sad that Douglas Brinkley, an historian quite savvy in the ways of media, disappears and cannot be reached by the Washington Post when his research is called into question. Brinkley’s Book, “Tour of Duty” mentions an unfinished book proposal Kerry prepared sometime after November 1971, more than two years after he had returned home from Vietnam. Michael Dobbs, the Post reporter, had questions about it and other sources Brinkley used. It’s at least possible that he could shed some light about matters in hot dispute. So Dobbs tried to reach Brinkley, a man normally quite accessible to reporters seeking an authoritative quote.

Brinkley, who is director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans, did not reply to messages left with his office, publisher and cell phone. The Kerry campaign has refused to make available Kerry’s journals and other writings to The Post, saying the senator remains bound by an exclusivity agreement with Brinkley. A Kerry spokesman, Michael Meehan, said he did not know when Kerry wrote down his reminiscences.

This is sad because Brinkley (who is said to be writing an account for the New Yorker) should be in the business of giving out knowledge, and that doesn’t include eluding the press when you so often use the press to broadcast your work.

It’s sad that Kerry has based so much of his argument for election on his service in Vietnam, but I find it even sadder that he went ahead with this while expecting to avoid reflection on the anti-war chapter of it, which has now roared back into his campaign.

Its sad that he said in his speech from Boston, “I defended this country as a young man,” without realizing or caring that if the war in Vietnam was, indeed, defending the United States, then the anti-war movement’s arguments are rendered hollow. But those were Kerry’s arguments, so how could he say that?

It’s sad that his campaign appears to have been surprised by the Swift Boat Vets and their success in getting onto the public’s radar. The outlines of the attack on Kerry’s truthfulness have been known for many months. Just in the comments section at PressThink, I learned quite a bit about the coming charges and what made Swift Boat supporters think they would have legs. As Josh Marshall says today, “This was always in the cards. Always.” I agree. And there was a sad inevitability to the events as they played out last week.

Even so, this post by Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit was great blogging (and real journalism) while this page from the Chicago Tribune was web journalism at its Big Media best. (But you have to register.)

After Matter: Notes, reactions & links….

I got this e-mail the next day from Harris Meyer, a journalist in Florida:

Don’t you think the news media are now obligated to put aside the he said/he said form of coverage of Kerry’s war record and basically say in every story that reporting in the NY Times, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune in the last few weeks has documented that the key attacks on Kerry’s record —concerning how he shot the VC, whether he came under fire while rescuing Rassman, that he acted inappropriately in responding to the VC ambush — are not empirically supported and that those reports have demonstrated that substantial evidence supports Kerry’s version of these events, which also happens to be the official U.S. military version?
I’d say this is another example of how the “objective” school of journalism— which considers itself obliged to report all sides of a dispute as if they all had equal empirical support — has badly failed the public. Every time a news organization reports that Kerry is responding to the “dispute” over his war record, a reader or listener has reason to think there is some plausible empirical basis for the “dispute.” But that dispute essentially has been put to rest on the merits.

—Harris Meyer

My reply: I am not sure how advice of this kind deals with the problem that zero disputes get “put to the rest” in a world where political actors are taught to dispute everything, just to slow down the other side, or confuse the press, or take up space. Journalists can still make decisions: charge X is bogus, Y’s case collapsed, Z has zero credibility, and so on. But they will be doing so in an atmosphere where no case is put to rest. This means they become a factor in the dispute.

What Harris advises is: become an actor, a judge of that dispute. Our press is not that bold. Michael Tomasky is on to the larger question when he writes: “If the conventions of mainstream journalism prevent our media from letting readers, viewers, and listeners examine the full truth in its broadest context, then it’s time to reexamine those conventions.” Sharp words.

Here’s Tomasky in the American Prospect: “Cowards All Around: The media should take a step back and remind us what Bush and Cheney were up to in 1969.”

Our media can sort through the facts in front of their nose and determine, at least some of the time, who’s lying and who’s not. But they are completely incapable of taking a step back and describing the larger reality. Doing that would require making judgments that are supposedly subjective rather than objective; but the larger reality here is clearer than clear.
… If the conventions of mainstream journalism prevent our media from letting readers, viewers, and listeners examine the full truth in its broadest context, then it’s time to reexamine those conventions. Until that happens, people who are willing to say anything, and who have the money to back them up, will be setting the agenda.

See Kaythryn Joyce in The Revealer on the vanishing of a scandal: “The story of how Bush’s top Catholic adviser resigned in anticipation of the publication of a report detailing his sexual abuse of an intoxicated and damaged young student.” (The article that started it all.)

The Los Angeles Times, editorial: These Charges Are False: It’s one thing for the presidential campaign to get nasty but quite another for it to engage in fabrication.

Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis “vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance”; Bill Clinton “raised taxes 128 times”; “there are [pick a number] Communists in the State Department.” But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.
Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis’ patriotism or Kerry’s service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues (like the war going on now) by these laboratory concoctions.

Belmont Club, Battle in the Clouds, is a brilliant analysis of one thing going on. (Aug. 24)

The undercard in the Kerry vs Swiftvets bout is Mainstream Media vs Kid Internet, two distinctly different fights, but both over information. The first is really the struggle over the way Vietnam will be remembered by posterity; whether its amanuensis will be John Kerry for the antiwar movement or those who felt betrayed by them. The victor in that struggle will get to inscribe the authoritative account of that mythical conflict in Southeast Asia: not in its events, but in its meaning. The fight will be as bitter as men for whom only memory remains can be bitter.
But the undercard holds a fascination of its own. The reigning champion, the Mainstream Media, has been forced against all odds to accept the challenge of an upstart over the coverage of the Swiftvets controversy.

Steve at Llamabutchers makes special reference to this post from Glenn Reynolds: “the photo showing the Congressional Record version of Kerry’s Cambodia speech I think was what crystalized this for many people.” The image of crystallizing opinion by extending the story, and opening up its contents, is a very useful way to think about the weblog sphere.

See The Note for a good round up of the Swift Boat coverage in the mainstream press.

There’s something sad, too, in this way of addressing it, from Tom Oliphant in the Boston Globe:

Discerning voters will notice that the more reputable organs of the national press have not cast doubt on Kerry’s Vietnam service. That is because political attacks on it don’t pass the smell test. We are influenced by eyewitnesses, not by people whose stories keep changing or are contradicted by official records. We are used to arguments over things like war records, but the burden of proof is with the accuser and Kerry’s accusers cannot shoulder it with the credible evidence required of credible stories.

