Garin Hovannisian’s column (Aug. 16) questioning
Kerry’s war heroism is as misleading as it is misguided. He
bases his attacks on the partisan group Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth, a cadre of attack dogs so lacking in credibility they make
Nixon look honest.
The criticisms Hovannisian repeats focus not on Kerry’s
heroism but on the severity of the injuries leading to his three
purple hearts and his recollection of a fire fight in Cambodia.
That Kerry’s wounds were not severe is immaterial ““ the
Navy has no guidelines for how much blood must be lost to merit a
medal. The Purple Heart is awarded for being injured in the heat of
battle. Since no one ““ not even Kerry’s critics ““
are questioning that shrapnel hit him, every one of his Purple
Hearts was deserved under Navy guidelines.
As for the truly despicable assertion that the wounds were
self-inflicted, the correct response is a raised eyebrow coupled
with a condescending chuckle. Until someone ““ anyone ““
can come forward with anything but an unfounded assertion against
Kerry’s record, there is failure to meet the burden of proof.
More to the point, there’s no way, even if the wounds were
self-inflicted, that the Swift Boat Veterans would know about it
considering that almost none of them served with him.
Yes, you read that correctly. Some served at the same time but
on different boats than Kerry. Others served on the same boat, but
not with Kerry. But only one served on Kerry’s boat while
Kerry was there.
Still, it’s not as if Kerry was alone on his craft; he was
with others who were sharing in his fire fights and subject to his
leadership. Why don’t we ask these men about Kerry? One of
them is associated with the Swift Boat Veterans, but the other nine
are the guys arrayed behind Kerry at the Democratic National
Convention; they’re the ones who stumped across Iowa, called
Kerry a born leader, and spent the last year testifying to his
heroism and leadership.
With that smear hopefully dispatched, let’s move on to the
issue of Cambodia. The kernel of this issue is that John Kerry has
said over the past few decades that he was involved in a fire fight
in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. But, his commanders say he
wasn’t there, as Cambodia was presumably a neutral nation off
limits to U.S. troops.
Only that’s not true. Kerry was operating in the vicinity
of the Cambodian border during 1968, and his personal journals from
the time ““ viewed and attested to by historian Doug Brinkley
““ note that he made multiple incursions into Cambodia to drop
off CIA operatives and special forces personnel during this period.
It does appear Kerry misremembered the night ““ he was about
50 miles away from Cambodia on Christmas Eve ““ but the story
is otherwise sound.
Kerry had no reason to spend years lying about his Cambodian
experiences. He’s already a decorated war hero. Though we
dispute which foreign waterway he was traversing in defense of our
country, the question of where he wasn’t is clear. He was not
safely avoiding conflict in Vietnam, unlike President Bush, Dick
Cheney, Bill Clinton, Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert. Hence, we can
understand why McCain condemned the Swift Boat Veterans and called
on Bush to do the same. It’s why Gen. Tommy Franks called the
attacks “political hyperbole.” And it’s why we
should reject these blatantly political attacks and demand a higher
level for our political discourse.
In a world of few heroes and many charlatans, it’s a shame
that a courageous veteran who returned home to rally his country
against a war he felt to be unjust is being slandered by partisan
bottom feeders. If we allow these specious claims to fly forth
unchallenged, the shame is upon us as well.
Klein is a third-year political science student.