Presidential Candidate War Records

Again, ABC's Nightline has given me fodder for my log. Last night, they broadcast a program discussing the war records of John Kerry and, to a lesser extent, George W. Bush. The program concentrated on recent TV commercials that are criticizing John Kerry and accusing him of lying or exaggerating to achieve his war medals and denounced him as an unfit leader. Serious allegations.

The men accusing Kerry are themselves fellow veterans, not media hacks or people without some any first-hand knowledge of his actions in Vietnam. Furthermore, one would assume that criticizing a fellow veteran especially over something as serious as lying about his actions in combat to achieve medals, is not done lightly, no matter what the personal or political gains. However, one of the men now criticizing Kerry was an ardent supporter in the 1996 Senate race, publicly speaking out in favour of Kerry based on his leadership qualities and his demonstrated and acknowledged bravery in Vietnam. However, in 2004, something has made him change his mind.

When one watches a political commercial, one must ask who is behind it and what motiviations do they have. Obviously, if the issue had been so serious, these veterans should have sought to have his actions investigated before or soon after the medals were awarded, not 30 years later when the motivation seems so obviously political. In addition, the commercials are funded in large part by a diehard Texas Republican who has close connections with Karl Rove, Bush's Senior Advisor.

When the program interviewed the veterans, they seemed more critical of Kerry's actions after the war than his actual performance during it. Kerry's anti-war stance after returning seemed to be the focus of their anger and this anger is certainly understandable since Kerry's position undermined the sacrifices and risks that all veterans faced. On the Net, there is a website called Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry which outlines their crticism of the presidential candidate. It does provide some interesting reading although I thought a lot of the material seemed to portray Mr. Kerry as a man of compassion and critical thought rather than some radical idealist that should not be trusted. The excerpt below is from the above website. The part italicized is highlighted in the original text.

Kerry commanded his first swift boat, No. 44, from December 1968 through January 1969. He received no medals while serving on this craft.
While in command of Swift Boat 44, Kerry and crew operated without prudence in a Free Fire Zone, carelessly firing at targets of opportunity racking up a number of enemy kills and some civilians. His body count included-- a woman, her baby, a 12 year-old boy, an elderly man and several South Vietnamese soldiers."It is one of those terrible things, and I'll never forget, ever, the sight of that child," Kerry later said about the dead baby. "But there was nothing that anybody could have done about it. It was the only instance of that happening."Kerry said he was appalled that the Navy's ''free fire zone'' policy in Vietnam put civilians at such high risk.
Kerry experienced his first intense combat action on Dec. 2, 1968. He was slightly wounded on his arm, earning his first Purple Heart. In late January 1969, Kerry joined a five-man crew on swift boat No. 94 completing 18 missions over 48 days, almost all of them in the Mekong Delta

Unlike George W. Bush who never served in combat, John Kerry's experience with the trauma and reality of war has given him a unique perspective that certainly influences his decision-making process. This experience, as intangible as it is, can only help a president understand what it means to activate the military and send them half way around the world to engage in a conflict.

The program also discussed whether or not the Democrats have a right to criticize anti-Kerry ads that focus on his war record when the Democrats themselves have ads that focus on George W. Bush's war record or, more importantly, lack of it. To me, they are different issues. There is no dispute that John Kerry served in Vietnam, put himself at risk, and was awarded metals. Whether he deserved these metals or not can be disputed but it does not dismiss their existence. Furthermore, his anti-Vietnam stance was born out of experience rather than simple idealism that other anti-war protestors could be accused of. The ads attacking George W. Bush focus on an absence of any documentation about his activities in 1972. Also, the documentation that does exist indicates a concerted attempt to avoid duty in Vietnam and even a failure to fulfill his basic military obligations. These are very different issues. John Kerry could be viewed as a student who receives a university degree with an A average. However, some of his professors and fellow students criticize him for really being a B student and not deserivng all the accolades. George Bush, on the other hand, purports to have a degree but no one has heard of the university and none of the professors or fellow students are available to confirm his claim. Which is more worthy of criticsm?

Regardless, a war record is only one aspect of a candidate and it certainly shouldn't be used as the sole basis for making one's decision. At the same time, it should be understood that the criticism of Kerry's war record is a rather weak and underhanded political attempt to discredit a man who served his country and put his life at risk while distracting voters from the inconsistencies and issues the plague George W. Bush's record.