Jeff Jarvis: Testing blog mettle

Think of the next 11 weeks until the election as a challenge: as a test of weblogs’ real value:
When we wake up after the election, will we be able to point to the ways and posts in which this new medium contributed, or at least tried to contribute, to improving the coverage of the campaign and the policies of the candidates and the wisdom of the electorate? Will we have made a difference at all? Or will we have made it worse?

Did we push the coverage and the candidates in ways that mattered? Or did we wallow in mud?

Via Instapundit, two interesting blog posts:

Let it Alone by Adeimantus: Conservative Political Commentary.

Years ago, wearied by their own arguments as much as by the arguments of their antagonists, sensible majorities of both the supporters and the opponents of the Vietnam war yielded to an unwritten domestic truce composed of two principles:
(1) Those who participated in the war, with the exception of anyone at or above the rank of general officer, are entitled to public honor for their service.

(2) Those who actively opposed the war, with the exception of the most extreme Jane Fonda-types, are not to be branded as cowards or traitors to their country.

Suggestion for keeping the peace by Dale Franks… “In order to move the presidential campaign away from what happened or didn’t happen in Vietnam 35 years ago, I offer a suggestion. Since the Kerry camp wishes to argue that official Navy records are conclusive proof that Kerry served honorably and with distinction, I suggest that those of us opposed to Kerry offer to accept that argument, as long as the Kerry people accept the logical corollary: the official Air Force records indicating George W. Bush was honorably discharged from his service is conclusive proof that he properly met his obligations as well.”

Posted by Jay Rosen at August 23, 2004 4:07 PM Print

I was first drawn to the fray this year by Kerry's anti-American remarks of which I had previously been unaware. Then the media went after Bush's National Guard service as though he had been service time for rape. As a Vietnam Veteran, Naval aviator and former reservist, I look on in shock as the dumbest of questions were shouted by a pressroom full of jackals at the White House. If there is anyone on this board with a shred of intellectual honesty, they have to admit that to this day, Bush's service was subject to far more scrutiny (and claims later proved wrong) than Kerry's has been.

Because my best friend was killed flying for the Air National Guard, and because I had been a military aviator myself who lost friends in stateside crashes, I was deeply offended by those attacks - for example, Terry McCauliffe informing us that the Guard "was the easy way out." - Certainly not true for guard pilots. My last flight in the reserves involved 3 major fires (which is why I got out).

I also found the AWOL charges absurd and disgusting. Anyone today who tries to find proof that I was ever present at my last duty station is likely not too. I haven't been able to. I guess I'm AWOL.

So first of all, this mess was started by people attacking Bush.

Then the Swift Boat guys came along with a letter, signed by everyone in Kerry's chain of command, requesting him to release his full records (he has not done so) and casting doubt on his ability to command. As I documented here, the main stream media gave these guys a brush-off. This should have been a major news event. It was historic. I wonder how subcribers would feel if they knew they were protected from it by their news sources?

And now you're angry because they're questioning Kerry's war record? After the Bush attacks and the suppression of the news comference? Does anyone see how unbalanced that is?

Furthermore, not one person has come forward from Bush's old unit (where he flew a lot of hours over 3 years) to trash him. Not one.

But from Kerry's old unit, every single commander, all but 1 or 2 of his peers, and a number of others have condemned Kerry. But hey, that's bad, that's horrible.

No, it is not. It is indicative that they feel this individual is bad, very bad, and that as people who saw him at critical times, they know that and they want to get the word out. He smeared them and he smeared me. He chose to run on his Vietnam record. It's fair game.

If you don't think what a man did while at war is relevant, then what the hell is? War reveals a lot about character, and if you think about it, character is critical in a candidate. If you have someone who is not to be trusted, who gives a damn what his policy positions are? They don't matter, because he can't be trusted.

What I truly do not understand is this outcry about how horrible it is to attack someone's war record. Why is that? Is there anyone on this board who has been in the military? Do you think you should be given a pass on everything you did there? Is it like Juvie... no records?

Or am I hearing a cooked goose? Are people upset about this controversy because it is hurting their favorite candidate?

David, deserting means a courts martial. Did you find a paper for that, or are you just beating on Bush? Did you check how many drills Kerry attended between 1970 and 1972? Was he deserting? He tried to hide those dates of service, since he was engaged in some highly questionable behavior for a commisioned Naval Officer at the time.

But we have a special case here - a candidate running on his war record whose previous activity in that area was viciously attacking those with whom he served, and after meeting with enemy representatives, spread enemy propanda about the country - this have the enemy decided in 1968 (after their terrible losses in Tet) that the only way to win was to demoralize America. Also a candidate whose cats paws viciously attacked his oppoonent's service record.

So this is a candidate with two war records.

Furthermore,we have the historical novelty of all of a veteran's chain of command againt him - knowing the attacks that would be made on them.

Does anyone here think these guys are lying for the Republican Party? Does anyone believe the silly reporting that asserts this group is a republican group because Spaeth, a PR firm owner, had done previous republican work. Does anyone belief that rich Texas contributors could make these former Naval officers invent false charges? There are accounts from over 60 officers and enlisted men about Kerry's misdeeds. That's a hell of a conspircy - call Oliver Stone!

Personally, I am proud of my service, and deeply offended not only by John Kerry's behavior but also that of the maintream media, which belittled the work of all National Guard (and by implication) Reserve people. If you don't understand the military, damn it, find someone who does before mouthing off. That especially applies to inhterpretation of military records.

The press looked really dumb when some articles where published claiminng that the first purple heart claims by the SBVT were wrong because the doctor's name wasn't on the form. They were too frigging stupid to ask anyone what the HM1 on the form meant, or they would have realized that their conclusion was wrong. Of course, I'm sure some voters were subsequently convinced that the SBVT were liars, and since that is to Kerry's advantage, it's a win for the main stream press, no matter how dumb they look to those in the know.

Finally, let me comment that I anticipated helping fight Kerry on the grounds of his 1971 testimony and related activities. I had no idea that the guy was as opportunistic as he was while in the rivers (which, btw, he never signed up for), until O'Neill mentioned it to me.

And for those with visions of evil Republicans in their heads, the group held its first news conference at the insistence of Democrat members who wanted the party to have a chance to change nominees.

This group is composed of pretty normal people. I've talked with some, and people I trust have talked with others. They aren't a secret cabal, they haven't been hunkered down waiting for Kerry to pop up - they're just Americans, combat veterans who stayed a year there, who fought with Kerry, slept in the same barracks, ate at the same galley, and generally hung out together.

In conclusion,

Anything in a candidate's past should be fair game. Character is important, and the past gives strong clues.

