Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Fending Off The Seventies | Main | One,Two,Many... »

A True Purple Heart Weighs In

Bob Dole says that Bob Dole is skeptical about his friend Senator Kerry's Purple Hearts. He's not very kind to his friend Senator Kerry in general:

...what I will always quarrel about are the Purple Hearts. I mean, the first one, whether he ought to have a Purple Heart -- he got two in one day, I think. And he was out of there in less than four months, because three Purple Hearts and you're out.

[Update a couple minutes later]

This Boston Globe editorial is simply mind boggling:

Kerry, on the other hand, may have done more than Dole to qualify as a genuine war hero. Although his tour in Vietnam was short, on at least two occasions he acted decisively and with great daring in combat, saving at least one man's life and earning both a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. That's not our account or Kerry's; it is drawn from eyewitnesses and the military citations themselves.

Ignoring, of course, the much greater number of eyewitnesses who dispute it, and the possibility that the citations are based on false testimony.

And this bit is amazing as well:

Rather than seeking debate, however, this group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is attempting political assassination, claiming in ads and a best-selling book that Kerry is "Unfit for Command." In many cases the charges conflict with statements the same men made in the past. Sometimes the allegations contradict documentary evidence.

"Rather than seeking debate"? They're eager to join in a debate, but the media refuses to interview them for the most part. It's John Kerry who is resisting debate. He won't even address the charges, instead slandering them and accusing them of being Republican attack dogs.

Anyway, on to the relevant part of the Dole interview with Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: First of all, Senator, what's your bottom line on this whole ad campaign?

DOLE: I think this can hurt Kerry more than all the medal controversy. I mean, one day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons. The next day he's standing there, "I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran."

And I think he's -- I said months ago, "John, don't go too far." And I think he's got himself into this wicket now where he can't extricate himself because not every one of these people can be Republican liars. There's got to be some truth to the charges.

But this is on tape. This is on television. This is before the Senate committee.

BLITZER: Just to remind our viewers, this is when he came back from Vietnam. He testified in 1971...

DOLE: Ran for Congress. BLITZER: Right. And he was quoting a whole bunch of other Vietnam veterans who opposed the war and making these allegations of atrocities, if you will, war crimes committed by U.S. troops.

And a lot of people have always suggested that what's really angered these Vietnam veterans, the other side, is, not so much what he did or didn't do when he served in Vietnam, but what he did when he came back.

DOLE: I think that's true. And I think this ad's going to take -- it's going to be tough on Kerry because -- and he says, "Well, this is all hearsay," what he picked up from other veterans. But he said it. He said it before a Senate committee. It had worldwide attention.

BLITZER: The fact that he said on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press" a few months ago he probably went too far. He was a young man just back from Vietnam, and he probably shouldn't have said some of those things during those statements when he came home from Vietnam. Does that ease the responsibility that he has?

DOLE: Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam.

And here's, you know, a good guy, good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out.

I think Senator Kerry needs to talk about his Senate record, which is pretty thin. That's probably why he's talking about his war record, which is pretty confused.

BLITZER: You know, the American public seems to be paying attention to these Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads. There's a CBS poll that came out. I think this is the right poll. Here it is. Presidential choice among veterans, 37 percent support Kerry-Edwards, 55 percent Bush-Cheney. But after the convention it was at 46 percent.

He seems to be losing support among veterans, which is an influential bloc of voters out there.

DOLE: You know, I think it's too early to tell what -- nobody maybe in six -- how many days left? Not many. There are eight weeks. Maybe this will be forgotten. Maybe there will be something else. But I think this has certainly damaged Senator Kerry.

And I think it's partly his own doing. He can't lay out -- I remember in '96, I was the veteran in the race. Bill Clinton avoided the draft. And we didn't have all this trouble over my service versus his non-service. There wasn't much written about it. People accepted the fact that I had a record.

Now there's all the talk about Bush's National Guard service. Has he told the truth? Has he released the records? And one way, I think, for John Kerry, who I consider to be a friend, is to maybe apologize to all these people for something he may have said at a very early age, and let us have those records he's given to the author...

