On Kerry and Vietnam

But times have changed. Now, the very people who once opposed the Vietnam war would have us believe that a well-rounded résumé must include experience fighting in Southeast Asia. In fact, John Kerry can hardly complete a sentence without referencing that experience. And he wants the American people to believe it makes him uniquely qualified to lead our nation in wartime.

But more than 240 of his fellow Swift boat veterans disagree. They accuse Kerry of embellishing his war record and of receiving medals he didn’t earn. Either the anti-Kerry Swifties are engaged in a vast conspiracy of deceit–which is highly implausible–or else John Kerry has some explaining to do.

Predictably, the knee-jerk vilification of these veterans has already begun in the mainstream press. Once again, a group of honorable Vietnam veterans are being immolated on the pyre of John Kerry’s political ambition.

Thomas M. Beattie

Mt. Vernon, VA

The Mekong Election

I WAS DISAPPOINTED TO READ Andrew Ferguson’s “Marching to November” (Aug. 30) in THE WEEKLY STANDARD. For a moment, I thought I had mistakenly picked up the New York Times.

While many conservatives surely wish President Bush had served in Vietnam rather than stateside, Bush has not touted his wartime activities to prove his ability to lead this country in the war on terror. It was Senator Kerry and the Democrats, not the Swift boat veterans and the Bush campaign, that put Vietnam front and center in this election season. Perhaps the Democrats thought emphasizing Kerry’s Vietnam record would distract attention from his painful dearth of a common touch and his lackluster Senate career.

If Ferguson truly believes George W. Bush is not “personally or politically appealing,” he is living in the world of September 10, 2001. Since 9/11, Bush has shown leadership and a moral certitude that will rank him in the pantheon of great American presidents. If any Republican looks at this administration’s record and thinks otherwise, they should remember that horrendous day three years ago and imagine where we would be today if the party of John Kerry, Howard Dean, and (yes) Michael Moore had been in power.

Jamie M. Fly

Alexandria, VA

ANDREW FERGUSON misses the mark when he discusses Republican insecurities over George W. Bush’s military record (or the lack thereof). Most Republicans do find President Bush appealing–both “personally” and “politically”–for the way he has led our nation in the war on terror. By and large, they do not need to “convince themselves” that John Kerry isn’t a war hero in order to know that George W. Bush would make (indeed, has made) the better wartime commander in chief.

Regardless of the ongoing controversy, I believe John Kerry is a war hero. But there is a difference between war heroism as a Swift boat commander and wartime presidential leadership. Republicans realize this, even if the Kerry campaign and many Democrats do not.

Aaron Levisay

Sioux Falls, SD

WHAT MAKES ANDREW FERGUSON think that most Republicans don’t like President George W. Bush as their candidate? I voted for Bush in 2000, support him today, and sense that an overwhelming majority of Republicans love him.

For that matter, I served in the U.S. military during the 1960s, often beside Air National Guard officers. Their service was an honor to our nation; it was certainly not a cop-out. The conclusion Ferguson raises in “Marching to November”–that Republicans are uneasy about President Bush’s lack of actual combat experience–is a red herring.

BRAD SANDY

Carrollton, TX

ANDREW FERGUSON, as usual, is right on target in “Marching to November.” And the “thinly disguised secret”–that Republicans aren’t exactly crazy about George W. Bush–will peel off enough conservative voters to cost the president reelection in November.

Steve Mack

Arlington, VA

IT MUST HAVE BEEN HARD for a conservative such as Andrew Ferguson to write an article contrasting John Kerry’s Vietnam-era service with President Bush’s. But I thought “Marching to November” was magnificent. Thanks so much for publishing it.

Chris Charuhas

Frederick, MD

I THOUGHT Andrew Ferguson’s “Marching to November” was the first truly intelligent commentary I have seen on the Kerry-in-Vietnam ordeal. It was, indeed, a breath of fresh air!

S.G. Briggs

New Orleans, LA

The Vet Offensive

IN “THE BLOODY SHIRT IS BACK” (Aug. 30), Fred Barnes writes: “Never has a presidential nominee run on the basis of his role in a war he opposed.” This is only half correct.

In 1864, General George McClellan accepted the Democratic nomination under precisely those auspices. A section of the party platform, written by the so-called Peace Democrats, called for “a cessation of hostilities” in the Civil War. To be sure, after accepting the nomination, McClellan repudiated this position–thereby exposing a bitter division within the Democratic party.