The Swift Boat Veterans are an honest organization. They had difficulty breaking through the iron curtain of the main stream media, so they tried two alternate attacks: a book and an advertisement. Had they been Kerry backersd, I am convinced the would not of run into the iron curtain in the first place.

There are enough swifties to make it clear that some of Kerry's claims are wrong. The only swifty claim I question is that of the silver heart episode.

Kerry left Vietnam after only four months. transferring his subordinates to safe postings. In most units, people carried out on a stretcher returned to their units as fast as possible.

After 35 years, some incidents may be hard to remember. However, Kerry's use of official records derived from his own reports is something those tending to be skeptical should keep an eye on. Too many times I've heard "Official naval records contradict what so-and-so said" and immediately assuming that truth has been reached. News people shouldn't be that gullible.

There are many veterans watching all of this. Unlike civilians, we are not happy with someone who has won an honor improperly (although it was common in some units in Vietnam), nor with someone who finds a way to escape combat through a trick.

Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at August 23, 2004 9:46 PM | Permalink

Jay: while this page from the Chicago Tribune was web journalism at its Big Media best.

I tried to visit. It wanted me to register. I didn't.

I believe a newspaper should be able to restrict entry to its website to subscribers, those who register, or those who first get a "day pass" by looking at an ad.

I also believe that individuals -- bloggers -- ought to have a path to ask the newspaper to lift the requirement or to move that content to the newspaper website's large free front porch -- which the newspaper maintains to fulfill its community responsibility.

In this instance, the Trib should be willing to move the link to its free access location.

Posted by: sbw at August 23, 2004 5:22 PM | Permalink

Kerry's big mistake has been trying to be a gentlemen about this. You can't be a gentlemen with when you opponents are scumbags. He should have got out in front early, kicked the living shit out of Bush for deserting the National Guard and never let up.

Yes, I said deserting and I mean deserting!

That's what the records we've seen so far show.

And nothing else.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at August 23, 2004 6:02 PM | Permalink

I agree - this whole episode is sad. But it's saddest for the country, which cannot now have a debate about where the country is heading.

Posted by: Matt Stoller at August 23, 2004 6:20 PM | Permalink

> That we are still fighting about the Vietnam War is sad.

It is, though it is to be expected, I think, when a candidate tries to define himself by his Vietnam experience. In contrast, Bush barely made a point about his Guard service and the media piled on with apparent glee.

Really, though, whether or not Kerry is full of it, this wouldn't have blown up nearly as much if he hadn't gone full throttle with the Vietnam shtick. Aside from groans of pain, what else should he have expected after his "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty" moment?

Not saying this will really matter a whole lot in defining the quality of the person who eventually becomes elected, but generally the "silent war hero" gains a lot more respect - and, perhaps, a bit less dirt-digging action - than the guy who not only tells all his stories but made sure to catch them on 8mm. Seeing Kerry's words and actions thus far, I'm more likely to vote for him despite his past than because of it.

Posted by: Jeff at August 23, 2004 6:20 PM | Permalink

"In contrast, Bush barely made a point about his Guard service and the media piled on with apparent glee."

When was this? I have YET to see a pile-on of any sort. As for his "barely making a point," how could he without opening up the can of worms that is his National Guard semi-service?

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at August 23, 2004 6:49 PM | Permalink

Couple of thoughts that, sadly, will probably not be uncontroversial.

Military service should not be a key to the door to the Presidency or other high political office. It can be a positive, but a sense of entitlement to political office because of military service should be a negative - period. Kerry's immodest heroism and creating a band of brothers to campaign for "LTJG" Kerry should cause concern, especially for those that were discomforted seeing President Bush in a flight suit uniform.

Sadly, attacking war records has become part of our political campaigns and there is a line to be drawn to this present data point through the campaigns of Dole v. Clinon (Kerry responded to Dole) and GHW Bush v. Clinton.

Since Lott is mentioned and the brewing of stories in the 'net, it seems an omission not to mention the Bush Guard story.

Do candidates with a military background have a civic responsibility in how they portray themselves as veterans and use their service against their opponents? Do their opponents have a responsibility in how they question or stipulate that service? Should candidate's military records be public domain along with their financial records?

Are we really re-fighting the Vietnam war, which I don't believe we are, or are we trying to understand how to discuss/debate post-WWII candidates, the last "good war".

Will we be re-fighting the first Gulf War 15 years from now? Will we be re-fighting the war on terror 25 years from now?

Or will we be fighting over characterizations of a veteran's service, no longer willing to accept all acts as honorable, all war stories as accurate and all medals as untarnished?

What would G. Washington or Eisenhower say?

Posted by: Tim at August 23, 2004 6:56 PM | Permalink

"Are we really re-fighting the Vietnam war, which I don't believe we are, or are we trying to understand how to discuss/debate post-WWII candidates, the last "good war".

Will we be re-fighting the first Gulf War 15 years from now? Will we be re-fighting the war on terror 25 years from now?"

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

We LOST the Vietnam war, and those who believed in our invasion of that country will never get over it.

We are murderers. So why should the fact that we're also bullies be such a surprise?

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at August 23, 2004 7:26 PM | Permalink

But, David, we're not debating the merits of the war. We're debating the merits of two men that came of age during the war.

If what you say is true, shouldn't the debate then be about Eisenhower's decision not to sent troops to Vietnam to save the French, propping up the South Vietnamese, Kennedy's decision to send troops, Johnson's decision to escalate the war, Nixon's win with honor?

Shouldn't we be debating 1968 in the US, rather than 1968 in Cambodia?

Is this a proxy war not over the Vietnam war, but "what did you do during the war"?

Posted by: Tim at August 23, 2004 7:55 PM | Permalink

As I've said on several weblogs, whatever happened during the Vietnam War has absolutely no bearing on what America faces today.

I couldn't care less about what Kerry did or Bush did or Clinton, etc, did during Vietnam. It doesn't matter on bit. That war and its aftermath is so long ago that only fools think it is relevant today.

Don

Posted by: Donald Larson at August 23, 2004 8:04 PM | Permalink

"Speak for yourself, David Ehrenstein."

OK, I will. Being gay I was considered far too immortal to be trained to kill perfect strangers on the other side of the world.

So I supported the troops at home . . .

"If what you say is true, shouldn't the debate then be about Eisenhower's decision not to sent troops to Vietnam to save the French, propping up the South Vietnamese, Kennedy's decision to send troops, Johnson's decision to escalate the war, Nixon's win with honor?"

That's four different, but related, actions --each deserving serious discussion.

And what's with the "win with honor" bit? What was "honorable" about promising to end the war only to turn around and secretly expand it into Laos, Cambodia and Thailand?

"Shouldn't we be debating 1968 in the US, rather than 1968 in Cambodia?"