BLITZER: Douglas Brinkley.

DOLE: Douglas Brinkley, the records and the journals...

BLITZER: Who wrote a book about his experience.

DOLE: Yes. But somebody ought to find out the facts. I think this is going to be -- could be the sleeper issue.

BLITZER: Based on what I'm hearing you say, you tend to suggest that these Swift Boat Veterans have a point when they go out and make the statements they're making. If so, you would seem to disagree with John McCain, who's also a friend of yours...

DOLE: Yes, but, John wasn't there. He was up in the air. He wasn't any...

BLITZER: He was a POW.

DOLE: Well, yes. But he wasn't -- he was in Vietnam, but he wasn't on the swift boat.

BLITZER: But listen to what he said only this past week. I want you to listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I believe that President Bush served honorably in the National Guard, and I believe that service in the National Guard is honorable. And I believe that John Kerry served honorably.

And there are more compelling issues. Today, probably, an American will die in Iraq, a young American. We should be focusing our attention on winning that war, not trying to refight one that's been over for 30 years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOLE: And John McCain is absolutely correct. But as I recall, it was Terry McAuliffe who made reference to President Bush as being AWOL. They dragged up all the stuff. I think there were 80 stories in the media about the National Guard. There's only been about eight or 10 on the so-called Kerry flap.

So it seems to me they've initiated it, and now they've got into some rather murky area. But I don't -- I wish they'd forget it. It's not about whether or not you're...

BLITZER: There's a lot more important issues in this campaign that should be focused on. But McCain earlier said that these attack ads against John Kerry, who he says is a friend of his, are dishonest, dishonorable, and he would like the president specifically to disassociate himself from these ads.

DOLE: Well, then he is cooperating with the committee. Then he is coordinating. I listened to John O'Neill the other night, who is one of the sponsors of these ads, saying in no way...

BLITZER: He's the author of this new book.

DOLE: Yes, he's the author of the book, "Unfit for Command," saying we're not going to listen to the president. There isn't any coordination. That would be coordination.

President Bush has disavowed the ads. What else can he do?

BLITZER: He's disavowed all these 527 ads, these so-called organizations, these independent organizations.

DOLE: Moveon.org, which is funding all these vicious attacks against President Bush.

You know, I would like to talk about -- you know, I think they ought to talk about the record. But Senator Kerry's record in the Senate, I served with him for 14 years, I can't remember a single piece of legislation that bore his name. And maybe he did a lot of good work, but it wasn't very obvious.

BLITZER: What a lot of Democrats are saying, they're suggesting there's a pattern here in going after John Kerry's Vietnam war record, similar to what Republicans did to John McCain in the South Carolina primary in 2000.

At that time, John McCain was in a neck-and-neck battle with the president for the Republican presidential nomination. I want you to listen to what he said to the president in that debate on February 15, 2000.

DOLE: I saw it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: But let me tell you what really went over the line. Governor Bush had an event, and he paid for it, and stood next to a spokesman for a fringe veterans group. That fringe veteran said that John McCain had abandoned the veterans.

Now, I don't know how if you can understand this, George, but that really hurts.

BUSH: Yes.

MCCAIN: That really hurts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOLE: Yes, that does hurt. I mean, I'm a veteran. And these same people now are going after Bush. I didn't see them going after Clinton in '96 because he didn't serve at all. They were going after me on my record.

That's why I say we ought to get back to the issues. Let's talk about the issues. Let's talk about taxes, the environment, jobs. John Kerry -- very articulate. You know, he's not a...

BLITZER: Well, because one of the things you're suggesting -- and I want to make sure our viewers are not left with the wrong impression, Senator, is that you seem to think there is some doubt whether John Kerry deserved those ribbons and medals that he got, serving in Vietnam.

