|
« Rassmann Speaks | Main | Kerry and Cambodia » August 10, 2004Questioning Kerry's ServiceOne of the lines of argument advanced by John Kerry's defenders is that it is somehow inappropriate to question the circumstances surrounding his awards. This is a fascinating line of argument, since it often comes from the same people who assured us that it was perfectly legitimate to examine the circumstances of President Bush's National Guard service in excruciating detail. Why they consider calling President Bush a deserter or AWOL to be a legitimate exercise but having witnesses dispute Kerry's accounts of his actions in Vietnam a smear campaign I'll leave to the imagination of the reader. Kate O'Beirne points out (actually, pointed out, as the column is a few months old) that Kerry's record deserves the same degree of scrutiny as that demanded by the press of CNO Mike Boorda in 1996 (Boorda committed suicide when reporters raised the question of whether or not he was correct to wear a V decoration on two of his awards) or President Bush in 2004. Money guote: "It might well be that the release of all of Kerry's military records would refute the criticisms of some of those who served with him. But, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, craven or partisan motives shouldn't be attributed to Vietnam veterans who honor the symbols of honorable service." Kerry could kill this controversy easily if he would simply release his records. Thus far, he has refused to do so for certain key records. It may be that they're simply lost; as I noted during the Bush kerfuffle, the military loses records all the time. If so, Kerry should just say so. If not, however, the zeal with which the Democrats assailed President Bush's service leaves no other conclusion but that Kerry should release everything as well. If he's not willing to do so, it's hard not to speculate as to the reasons. Posted at August 10, 2004 07:58 AM
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: Comments"One of the lines of argument advanced by John Kerry's defenders is that it is somehow inappropriate to question the circumstances surrounding his awards." It is? Who's been saying that? I'd like to read it. Of course it's as appropriate as asking such question's about President Bush's service. "Why they consider calling President Bush a deserter or AWOL to be a legitimate exercise but having witnesses dispute Kerry's accounts of his actions in Vietnam a smear campaign I'll leave to the imagination of the reader." Could you name three such people you've read saying this, please? "It may be that they're simply lost; as I noted during the Bush kerfuffle, the military loses records all the time." Of course, Bush's records were mysteriously found again, a couple of months again, subsequent to the last time you commented on the topic; should I conclude that you missed that in not having subsequently commented, or did you just not find following up worth it? (Either is perfectly reasonable, of course; I'm just wondering.) "But, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, craven or partisan motives shouldn't be attributed to Vietnam veterans who honor the symbols of honorable service." The only attribution of partisan motivations that I've seen, to some SwiftBoat Vets, etc, has been about those with clear partisan history; I'm talking about credible commentators, to be sure, not random comments from Democratic Underground, or such. What records has Kerry not released that he should? (Just a straightforward question; this is ssomething you've obviously read about that I've not yet.) Posted by: Gary Farber at August 10, 2004 08:41 PM Kerry has not released the medical records surrounding his 2d and 3d purple hearts, nor the award recommendations for any of his awards. The medical records could eliminate the claims that his purple hearts were for non-battle-related wounds, while the award recommendations might help to show who was putting him in for the various decorations. As for the rest, I'm really not interested in playing gotcha games. If you believe that I'm simply making those claims up, that's your decision. Although you yourself have quoted Senator McCain's impugning of the group's motives, so it seems to me you would have little difficulty finding others who have said the same. What has Terry McAuliffe had to say on the subject, for example? Posted by: Andrew at August 11, 2004 04:56 AM What amazes me about Kerry is how thin-skinned he has been about any and all criticisms of his record, military or civilian. He must have led a sheltered life to survive this long in politics. Posted by: Bloodthirsty Warmonger at August 11, 2004 03:13 PM Post a comment |