Today’s Democratic party is plagued by a similar rift. The War Democrats heard their John Kerry speak at the convention; but the Peace Democrats have found their own John Kerry on the campaign trail. At some point, the two Kerrys–one pro-war, the other antiwar–will have to be reconciled.

Martin B. Lavengood

Marlton, NJ

READING FRED BARNES’S excellent piece, “The Bloody Shirt Is Back,” I am reminded of how highly Americans value a soldier’s selfless sense of duty. We love, moreover, when this sense of duty is reflected in a politician’s character. Senator John Kerry obviously realizes this.

But the duty of a soldier does not expire after the last shots have been fired on a particular battlefield, or after the war has ended. He has a continuing duty to speak truthfully about his service and the facts of the conflict after he returns home.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) understand this duty. If they truly believe Kerry lied about his Vietnam record, they cannot remain silent. Kerry has made his four-month tour the centerpiece of his campaign. Duty thus compels the SBVT to speak out during this time of national deliberation. That duty should be respected. It is not a “smear” to report what one genuinely believes is the truth.

Now, it is the duty of American journalists to investigate the relative veracity of the competing claims (those of Kerry and those of the SBVT). Thanks to Fred Barnes for framing the issue in its proper perspective. I hope other journalists will similarly rise to the challenge.

PAUL DEIGNAN

Lafayette, IN

Kerry in Combat

I APPRECIATE Matthew Continetti’s probing of John Kerry’s Vietnam record (“The Kerry Wars,” Aug. 30). But his analysis is ultimately too timid.

Indeed, Continetti provides an incomplete report of the evidence. He gives the accusations of the anti-Kerry Swift boat veterans short shrift. To take just one example: the circumstances under which Kerry won his Bronze Star.

Factual disputes about the particulars of a 36-year-old firefight or combat action can be difficult to resolve. But the Swifties present a compelling case that Kerry did not deserve his Bronze Star, which was awarded for his pulling Army Green Beret Jim Rassmann from the Bay Hap River while under enemy fire.

The Swifties claim there was no hostile fire. Kerry and Rassmann claim otherwise. But instead of engaging the Swifties’ arguments in his piece, Continetti merely dismisses them, writing, “The documentary evidence available so far backs Kerry’s story.” While records show that Lt. Larry Thurlow’s boat had three bullet holes in it following the Rassmann incident, the anti-Kerry Swifties say there were not any bullet holes in the other boats present. If Viet Cong had in fact ambushed the men, wouldn’t all the Swift boats have been riddled with bullets?

To be sure, the Swifties may be wrong about this incident, and others. But their account deserves equal treatment. Indeed, if the press pursues this story with the vigor it merits, John Kerry will regret making his Vietnam service the cornerstone of his campaign. Maybe he already does.

Ashby Camp

Tempe, AZ

AFTER FINISHING Matthew Continetti’s “The Kerry Wars,” I am left wondering whether he thinks John Kerry’s murky Vietnam record is, or is not, an important campaign issue.

Yes, Kerry may have fudged the truth about his alleged Cambodia mission of December 1968. But, as regards the 2004 presidential election, so what? Does the Cambodia story render John Kerry any more unfit for command than President Bush, who didn’t volunteer for Vietnam, and indeed used his father’s connections to avoid going at all? That’s the question conservatives need to answer.

R. Scott Rogers

Amsterdam, Netherlands

IN “THE KERRY WARS,” Matthew Continetti takes great pains to seem evenhanded, and he deserves praise for that. But he misses the underlying irony of the whole Swift boat affair.

When old grudges and political biases are combined with the inevitable “fog of war,” they make the truth of what may or may not have happened in Vietnam nearly impossible to get at.

But certain facts are irrefutable. Because of their privileged backgrounds, neither John Kerry nor George W. Bush had to fight in Vietnam. But one did and the other didn’t. So, today, one is a war hero and the other isn’t. And the fact that the war hero’s military record is now under such rabid partisan scrutiny is unconscionable.

Darin Strauss

Brooklyn, NY

MATTHEW CONTINETTI’S article, “The Kerry Wars,” was noteworthy for its objectivity. It’s rare for a journalist covering the Swift boat story to show such detached balance and evenhandedness. But the American public deserves to hear both sides of the controversy.

Sybil Hopkins

Oklahoma City, OK