I want you to listen to what Senator John Warner, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a friend of yours, he was on this program sitting in that seat only one week ago. He was secretary of the Navy when John Kerry got that Silver Cross. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal, a very high one, when it goes through the Secretariat. So I'd stand by the process that awarded him that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The Silver Star he was talking about. You obviously believe Senator Warner.

DOLE: Yes, but I don't think Senator Warner drafted the citation or even, you know, they'd gone so far as to say Kerry wrote up his own record.

BLITZER: But what Senator Warner said is there was a process that, when it got to him, the secretary of the Navy, he had total confidence that it was justified. And that if he got the Silver Star, John Kerry, he believes it was justified.

DOLE: I don't quarrel with that. I said John Kerry's a hero. But what I will always quarrel about are the Purple Hearts. I mean, the first one, whether he ought to have a Purple Heart -- he got two in one day, I think. And he was out of there in less than four months, because three Purple Hearts and you're out.

And as far as I know, he's never spent one day in the hospital. I don't think he draws any disability pay. He doesn't have any disability. And boasting about three Purple Hearts when you think of some of the people who really got shot up in Vietnam...

BLITZER: And speaking about people getting shot up in Vietnam, the Democrats, at least some Democrats, are now going after the president and the vice president for avoiding service in Vietnam. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, Democrat...

DOLE: He's not a very good one to complain because he was hiding out in Japan, claiming he was a Vietnam veteran.

BLITZER: Well, that's another matter.

DOLE: Yes, I know it is.

BLITZER: Let's talk about what he said. He said this. He said, "Those of us who served and those of us who went in the military don't like it when someone like a Dick Cheney comes out and he wants to be tough. Yes, he'll be tough. He'll be tough with somebody else's blood, somebody else's kids, but not when it was his turn to go."

So there's two sides to this type of debate.

DOLE: Oh, no doubt about it. You know, this is a very sensitive -- a lot of mothers and a lot of fathers and a lot of wives who have lost their husbands and a lot of mothers who have lost their sons -- this is a very, very sensitive area. And it ought to be treated that way.

Somebody ought to be, somebody like Wolf Blitzer, ought to take a week off and go out and give us the facts because people, the American people, will believe you.

Right now, there's probably a certain amount of truth here and a certain amount of truth there. But we don't know what the real truth is.

BLITZER: I'm not so sure the American would believe me if I...

DOLE: Well, I would.

(LAUGHTER)

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 22, 2004 02:38 PM

Comments

Back from travels:

From Bob Dole's autobiography, on his first Purple Heart:
"As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg -- the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."

Sound familiar?

From this vantage point, it looks like the the Bush Campaign - formal and informal - has hit the bottom of the barrel. After this they will only have the mysterious American Barbers for Unity to fall back on.

Possibly the biggest and most insubstantial mud explosion in American political history.

Posted by Duncan Young at August 22, 2004 03:41 PM

It's the comparison to his second Purple Heart (you know, the one that left him with an essentially useless arm for the rest of his life, and that almost killed him?) that I find outrageous, not the first one. Of course, it also helped that Dole didn't come back in 1944 and testify to Congress about all the atrocities routinely and daily being committed by Americans in Europe, with knowledge up and down the line. It also helped that he didn't take along a movie crew to reenact his heroic exploits.

Do I think that his behavior in Vietnam disqualifies him for the presidency? No. Do I think that it is sufficient justification to elect him? No, but he was counting on the fact that many apparently do (and that no one would ever dare question them).

He who lives by the exaggerated war stories, dies by them as well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 22, 2004 03:56 PM

Self inflicted wounds count...

...as long as there's actually an enemy there and you didn't do it deliberately.

Duh.

Posted by Al at August 22, 2004 04:24 PM

The Boston Globe article referred directly only to Dole's first Purple Heart:
"IMAGINE IF supporters of Bill Clinton had tried in 1996 to besmirch the military record of his opponent, Bob Dole. After all, Dole was given a Purple Heart for a leg scratch probably caused, according to one biographer, when a hand grenade thrown by one of his own men bounced off a tree. "

And a Silver Star trumps a Bronze Star by definition.