Why is this an either/or question?

"There you have it: the nuts out shout those with good sense and the rest are banned. Screw the whole damn bunch of you."

Speak for yourself, jeb.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at August 23, 2004 8:36 PM | Permalink

Jay: I feel your pain. It is a sad business to have these scars of war bared once more. But isn't that what war does? Leave an everlasting imprint? Isn't the ideological divide between the red states and the blue states a modern echo of the war between the states? As veterans of World War II fade into history, haven't we become aware of how devastating those experience were for them, even in the afterglow of "victory." I once met a Rabbi who counseled not only Holocaust survivors and their children, but the children of Nazis. The legacy of war can never be escaped, not just for the soldiers who fought, but for those of us who found ways to avoid it.

Posted by: Roy Peter Clark at August 23, 2004 8:39 PM | Permalink

Being gay I was considered far too immortal to be trained to kill perfect strangers on the other side of the world.

I would think being immortal a plus for the military ... ;^)

Yes, but that's not being discussed in this campaign and why I don't think we're really debating the merits of Vietnam. Same with 1968 in the US.

What we are debating is what Kerry and Bush did or didn't do. We're debating the character of the two men by dissecting and denigrating their service - rightly or wrongly.

And what's with the "win with honor" bit?

Sorry, I was trying to play on Nixon's “peace with honor” catchphrase with something more descriptive and ironic given his strategic campaign and our eventual withdrawl.

Posted by: Tim at August 23, 2004 8:47 PM | Permalink

Jay,
I think you've given us a journalist's version of the "we deserve a politics worthy of the American people" argument.

On the one hand, it's pretty clear that G.W. is a bully by proxy throughout his political career who respects no one. It also seems that Kerry is something of a "P.T. Barnum goes to Vietnam" veteran who could only expect to see his anti-war activism complicate his "proud vet defending the nation campaign" (as you point out).

Yet those unpleasant truths do not change the fact that what is being regurgitated here for immediately political reasons is always also both a moral crusade (for the true believers on both sides), and a reopening of old wounds (for those old enough to remember Vietnam who felt they had come to some peace with it). There is surely a place for the elegiac longing for mutual respect that you have called for here.

Yet to my mind, our entire political process since at least Nixon and Agnew has been built on moralistic demonization of either side. Whether you want to point to the assassinations of leaders in the sixties, the Republican move to a neo-confederate alliance with the old south, or the cultural wedge issues designed to distract from economic exploitation or the Democratic perspective that the New Right is the New Taliban. Our political process has been almost entirely reduced to this sort of scorched earth moral demonization and finger pointing. Why else would it be that the favorite epithet of both parties vis-a-vis the other is to call them Nazis?

This situation bespeaks an utter loss of common national sympathy and understanding that leads me to feel that your elegiac mourning for the loss of our common civic respect isn't just a call to let Vietnam's bygones be bygones, it is a call to imagine that we haven't been in a culture war for fifty years that is beginning to rival the debates over abolition. EVERY political issue frames the other side as the devil incarnate. Vietnam is just one of the more bloody battlefields of a many-faceted ideological war.

I remember seeing Archie Bunker for president pennants at my local Penney's store in 1972. That had everything to do with Vietnam. But it also has everything to do with Zell Miller, Tom DeLay, and Trent Lott. The culture war goes on whether we want to retreat to safety or not.
This recent skirmish is one of the more shallow and embarrassing examples in a while. But the country I see around me was bitterly at war LONG before the Swift Vets showed up. And it will be long after their phony story has come and gone. The culture war is being fought over the sixties, and the sixties wouldn't mean what they do without Vietnam. What is Operation Rescue if not the Weathermen do fundamentalism? The battle over the sixties is all around us if we only have eyes to see. What is the Straussian accusation of relativism leveled at anyone who isn't a fundamentalist? It is payback for the 1960s. Indeed, that domestic war is far, far from over.

I would like to think of your post as calling for a Political Veteran's Day for the suffering we all have to go through as citizens of our deeply embittered and self-destructive country. Our two nations in one are no longer coherent enough to command common loyalty however much we all may desire it. It would be nice to have at least one day where we COULD sit back and respect one another to the degree that we still can, to live together in peace, at least for a day. I find THAT an inspiring thought--but it might take a peace and reconciliation board to get it done.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 23, 2004 9:47 PM | Permalink

This is not abot finishing a fight that didn't end 30 years ago. This is about using and abusing people and ideas.

Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.

Posted by: MR at August 23, 2004 9:58 PM | Permalink

We are still fighting over Vietnam because the war in Vietnam was never really the actual fighting rather it was a proxy issue for the cultural divide within America.

That cultural divide is still alive and well so the wounds of Vietnam war never heal.

Posted by: Shannon Love at August 23, 2004 9:59 PM | Permalink

John,
It is pretty unlikely that Bush's former commanders would come forward to complain about his performance when they've already come forward to say they never saw him show up to start with.

I think it is almost a certitude that many of the Swift Boat Vets are lying--either because they mistakenly despise him for his Senate testimony or for the way they were portrayed in David Brinkley's book. Not because they are Republicans, but because they are veterans who feel they were wronged.

Every time I hear a presentation like yours I wonder to myself if you've ever even LISTENED to Kerry's testimony. He doesn't accuse veterans of doing anything. HE QUOTES OTHER PEOPLE FROM THE WINTER SOLDIERS HEARINGS WHO TESTIFIED TO WAR CRIMES THEY EITHER DID THEMSELVES OR WITNESSED WITH THEIR OWN EYES.

I give the Winter Soldier testimony a lot more credence than the testimony of soldiers who claim Kerry told lies about them when he was quoting other people's testimony. IF YOU ARE HONEST YOU WILL AT LEAST ACCUSE THE WITNESSES HE QUOTES OF LYING, NOT KERRY HIMSELF. He didn't make this stuff up. He told their story. And why would a soldier lie at the Winter Soldiers meetings? Who would just invent a story that they personally committed or witnessed war crimes? It's preposterous on the face of it.

Can you think of any motivation for that? It was not a communist plot, it was a fit of morality breaking out. Opposing your country when it is wrong is patriotic. I know that doesn't fit into your world view, but we'll just have to live with that, won't we?

Admitting the fact that war crimes took place in Vietnam doesn't mean you personally committed them. It means you are willing to accept reality and will give up trying to revise history. I've heard the worst abuses were actually committed by South Korean troops. Our media has never even told us that tens of thousands of S. Koreans were in Vietnam as Cold War allies. It would be nice to hear the media admit that they existed someday, too.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 23, 2004 10:07 PM | Permalink

One interesting result of this election year polarization is that it's really hard to see where minds can be changed at some points. I checked out Ehrenstein's site, where the first post namechecks Chomsky and Alterman approvingly. Other posts support a similar worldview.

