From the beginning, it was clear that self-congratulation would
be the hub of democratic presidential candidate Sen. John
Kerry’s campaign. Conceived in sick irony, his opening
remarks at the Democratic National Convention echoed:
“I’m John Kerry, and I’m reporting for
duty.”
For several decades, the only issue candidate Kerry did not
flip-flop on was his claim that he was a Vietnam war hero, a Purple
Heart recipient and, by extension, a true American. At the
convention, videos, testimonials of fellow soldiers, and
Kerry’s own tempered maledictions made sure voters understood
this.
But because of a new book titled “Unfit for Command: Swift
Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” this final
luxury soon might be taken from him. His Vietnam record might be
more tarnished and unclear than he has suggested.
This book was written by John E. O’Neill ““ who in
1969 replaced Kerry as commander of Swift Boat PCF 94 ““ and
Jerome R. Corsi, an expert on the Vietnam anti-war movement.
The co-authors and some 200 “Swiftees” who support
the book charge that all of Kerry’s three Purple Hearts were
for minor injuries, two of which were self-inflicted and none of
which required hospitalization; that Kerry entered a deserted
Vietnamese village where he killed domestic animals and a fleeing
teenager; that Kerry actually never was in Cambodia, as he claimed
he was; and, in general, that Kerry is indeed unfit for
command.
Already one of these charges has been proven correct. In several
instances, Kerry has set his anti-war epiphany in Cambodia. Here,
the candidate claims, he was fired on by the Khmer Rouge and the
Viet Cong.
In 1979, Kerry wrote for the Boston Herald: “I remember
spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian
border, being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk
and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by
our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there
were no American troops was very real.”
He repeated this statement seven years later in a speech on the
Senate floor and multiple times in campaign addresses. It now seems
this story does not have any factual bearing whatsoever. (I will
leave aside the fact Richard Nixon was not president during
Christmas of 1968.)
In “Unfit for Command,” O’Neill and Corsi
document each living commander in Kerry’s chain of
command’s denial that Kerry was ever in Cambodia.
In response to this unraveling, Democrats have reacted
differently. Some have attacked the political motivations of the
Swift Boat veterans, claiming, as The Dallas Morning News claimed,
that the book is backed by rich Republicans for the re-election of
President Bush. Others have played the fashionably confused card,
saying what Kerry campaign adviser Jeh Johnson said on national
television: “He has since corrected the recorded to say it
was some place on a river near Cambodia, and he is certain that at
some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding
is that he is not certain about that date.” Others still,
like the Kerry-Edwards campaign and many media outlets, have
condemned the veterans but have ignored the Cambodia issue
itself.
Yet despite ex post facto modifications and attacks on
motivation, these Democrats have yet to refute the claim itself
““ that John Kerry was never in Cambodia, that Kerry has lied
or, to be less terse, flip-flopped again.
This news has surfaced just as Kerry was beginning to look like
a president, just as it became clear that the candidate finally had
struck a balance between being a heavy ideologue and a
diplomat.
Had Kerry not made his war heroism the prime selling point of
his presidential bid, I would condemn “Unfit for
Command” as irrelevant to the race. Candidates must be judged
based on qualifications relevant to the job of president of the
United States, not on completely immaterial actions in a remote
personal history.
But as Kerry wrongly has chosen to flaunt accolades from his
past as a replacement for his promises of the future, the veterans
deserve some attention and credit for attempting to beat the
candidate at his own game.
The American public has no right to the full release of John
Kerry’s service records, and Kerry has no right to the
presidency. But if this candidate wants to prove that his flawed
logic is not also fabricated, then he will comply with his
critics’ requests and settle the issue with a simple and
historic signature.
Until then, Americans will wonder whether Kerry’s spurious
war record is, in fact, better than Bush’s small one.
Hovannisian is a second-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.