August 20, 2004

IT'S NOT THE WAR RECORD, IT'S THE ANTI-WAR RECORD:

The Bloody Shirt Is Back: Did you know John Kerry served in Vietnam? (Fred Barnes, 08/30/2004, Weekly Standard)

THERE'S NEVER BEEN a presidential campaign like John Kerry's. Never has a presidential nominee made his own experience in a war the centerpiece of his campaign for the White House. In 1960, John F. Kennedy didn't hide his World War II record as commander of PT-109, but he didn't talk it up either. When asked about being a hero, he mocked the idea and said it stemmed from having his boat shot out from under him. John McCain's experience as a POW in Vietnam was well known when he ran for the Republican nomination in 2000. But he rarely mentioned it, except to note that his longest place of residence was Hanoi. Kerry is different. His speeches, TV ads, interviews, the entire Democratic convention--all have dwelled on his four months in Vietnam and the five medals he was awarded.

And there's still another unique aspect. Never has a presidential nominee run on the basis of his role in a war he opposed. Dwight Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, and the five ex-Union officers in the Civil War who became president benefited politically from their participation and leadership in a war. Most of them, in fact, were famous for their wartime service. Kerry, by contrast, became famous as a war protester, as the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, who charged that war crimes were being committed by American troops in Vietnam on a daily basis. Now Kerry has stood the Vietnam issue on its head. He insists it's his war record that shows he would be a strong president.

Why is Kerry leaning so heavily on his performance in Vietnam? It's a bulwark against attacks on his weak record on defense and national security as a U.S. senator since 1985.


Has anyone elected president ever vocally opposed a war in his past, besides Lincoln who opposed the Mexican-American (Grant opposed it but fought in it)?


MORE:
Some Veterans Still Bitter at Talk of Crimes: Senator's Activism Made A Lasting Impression (Josh White and Brian Faler, 8/21/04, Washington Post)

William Ferris was confined to a bed in a military hospital, his severed sciatic nerve reminding him of the attack on his Navy Swift boat in a Vietnamese river. A shot from a recoilless rifle had pierced the boat's pilothouse and then Ferris's body, leaving him in constant agony.

But it was what appeared on Ferris's television that really pained him. John F. Kerry, a decorated fellow Swift boat driver, was testifying before Congress about atrocities in Vietnam, throwing his medals away, speaking at antiwar rallies. Ferris, who was trying to rehabilitate himself back to active duty, felt betrayed.

"I was livid," Ferris, 57, of Long Island, N.Y., said yesterday, recalling how his dislike for the presidential candidate began in the early 1970s. "I said to myself at the time, this is someone who is using his experience for his own purposes, and this was long before he ever ran for office. I thought he was using, actually manipulating, what he had done in Vietnam. Just like he's doing now."

Ferris is one of 250 Swift boat veterans who in May signed an open letter to the Massachusetts senator asking for full disclosure of his military records, specifically focusing on events during a four-month tour in Vietnam for which Kerry was awarded medals for bravery in combat. The veterans group -- Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- has criticized Kerry for using his military experience as a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, arguing that the Democrat has exaggerated his experiences at war for political gain.

"I thought he was just another hot dog just trying to build his reputation," said Wayland Holloway of Searcy, Ark., who says he crossed paths with Kerry in 1969, one day before the future presidential candidate pulled Jim Rassmann from a river. "The first time I met John Kerry, frankly, I thought he was a very disingenuous person."

But while the group appears to be rooted in Republican politics and big money, several veterans who signed the letter said in interviews yesterday that they are casually into politics and generally are not convinced that Kerry is lying, but they do not like the candidate because of his polarizing speeches in the 1970s.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 20, 2004 10:00 PM
Comments

Kerry's pro-war/anti-war plan must have been numbers driven. He knows that his (antiwar) base trusts him to be the defense wimp he's been for 20 years in the Senate. The convention was to nail down his hawk credentials for the middle. Then he would move on to promise anything to anybody economics, but the Swifties threw a major monkey wrench into the timing. He's stuck in Vietnam.

Those two WaPo writers obviously didn't get the memo from the Home Office. How did that piece get by an editor?

Posted by: Dave Sheridan at August 21, 2004 5:14 AM

Has anyone elected president ever vocally opposed a war in his past,

I'm pretty sure George Washington had some second thoughts about the French and Indian (or Seven Years) War. ...

Posted by: Semolina Pilchard at August 21, 2004 10:18 AM

Semolina:

You think he supported the French and Indians?

Posted by: oj at August 21, 2004 10:24 AM

Grant opposed the Mexican War in his memoirs, but then again he wasn't elected for his service in Mexico.

Posted by: Brian (MN) at August 21, 2004 12:39 PM
« KEYES 6, OBAMA 0: | Main | AN UGLY FIRST IMPRESSION: »