Given that worldview, I don't see where Mr. Ehrenstein wishes to argue, if argument involves putting himself in a position where his mind can be changed on points touched upon in this post. Given the small data set of his comments here and his current blog posts, I don't see where he's doing anything other than shouting his position from a rooftop. If one wants to change minds in a group that doesn't necessarily think everything Howard Zinn thinks is gospel, one has to consider that in formulating an argument.

I'm not saying my mind can't be changed on most things. I'm just saying that it's going to take a little more than what Ehrenstein is blasting to get some kind of dialogue.

I don't think he should consider that his comment that our president "deserting and I mean deserting", without something new and useful that is different from evidence already considered, will win him any new converts.

Posted by: Chap at August 23, 2004 10:12 PM | Permalink

John,
I think what is most disappointing about your self-righteousness is the pretense that yours is THE veteran's point of view. It is A veteran's point of view. Not the only one, maybe not even the majority one. One of them.

Citizens are watching when you strike the John O'Neill pose of partisan veteran with wounded pride. It makes us lose respect for the sacrifice of all veterans when it is cheapened in this transparent and implausible way.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 23, 2004 10:13 PM | Permalink

In fairness to the veterans--especially to those who heard charges of "war criminal" while they suffered in POW camps--it's worth delving deeper into Kerry's testimony to Congress in 1971 as well as the credibility of the VVAW versus their critics. It's important for the sober thinkers among us to try to understand why over 250 veterans decided to come out of obscurity to oppose a man whose actions during and after the war they found so reprehensible. Here's an excellent summary with important sources written by a veteran who was there http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200401270825.asp

Posted by: Jim at August 23, 2004 10:41 PM | Permalink

Sorry Jim,
No evenhandedness to be found there. Owens clearly thinks Vietnam was a good war and
Kerry is pro-commie traitor for criticizing
it. I didn't find it to be of much help.
It repeats the canard that quoting other veterans testimony is slandering them.
If they didn't commit war crimes, why
would they testify that they did?
If you don't like their testimony, why
not blame them rather than him?
It's not hard to understand that people
who think Vietnam was a just war would
be pissed off.

Pretending their self-righteous wounded
pride makes them a better judge of US
history and military strategy is just not a convincing argument.

Guerilla war is a dirty business. Pretending
it's not immediately calls a person's
credibility into question. Guerilla wars
are an invitation to commit war crimes.
THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD NEVER FIGHT THEM
UNLESS NATIONAL DEFENSE (not "security" issues anywhere on earth)IS REALLY AT STAKE.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 23, 2004 11:09 PM | Permalink

I can't believe I get to be the first to quote one of my favorite journalists, Faulkner: "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

All this talk about re-opened wounds boggles my mind, as if the silly bleating of editorial pages was the true indicator of national health. The wound never fully closed; and lately it's been especially bloody. Certainly, comparisons of Iraq with Vietnam are overblown; but that doesn't mean that much of America, especially people like Meep, don't know their history and why it matters. Meep scares me.

I'd like all those who speak of letting the past stay in the past, of "looking ahead," etc., to tell me whether they'd look in the face of a Holocaust survivor and say the same thing. Forget it; ancient history. But, apparently, that's fine for Vietnam.

As for Rood: He's entitled to deal with what he's done and seen however he sees fit, but silence is never good journalism.

It does seem like SBVFT are engaged in some nasty politics; but they're absolutely correct that what happened that day in 1968 matters.

Posted by: Jeff Sharlet at August 23, 2004 11:20 PM | Permalink

Jay Rosen:

You address that link to John Moore, apparently feeling that his rhetoric is intemperate, yet you say nothing to commenters like David Ehrenstein and "Ben Franklin" who are much better exemplars of the style of argumentation which Cone is satirizing. How . . .interesting.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at August 23, 2004 11:46 PM | Permalink

I guess the problem I have is that if it shouldn't be a focal point, why put it out there as a part of the democratic platform and a part of the key-note address?

Posted by: J Walker at August 24, 2004 12:03 AM | Permalink

BenF,

Any dispute about Bush's service is about the time in Alabama, not the time he spent learning to fly and flying in Texas. Highly disingenuous to imply that nobody anywhere ever remembers seeing the guy. Why isn't everyone in his chain of command in Texas lining up to attack his service there?

I think it's telling that you think, w/o citing any evidence, that the Swifties are lying, but are willing to believe the Winter Soldier folks were all telling the truth.

The authors of Stolen Valor argue differently and very persuasively, as did Neil Sheehan in the NYTBR reviewing a book by one of the Winter Soldier organizers, Mark Lane. Ditto Guenter Lewy who discovered that a number of Winter Soldier "vets" testifying in Detriot were not who they said were but had appropriated the names of actual Vets.

Why would they lie? I'll leave it to your imagination.

At the very very least Kerry should have been much surer of whose testimony he was repeating before congress.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at August 24, 2004 12:18 AM | Permalink

Jay, I'm not sure what you are referring to, but I'll readily admit to having attributed characteristics to the press that may or may not be correct.

As far as the SBVT, the question of their credibility hings in mind on how hard it would be to construct a conspiracy of over 60 people, most of whom have not been in contact for almost 35 years, to lie, in detail on complex subjects.

I suspect there areas of weakness of memory (just like I think Rassman sincerely believes he was being shot at when all the eviddence indicates otherwise).

However, the asymmetry between the wolfpack going after Bush's National Guard records, and the complete lack of investigation of Kerry was shocking. Does anyone know if Kerry did anything special to incentivize his "Band of Brothers" other than transferring them to safe spots on his exit from Vietnam? Has anyone even mentioned the latter? How about the rumoured trip to France last year - anyone check?

To get to the core of the issue: yes, it makes sense to examine someone's wartime service, just like it makes sense to examine his business career at the same age, although wartime service can be more revealing.

My main issue is with the Kerry testimony and speeches after he left the Navy. Someone informed me that all Kerry was doing was repeating what was told to him. I months ago analyzed all the testimony and the Q&A period afterwards, and that excuse doesn't wash. Yes, some but not all of his broad brush charges came from the Winter Soldier "Investigation." But does anyone think that Kerry was fooled into thinking the 150 "veterans" there were telling the truth? A congressional investigation, which offered amnesty, was not able to substantiate a single one of those charges. It did find many imposters and people who had lied about their background, but not one of the charges.

In questioning, Kerry states that he personally participated in war crimes. It was that statement that really got the swifties going, because they knew it not to be true.

