by Heidi Parent
09/01/04
A group of swift boat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam are airing commercials that question certain aspects of his war record. Now we could argue all day over whether or not the accusations are true, but I'd rather focus on the double standard with which the mainstream media has responded to this story and how Kerry has answered the charges.
First, let's tackle the media. The biggest indication of this double standard is the fact that the stories of Kerry and his vet supporters are accepted as gospel by the press, but the claims of swift vets are dismissed out of hand as lies. Moreover, instead of dealing with the message, the media are questioning the legitimacy of the messenger. This is quite reminiscent of the way they dealt with the accusations made by Arkansas state troopers during Clinton's 1992 campaign. When reports began to surface regarding Bill's extracurricular activities as Governor, the media didn't look into the legitimacy of the claims, but instead attacked the credibility of the troopers.
Now this type of response would be made more acceptable, if it was also applied when Republicans are the ones being attacked. But clearly, it is not. Look no further for proof then the way the media responded when earlier this year Democrats (including Kerry's own campaign) questioned the President's National Guard attendance record. The media didn't question the legitimacy of the people making the charges, they didn't dismiss the charges as "smear tactics," nor did they demand that Kerry denounce the attacks as unfair. Instead they stood in the White House press room day after day pounding their collective fist demanding proof that Bush showed up for duty.
But when charges are leveled against Kerry, the media's tune quickly changes. They haven't demanded that Kerry provide proof to refute the charges, but instead they have chosen to attack the credibility of the swift boat veterans. And to further enable Kerry's defense, they have also parroted his demand that President Bush order the swift boat vets to stop running the ads. (Which raises a question in itself. Independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth are prohibited by federal law from coordinating with a campaign. Now I'm not a lawyer, but if President Bush was to ask the group to pull the ads, and the group adhered to his wishes, wouldn't this constitute coordination, or at the very least cooperation?)
On to Kerry's response.
Now in my mind there are three ways for a candidate to respond when accusations are made – ignore them, display indifference, or fight back. When his National Guard service record was questioned, the President employed two of these three. First, he personally displayed indifference (i.e., I can't change what people say about me.), which speaks volumes to a candidate's temperament. But at the same time he fought back, but the key is the way in which he did it. Personally staying above the fray, he instead he allowed his surrogates to speak for him.
Kerry, on the other hand, isn't indifferent to the attacks on his record. Quite the contrary. He is incredulous. As a result, he has decided to launch an all out offensive. But, he has chosen to enter the fray himself. Now some candidates have been successful with this type of defense (Nixon's "Checkers" speech comes to mind).
But this type of strategy can be very risky because how a candidate's attempt to defend himself is perceived by voters makes all the difference in whether or not his side of the story is believed. Is the defense borne of truth (i.e., disputing the accusations with facts) or is it borne of a “how dare you question me!" defensive attitude. Since Kerry seems downright outraged by the accusations, but has yet to offer any evidence to refute the specific charges, I can't help but wonder if Shakespeare was on to something: John Kerry doth protest too much, methinks. Apparently so do a lot of other people because his "outrage defense" didn't work.
So Kerry decided to shift gears and employ a different strategy. Trying to change the subject, Kerry said he would rather “talk about real issues that concern the American people, like health care.” This is absurd considering Vietnam was all he wanted to talk about when the topic benefited his campaign. But now that questions regarding his service have been raised, he suddenly would rather focus on “real issues.” (Does this mean his Vietnam service record isn't a real issue?) This strategy sounds eerily like the one Clinton used whenever he was hit by a scandal. He also never felt the need to answer “frivolous accusations” because he always had to “get back to work for the American people.”
The question of whether Kerry earned his medals legitimately will almost certainly always be a he said/he said issue, so we may never know the truth. However, one issue with which I do firmly side with the swift boat vets is the issue of Kerry's participation in the anti-war movement, specifically his Senate testimony in 1971.
Kerry had the right to protest, of course, but he didn't have the right to label every man and woman in the United States military a war criminal. Moreover, anti-war activities, particularly at the level in which Kerry participated, did a great disservice to the soldiers still serving. Therefore I believe the choices he made and the judgment he exercised deserve some scrutiny. But whenever anyone has dared broach the subject, his supporters fire back with “How dare you question a war hero!” and go on to tout his service record, which I find ridiculous. The two should be viewed independent of one another. To dismiss questions of his anti-war activities simply because he saw combat in Vietnam is ludicrous. If one served in an honorable profession, let's say as a police officer or firefighter, but then decided to rob a bank, should his crime be excused? Or how about an FBI or CIA agent who decided to sell state secrets? Should his honorable service overshadow his treasonous activities? Now I'm not making the argument that Kerry's anti-war activities are equal to robbing a bank or treason, I'm simply saying that his anti-war activities should be judged for what they are.
Moreover, his participation in the anti-war movement reveals another common Kerry theme: opportunism. Why? Well, for one, if his anti-war sentiments were (and are) deeply held convictions (which is laughable considering this is John Kerry we're talking about) why doesn't he still express them? And if he does still harbor anti-war feelings, why is he basing his entire campaign on his war record and proudly associating himself with a war he so fervently condemned? Furthermore, why he is so eager to surround himself with veterans he so willingly labeled war criminals? (And perhaps just as perplexing is why these veterans would be willing to stand beside the person who made these accusations.) It seems to me that if one harbored anti-war sentiments, he wouldn't want to continue to be associated with the war. Nor would he portray himself as a hero of a war he so deeply opposed.
Which raises another point - a legitimate war hero usually doesn't brag about his war heroics. In fact, most won't discuss their heroics even when asked. Does anyone recall George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole - both unquestionably war heroes - making their war service the centerpiece of their respective campaigns? Me either. That's one reason why I tend to find the claims of someone who puffs out his chest and “reports for duty” with a mock salute a bit dubious.
All this considered, I find Kerry's actions, both today and thirty years ago, the height of hypocrisy. But more importantly, they are just additional examples of Kerry acting out of political expediency rather than a deeply held conviction.