And their have been questions about the exact heroism of Dole's actions. However the perfidious liberals of the time did not fund a massive television ad campaign on the matter. Are you saying that that is a debate that should have taken place in 1996?

I think it is a bit specious to compare the appropriate response to an 21-month long invasion of a rather dangerous superpower by a homogenous army with good moral to that of a decade long attempted occupation of a third world ex-colony by a heterogeneous army with bad moral. War crimes likely occurred on all sides in both cases, but for the former the collateral cost was clearly worth it for the United States; individual criminal actions was also a lot less likely, due to generally good moral. Meanwhile the United States did actually survived the loss of South Vietnam - the direct and collateral costs of the war were not worth the effort of keeping Saigon. A legitimate point that Lt. Kerry (Ret.) was trying to make.

Posted by Duncan Young at August 22, 2004 04:39 PM

Are you saying that that is a debate that should have taken place in 1996?

Did Bob Dole make his service the cornerstone of his campaign? Not that I recall. They probably could have, but it would have backfired on them big time. There are reasons that won't be the case with Kerry, because he's never had much support among Vets.

A legitimate point that Lt. Kerry (Ret.) was trying to make.

In a needlessly despicable way, in order to maintain his creds with his anti-war (and anti-Amerikkka) buds. And he wasn't retired. He was in the reserve at the time.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 22, 2004 04:59 PM

Kerry is running on his war record. He lied about his war record (Cambodia). He wants the support of veterans. He accused his fellow soldiers of war crimes in public testimony. Strange way to ask for their support. Kerry made questions about his service a legitimate issue by running on it. I was glad to see Bob Dole comment about his Senate record, such as it is. If he can't tell the truth about his time in Vietnam and he can't run on his record in the Senate, what does he have left? It looks like whining and complaining.

Posted by Bill Maron at August 22, 2004 05:25 PM

Bill:
Lemme proof read that:
Kerry is running on his documented war record. He may have confused Christmas and Tet in a war story he hasn't told in a decade (Cambodia). He wants the support of veterans. He repeated the accounts of his fellow soldiers of war in public testimony.

Rand:
I wasn't here for that one, but it seems Dole's service was implicit in the whole "character" angle of the GOP's '96 campaign.

Fair comment about his use of the vet angle to prop up Kerry's lack of legislative achievement in the Senate, though (although he did make an impact in Senate investigations)

Posted by Duncan Young at August 22, 2004 05:53 PM

He may have confused Christmas and Tet in a war story he hasn't told in a decade (Cambodia).

So as a presidential candidate, there's a statute of limitations on creating war fantasies (probably based on watching Coppola movies) to support your political position of how evil your country is? The notion of his simply confusing two holidays is a non-starter. There's zero evidence that he was ever in Cambodia at all, ever, other than his (dubious, at this point) word, and much that he wasn't.

And there is a difference between implicit and explicit.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 22, 2004 06:36 PM

Duncan, let me expand on that (Cambodia). A story he told on the floor of the U.S. Senate for which there is no documentation anywhere or that he was IN Cambodia at all. In his testimony he said, "the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out." That sounds like an accusation to me. But the focus should be on his Senate record or lack thereof. That is the real story, all that time in the Senate and nothing to show for it. I hate to see people focus on the potatoes and not the meat. The same mistake was made with Clinton. Instead of a cigar and a dress, it should have been illegal contributions by a foreign national and the influence that money bought.

Posted by Bill Maron at August 22, 2004 06:36 PM

Duncan, I should add that, as to the "character angle" of any campaign against Bill Clinton, no WW II experience was necessary. It was sufficient to be not Bill Clinton. Unfortunately, Dole was a dud as a candidate, and the press had insulated much of the public from evidence of Clinton's ample character problems, obvious to anyone paying attention...

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 22, 2004 07:10 PM

Mr. Young,

I'm a veteran and Dole's read on Kerry's Purple Heart is good enough for me. At least Dole faced the enemy. Who knows what Kerry was doing.