If you read the questioning more closely, you will find intermixed some poiints that the enemy wanted to get across. For example, Kerry says we used weapons against "oriental human beings" that we would never use against Europeans. Since at the time we were prepared to use nuclear weapons against Europeans, I'd like to know what that weapon was. But the statement was useful to the North Vietnamese. In fact, that testimony IS STILL USEFUL to the communists.

There is a part where he speaks as an enemy representative, saying that our troops would be given safe conduct out of the country. He also recommends we immediately accept the enemy's negotiating points. How did a Navy LT come to this conclusion? He talked to the communists in Paris.

Ben, I'm not sure why I bother to respond, but of course my viewpoints are my own. It was Kerry, speaking before Congress in 1971, who arrogated the position of spokesman for all veterans.

I am a Vietnam Veteran. It gives me some insight into military matters, especially from that period. That's all.

Your characterization of the article linked by Jim was pure knee-jerk. The article is well worth reading, even if you don't believe the conclusions.

If you disagree with the data, then you have a problem. It is well sourced.

Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at August 24, 2004 12:24 AM | Permalink

"I would think being immortal a plus for the military ... ;^)"

Well the soldiers, sailors and marines I fucked thoughout the war certainly thought so.

Especially the sailors.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at August 24, 2004 12:32 AM | Permalink

"Given that worldview, I don't see where Mr. Ehrenstein wishes to argue, if argument involves putting himself in a position where his mind can be changed on points touched upon in this post."

The minds that post here are already made up.

With hospital corners.

"Given the small data set of his comments here and his current blog posts, I don't see where he's doing anything other than shouting his position from a rooftop."

Your point?

" If one wants to change minds in a group that doesn't necessarily think everything Howard Zinn thinks is gospel, one has to consider that in formulating an argument."

Howard Zinn has never really impressed me all that much.

Find another cliche.

"I'm not saying my mind can't be changed on most things. I'm just saying that it's going to take a little more than what Ehrenstein is blasting to get some kind of dialogue."

"Take a little more"?

I don't kiss ass.

Well maybe Matt Damon's -- and you sure as hell ain't him!

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at August 24, 2004 12:39 AM | Permalink

John,
When you or Owen imply that Kerry is a traitor
to the communists because he mentions the obvious
fact that there were deeply racist aspects to
that war it is hardly a question of "sources."
Both of you think it was a just war. I disagree. It's a question of how you interpret the Cold
War. I think you're deadwrong and you feel the same way about my interpretation. Just because I catch a bullet doesn't mean I'm the best source
to figure out why bullets were flying at the time.

The idea that Kerry is a traitor for saying that
Vietnam was a racist war is laughable. It was a racist war. It was a pro-colonial war.
US troops did make Vietnam a living hell.
Does that mean communists are good? No.
Does it mean innocent Vietnamese are any
less dead after being bombed or any less
burned after being napalmed by us? No.
Doesn't that mean all the US soldiers who killed
innocent Vietnamese in a guerilla war
are bad people? No, it means John Kennedy,
Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon were
leaders who were as misguided as you
are. They should never have put our soldiers
in that position.

You live in a Manichean world. It must be nice
for EVERYTHING to be so clear and so
unequivocally Republican. The party of God.

When the US is wrong it is
patriotic to say so NO MATTER WHO AGREES.
Those are words to live by.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 24, 2004 12:50 AM | Permalink

Kerry's problem is that the sober readers of the news now know that he made or repeated the most outrageous charges about Vietnam, some sourced from people posing as veterans, others simply made up, denigrating all who served. It's impressive to find the NIS and Daniel Ellsberg in agreement that US atrocities were rare and usually reported and dealt with promptly. The vets who were accused of those heinous acts have every right to speak, to reject him as an opportunist, and to expose his lies. Whether they vote for Bush, vote for a third party, or vote at all, is for them to decide. I doubt that very many will vote for Kerry, to his dismay.

Kerry saw action in two wars: the first where he may very well have "sexed up" his military record because the level of action he actually saw wasn't sufficient to build his resume, and the second because he found no victory parade for returning vets, and instead decided to join the anti-war parade lead by the left.

Now Kerry wants to deny these men their right to speak once more, and to have his version of events hold sway. It won't work this time, because too many have found their voices, and too citizens many are listening--instead of turning their backs--this time. The aftermath of Kerry's apparent victory in his second war will be bitter for him and his party even if he manages to win. How will he repair the damage he's done now that he's done it again?

The Democratic party has opened Pandora's box by nominating such a charlatan.

Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2004 12:55 AM | Permalink

BF - in spite of your attempts to taunt me, I'm not interested in rehashing the arguments about the correctness of the war. So I'll simply say that your position is that of the hard left and leave it at that.

So was Kerry's.

Did someone say the word traitor in this discussion?

Not me. Do I think he was a traitor - I don't know, it depends on the degree of cooperation with the enemy.

Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at August 24, 2004 1:07 AM | Permalink

The SBVT may have sparked a renewed fight about the Vietnam war among Democrats more than between political parties. Cross-posting from BOPNews (and although I disagree with the poster, "Jim", I appreciate his post as a principled and coherent one):

Now I am being placed in an uncomfortable and unprincipled position of having to defend my candidate's service in a war myself and so many others did everything in our power to stop. This makes me feel a lot like I did in 1968, after we lost RFK, and Humphrey got the nomination. Ironically, much like now, I was placed in a no-win situation: a Democratic Presidential candidate who essentially agrees with republicans on a war I am vehemently opposed to.

Posted by: Tim at August 24, 2004 1:19 AM | Permalink

It seemed a good post on the whole, Mr. Rosen. Indeed it is sad that some of these things are being done. Some have to be done, and not doing them would be bad behavior, but it does not change the fact that it is sad.

Eric Deamer makes an excellent point, Mr. Rosen. At first I thought Ben Franklin a sensible liberal, but then he kept on talking. David E, well I'm not sure, he's either a troll, or naive enough to think that shouting convinces people. There is a third, worse, possibility--he's a bully. Which would be kind of amusing since this is the internet, and such behavior is kinda pointless.

I would respectfully suggest you look for a better class of commenters. Franklin could be okay, but David, no. And they are not worthy of your time or bandwidth. Feel free to differ; its just a friendly suggestion.

Tadeusz

Posted by: Tadeusz at August 24, 2004 1:22 AM | Permalink

Thanks, Tim. I enjoy a reasonable discussion at a volume level that isn't painful to experience.

I understand that some of the SBVT signatories are lifelong Democrats. Their position on Kerry's fitness for the job of President is not an automatic endorsement of the war, or of the President.

Sometimes two parties just aren't enough.

Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2004 1:40 AM | Permalink

Ehrenstain - "Minds are made up. With hospital corners." LOL. Good line. I'll steal it. I find little else you say persuasive. You are not familiar with the circumstances of military service. You deserter charge is both vile and baseless. I think Kerry was a coward for bugging out after the mine blew up under PCF 3. Ran for almost a mile. That's a vile charge. But considering that the other boats stuck around to help and cover the stricken craft, I've got some evidence to back that up.

Jim in Chicago - Good points. "Stolen Valor" should be required reading for folks like Ben who want to apotheosize Kerry's Senate testimony. Kerry had been to Paris to "negotiate" America's surrender terms with the North Vietnamese. He returned with a draft proposal. Interestingly, his Senate/Winter Soldier testimony closely echoed North Vietnamese propaganda points. But, like MoveOn and the Kerry campaign, I'm sure there was no coordination. If there was, Kerry would really be the Cambodian Candidate.

John Moore - Great post. These are the issues.

Eric Deamer - Caught our gracious host getting a little snarky.

Posted by: Billy Hank at August 24, 2004 1:55 AM | Permalink

Jay Rosen - I have a challenge for the press which you may be in a position to further. Why did the blogosphere have to discover that Alston served, at best, a few days with Kerry. Why did Kerry appropriate Lt. Peck's actions as his own? What, if any, honorariums are Kerry's BoBs receiving? Any of them bought a new car recently, added a hot tub, paid off loans? Not, of course, that Kerry would think of doing anything like that. Where does all the Tides Foundation money go? Is it a good idea for America that billionaires like Soros are trying to buy the election? Do you think that Soros's plans are best for America? Have you even read his writings?

Americans believed the crap the press peddled back in the 60s and 70s. The press pounded on crap like the Winter Soldier and Kerry's testimony. There were a lot of vectors at play in those times. Many see that as journalism's finest hour. Stopped a war and brought down a President. Hoorah.

We are fast approaching journalism's lowest hour. Your profession's open cheerleading for the left and Kerry, your refusal to apply the minimum attempt to serve journalism's investigative charter, your Gilligans and Blairs, are turning "journalistic integrity" into a caustic oxymoron. Or have you all really become Oliphants?

Posted by: Billy Hank at August 24, 2004 2:06 AM | Permalink

Bill Hanks,
Given Richard Scaife and his pals billions to trash enemies over the years, you don't even want to go there. Rush would be proud of you though.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 24, 2004 2:11 AM | Permalink

Of course the medal business is all a side show. The SBVs real beef with Kerry (as John Moore points out) is what he did after the war. Did anyone really think Kerry could run for president without drawing fire from a group of Vietnam vets? He slandered them horribly. He called them baby killers and war criminals. He tarnished them, their service, their sacrifice, and their country. And he never apologized for it. The medals aren't the point. Whatever claim he had to them he gave up when he threw them away (and it doesn’t matter if they were really his, or his ribbons, or someone else’s – he performed the act and he made the statement that those medals were not worth having).

Then he goes and tries to run as a war hero. Stupid, stupid man.

But maybe you think Kerry told the truth in ’71, and that our soldiers were committing wide-spread war crimes. Fine. Seems worth figuring out what really happened back then. Since one of the people who spoke so publicly three decades ago is now running for the highest office in the land and acting as if he never made such devastating charges, perhaps this is as good a time as any to dig up the old bones. It is, after all, awfully hard to ignore the ghosts of the past when one of them walks through the door asking for your vote. And you shouldn’t expect him to be alone – ghosts travel in packs you know. They’re creatures of uncertainty after all, so there are always at least two, and usually at least one you won't much care for.

The SBVs have a view of the past: they think Kerry lied. They think he lied and exaggerated about war crimes because it was convenient and helpful to his political career. And they think that was consistent with his actions in Vietnam, where he lied and exaggerated to further his military career.

Are they slandering Kerry? Or did he slander them thirty years ago? It wouldn't matter if he wasn't running for President - and running as a War Hero to boot - but he is, so let’s find out. Instead of hiding their faces, journalists ought to be looking for whatever is left of the truth from back then. The relevant truth for this election isn’t going to be found in donor lists or campaign finance law. It’s going to be found in the answer to an unpleasant question: did John Kerry tell the truth about what he saw and did in Vietnam? I don’t really need opinions – I already have one of those. What I could use are some facts. The thing that’s really sad about all this is that almost no one who get's paid to do this is willing to dig. Journalists are apparently, ahem, AWOL.

Posted by: (the other) John Hawkins at August 24, 2004 3:04 AM | Permalink

John Hawkins,
If Dubya weren't already AWOL from leading
the country anywhere besides into the pockets of his friends I might almost care.

Even if everything you say about Kerry were true, he's a better man than Bush. That's how bad Bush is.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 24, 2004 3:41 AM | Permalink

John H

If you wander by my blog and dig, you can find answers to some of your questions, including a link to CSPAN's transcript of Kerry's testimony.

It is going to be hard to convince the partisans on here, but there are plenty of Democrat vets who are up in arms about Kerry - especially Vietnam Vets.

There are also a number of other Veterans Groups other than SBVT. I am part of Vietnam Vets for the Truth (another 527). We were formed independently of the swifties, but also for the purpose of redressing the lies directed at us by Kerry. There are many other groups, varying in size, organization, and national scope who are anti-Kerry veterans groups. When these groups (including SBVT) are attacked as part of the "Republican Smear Machine," the attackers are simply showing their ignorance. It would appear that the sophisticated press cannot conceive of true grass roots organizations.

Our group is totally grass roots. I know because there aren't many of us in the organizing loop.

There's another I started by accident - I put an anti-Kerry posting on my blog and before I knew it I had about 200 anti-Kerry Vietnam Vets - had to start a new website for it. This was an emergent event, unplanned and rather a surprise.

For those used to thinking in conventional political think, these groups just don't fit. They are grass roots and they are everywhere. They are non-partisan. All of this in spite of the fact that the VFW and American Legion are required by their rules not to show favoritism.

In any case, there is a phenomenon happening hear, what is is ain't exactly clear (reminds me of a '60s protest song).

THe biggest media screw-ups I have seen have been:

1) Ignorant reporting - drawing conclusions from documents that are inappropriate and obviously wrong to veterans. Some of this is sloppiness - using a document based on a Kerry report to support a Kerry position, saying that the document "is an official navy record' and thus should be believed.

2) One-sided reporting - again, where is the investigation of Kerry's band of brothers? Why wait 10 days to report important SBVT events? Why ignore or downplay the first SBVT press conference.

3) Denial - the failure to appreciate that SBVT could crack the Maginot Line. I was surprised too.

4) Confusion when unable to shape the public debate, again with the SBVT forcing their way in.

5) Failing to understand a new public view of Vietnam, where it is only some of the left who still vehemently believe that Vietnam was the wrong war. Almost all Vietnam Veterans (myself included) have said they would do it again if called.

6) The Bush National Guard feeding frenzy. This left the press looking like partisan fools to a whole lot of us. Veterans, including those from the National Guard, have relatives and friends, and many have been learning about the absurdity of the charges. Aviators like myself have also pointed out how dangerous Bush's choice was - his total service risk was probably higher than Kerry's.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens with Kerry's anti-war activities. Was Kerry totally duped by the Winter Soldier witnesses? Or did he present the findings knowing they were false.

Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools blog) at August 24, 2004 4:04 AM | Permalink

"Ben" Franklin's comment is about the saddest thing I've read this whole campaign. It shows the absolute pit of blind hatred in some parts of the Left. If everything the SBVs claim about Kerry is true, Kerry should probably be in prison for treason. But in Ben's world, that's still better than George W. Bush.

I don't know which set of vets is right about what Kerry did and saw. I have a hunch, but I don't know. The journalism profession isn't helping. Everyone is averting their eyes, their sad eyes no doubt, and wishing it would all go away. Note to journalists: this story isn't irrelevant to the country - it's a critical question and no matter how sad it makes you, you have a job to do.

Posted by: (the other) John Hawkins at August 24, 2004 4:17 AM | Permalink

Ben,

Brinkley was seething on Hardball about SBVT - he buys into the right-wing conspiracy line of thinking on these guys.

Jay,

I'd like to see this tied in with your 'Die, Strategy News' piece somehow. That piece is a good critique of one of the most irritating tendencies in our press corps. This episode is the same fight as the Iraq war (with different players), and given that it's fairly obvious that the debate over that war was not done over terrority condusive to good decision-making (a good argument could be had over whether the right or the left complained more about the press), perhaps you could bring into this debate what saddens you about the press coverage on this, if anything.

Posted by: Matt Stoller at August 24, 2004 7:40 AM | Permalink

John M.,
Nobody denies there are a lot of vets who hate Kerry. Just stop pretending there aren't a lot of vets who hate Bush. Like I said before, you've gotten a lot more attention per person that the anti-war protests got. The crazy liberal press blew them off too.

Stopping Bush's mad rush into Iraq affected a lot more lives this year than your attempt to get reparations from the anti-war movement against Vietnam.
Stop complaining.

John H.,
It's not blind hatred to say that all this could be true and John Kerry is still a better man than George W. Bush. It's clear-eyed observation of his catastrophic failure in every possible area of policy up and down the line. He should be impeached and in jail already if his lapdog party gave flying rat's ass about the rule of law. And he should be in the criminal court in the Hague for crimes against humanity for starting an unprovoked war of aggression and signing memos that violate the Geneva convention. It's not hate, its justice. Bush is a plague on the nation and it will be a dark day in hell before we get a worse candidate to run against him.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 24, 2004 7:52 AM | Permalink

Matt,
I'm not familiar with the "Die, Strategy" piece. What was the general point? What connections do you see between the Iraq debate and the Swift Vets debate?

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 24, 2004 7:57 AM | Permalink

Sad. Interesting. I hadn't thought of something so simple. Thanks, Jay.

I'm afraid there is no way to get into these issues around Vietnam without inviting so much anger and intensity from all sides for one very obvious reason: we've never, in fact, resolved the various tensions and differences over the war itself.

John Moore tries to dress up the distinctions between Kerry and Bush and why he questions one and not the other, but it seems clear that the point is what his man did was okay and what the other guy did (and does) wasn't (and isn't). And that seems too easy (a la that brilliant Cone piece). As much as it may be worth wading into what happened in Vietnam and what Kerry did there, it's worth wading into, as Bush himself indicated in 1990, his decision to get into the Texas Air National Guard because it was a way not to go to Vietnam that didn't necessitate other draft dodging tactics.

It is sad that we haven't sorted out what it means that we were in Vietnam, why we went, why we left, what it means to have served, and what it means to not have served (as well as to conscientiously protest the whole operation) in Vietnam, specifically. I don't think it was necessarily weak or cowardly for Bush and Cheney to avoid going. I don't think Kerry is necessarily ennobled by having served. But I say that because I think the point is we shouldn't have been in Vietnam in the first place. And that's the ugly, sad topic no one wants to get into.

My own feeling is that, sad as it is, we all ought to come clean and talk about Vietnam. Or, deciding that it's too painful to revisit such a difficult, unsettled period, let's not. But this middle ground, where we pick apart the smallest details (really, I don't care whether he was in Cambodia in 68 or 69 or never... just as I don't care whether Bush was in Alabama... or not) as a way to ignore examining the larger issues, is just a painful, useless place to be. It tells us nothing. It teaches us nothing. And it's just, well, sad.

And as much as I'd like to say that's the media's fault, it's really rather all of our faults, now, isn't it?

Posted by: weboy at August 24, 2004 8:30 AM | Permalink

I'm thinking since so many of our fellow discussants on here clearly agree that we can't
move on until past wrongs are righted,
I'm sure I'll get a lot of backup in
calling for reparations to families of former slaves who were wronged for three hundred years before they were freed to meet the tender mercies of Jim Crow. Won't I?
They were clearly betrayed before and after the Civil War.
We want to make that right, don't we?
We couldn't just get over it and move on to other things with a moral mote in our eye of that size, could we?

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 24, 2004 8:51 AM | Permalink

I'd like to know what John, Eric, Billy and others here think about this:

Asked if Mr. Kerry had lied about his war record, Mr. Bush said, "Mr. Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record."

Was that an endorsement of the SBVT campaign and its claims? Or does it show that Bush is not persuaded by the Swifties and their record of truthfulness? Is it the Liberal Media again blowing things out of proportion? Did Bush lie when he said this (but then... why would he lie?) Was he caving in to a form of political correctness-- that is, hiding his true feelings about Kerry's service because he's unwilling to face groupthink reactions if he didn't conceal them? (Bizarre, but who knows?) Was he misquoted? Did he fail to think quickly enough when asked the question? Or let's see [sounds of rummaging] .... is it that he's so busy campaigning and governing that he didn't have time to really examine the Swift Boat Veterans' claims and so he doesn't know the strength of their case, but if he did know he wouldn't say: "Mr Kerry served admirably." Is that it?

I mean what is going on with that quote?

Posted by: Jay Rosen at August 24, 2004 9:09 AM | Permalink