Posted by Jim Rohrich at August 22, 2004 08:01 PM

I will add that for once I agree with something in the Weekly Standard.

Bill: Kerry played a key role in knocking down BCCI, including getting grand old Democrat Clark Clifford indicted despite the wishes of the Democratic establishment. That was a real Senate achievement.

Jim: Thank you for your service. I suspect the paper work for Dole's first Purple Heart is about as good as for Kerry's. Can you prove that Dole faced the enemy, by the same standard that you are applying to Kerry?

Rand: "..(probably based on watching Coppola movies)...", as I understand it the Cambodia business first came up in a review of Apocalypse Now Kerry wrote in 1979.

A question to find out where people sit on this: Do you think acts similar to those described by Kerry in 1971 actually happened in Vietnam? Yes or no.

Posted by Duncan Young at August 22, 2004 10:43 PM

A question to find out where people sit on this: Do you think acts similar to those described by Kerry in 1971 actually happened in Vietnam? Yes or no.

Of course the answer is probably yes. We have, after all, Lieutenant Calley's case as an example.

Also, of course, that is a straw man, Duncan.

Kerry didn't just testify that they occurred. He testified that they occurred routinely, every day, and were sanctioned by every officer, up and down the line. He slandered the entire US military involved in Vietnam (probably implicitly including ANZAC).

Do you agree with that? Yes or no.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 22, 2004 10:55 PM

And let's not forget he claimed to have committed war crimes as well in that 1971 performance.

Posted by Greg at August 22, 2004 11:26 PM

"Kerry didn't just testify that they occurred. He testified that they occurred routinely, every day, and were sanctioned by every officer, up and down the line. "

Could you link to a transcript that says "every"?

'Cos I don't see it here.

Now, a policy that included a focus on body counts, an acceptance of free fire zones, and (by Nixon) an implicit recognition that the United States could not defeat the enemy, and that real freedom for the Vietnamese was not on the cards, would result in the conditions that Kerry described. Nobody was saying "Lets go out and commit some war crimes today!". But the Vietnamese were expendable. That policy was not the responsibility of the officers. The fault lay with the civilian leadership's conception of the war.

And on Lt. Calley - My Lai was exposed through the actions of a couple of brave men, required years to prosecute, and resulted in a wrist-slap. It does not inspire confidence that anywhere near all such events got deeply investigated.

Greg: Cite?

Posted by Duncan Young at August 22, 2004 11:49 PM

Duncan Young

Since you (presumably) have read the Kerry 1971 testimony, and STILL think Kerry was not condemning his fellow war veterans as war criminals and monsters, we will never have a meeting of the minds. The meaning of Kerry's testimony is crystal clear to fair minded viewers.

Believe what you will, but I think if every American voter had a chance to see a complete video of Kerry's 1971 statement to the U.S. Senate, Kerry would lose the election in a landslide.

Now that is an interesting question, does some website out there somewhere have the complete video of Kerry's testimony? Then at least all people with fast connections could see it.

Posted by Brad at August 23, 2004 12:44 AM

"..But I think that in this question you have to separate guilt from responsibility, and I think clearly the responsibility for what has happened there lies [not with Calley].

I think it lies with the men who designed free fire zones. I think it lies with the men who encouraged body counts."
--Kerry, '71.

Kerry is not pointing the finger at the soldiers - he's pointing it at their leadership. In Kerry's view, the veterans are as much victims as the Vietnamese - made a collective 'monster' by being placed in an impossible situation and then abandoned when they came home.

Why the heck would Kerry insist on fixing the VA on the behalf war criminals?

Posted by Duncan Young at August 23, 2004 01:48 AM

Duncan, you're so full of crap, you MUST have brown eyes.

Face it: Kerry's a specious idiot. You can cite and spout all you want, that fact isn't going to change. In the face of crisis, Kerry would worry about his image. If he had been in that school room chair on 9/11, he'd have rushed right out, and his first order would have been to make sure a film crew was on hand to document his bravery and heroics as he dialed the UN's phone number while getting his hair coiffed.

On the original topic, I am continually saddened by the obvious bias in the media. Blitzer desperately tried to get Kerry off the hook for what he's said and done. Having those video clips staged the way he did was SO telling. Where was the outrage over Michael Moore or MoveOn?

Oh, there I go again, expecting the media to be intelligent [slaps forehead].

Posted by Dave G at August 23, 2004 07:53 AM

Rand:

Thank you. I'll be adding you to the blogroll.

Posted by Jheka at August 23, 2004 08:53 AM

Duncan: Dole stated he threw a grenade short and "must" of been wounded by shrapnel from it. The supposed "self-inflicted" wound that earned him his first Purple Heart. In the end, who can prove that? It may of been that or it may of been something else. What can be proven is Dole, along with the men he commanded, later advanced on a German machine nest. While Dole was pulling a man to safety, he was severely wounded a second time and ultimately lost the use of his right arm (his second Purple Heart). Sorry, but for me, whatever Kerry did in Vietnam doesn't quite measure up to that. There is no comparsion between the two.

Posted by Jim Rohrich at August 23, 2004 10:48 AM

Dunkin:

made a collective 'monster' by being placed in an impossible situation

That's right, Kerry didn't accuse his fellow soldiers of being "war criminals"--ohh noo--

They're just "monsters".. Nice.

Posted by Arvin Wallace at August 24, 2004 11:29 PM

One more thing Duncan.

Your blog made me sleepy.. good night.

Posted by Arvin Wallace at August 24, 2004 11:32 PM

I recall every Presidential campaign since 1976, including that of 1996, and no, Bob Dole certainly did not make his World War II service the centerpiece of his campaign. In fact, I don't think anyone has since 1960, which is far from coincidental.

Mr. Young is undertaking a version of one half of the old law-school adage (viz. "if the facts are against you, argue the law") which I might paraphrase as "If the essence of the matter is against you, argue the details." Whether John Kerry said "every" or "most" or "87.556%" of U.S. military officers were committing or complicit in barbarity in Vietnam is disingenuous pilotomy. The essential point of Mr. Kerry's many 1970s speeches was that the U.S. military was thoroughly barbarous and corrupt in Vietnam, with, of course, one or two exceptions (e.g. his own most excellent self). No one contradicts this -- not Kerry, not his media fellatrices, nor, I suspect, Mr. Young himself.

So the bottom line is: does Mr. Kerry stand today by that point of view, or not?

It's understood that people make asinine statements when they are young or in the heat of events. But Mr. Kerry has had long years to reflect coolly on what he said in his perhaps intemperate youth, and he is besides a grown man of 60 today, an aspirant to the supreme leadership of the country, not a young hothead Deadhead. What does Senator Kerry say now? What is his considered opinion? Does he, essentially, basically, on balance, and except for whatever minor details he wants to stipulate, agree with the 1971 Lieutenant Kerry that the U.S. military was a corrupt and murderous organization in Vietnam?

Or not? It's a simple question. It's not unreasonable to expect a simple answer, not when he's had 30 years to think it over, and not when he has listed this part of his life first on his resume for President.

The fact that he resists so strenuously even having the question posed is, by me, an ugly commentary on his character, or perhaps I should say lack thereof. I am struck by how different he sounds than Bob Dole in the interview Mr. Simberg excerpts above. Mr. Dole does not duck a question, does not flinch from an embarassment where he's earned it, and can disagree with his opponents courteously.

I disagree with Mr. Dole, however, that we need to "get back to the issues," if by that he means the standard campaign boilerplate promising this or that chicken in the pot if you vote appropriately. Such perennial sales-pitch hot air tells us zip squared about what the man would actually be like in office. But I do think we can draw useful conclusions about what he'd be like based on watching him now, noting whether he reacts to challenges with dignity and courage, or like a pampered prep-school bully.

Posted by Chauncy at August 25, 2004 02:47 AM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?