May 15,
2001
What Bob
Kerrey Is Guilty Of
By Tom Bevan
Bob Kerrey should pay a price for his actions, but not for anything
he did in Vietnam. Despite all of the back-and-forth handwringing
over Kerrey's admission of killing women and children in a 1969
raid and the horrors of the Vietnam War, what the media pundits
failed to scrutinize adequately in light of recent revelations
is Bob Kerrey's shamelessness in attacking President Bush's military
record in last year's election.
The story of George Bush's "missing year" in the Texas
Air National Guard was first reported by the Boston Globe in May.
The Globe claimed that Bush, after receiving a transfer to a unit
in Alabama in the spring of 1972, failed to report for duty until
the end of April 1973. At the time, the Governor issued a quick
rebuttal, defending his record and citing his honorable discharge
from the Guard as proof that he "did the duty necessary."
The issue disappeared from view until late September when it
resurfaced in the form of a column (written by a farmer from Clinton,
Iowa) on the liberal web site Tompaine.com. Two weeks later Gore
advisor Paul Begala floated the rumor to a national audience on
NBC's Meet the Press.
"He never showed up for an entire year," Begala said.
"Bush tells us to our face he’ll restore honor and integrity
to that Oval Office when I believe he’s not telling the truth
that he never, in fact, reported to the National Guard in Alabama."
On October 31, the Boston Globe printed a reprise of its original
report under the title, "Questions remain on Bush's service
as guard pilot." Enter Bob Kerrey. After reading the article,
Kerrey called the Boston Globe and gave an unsolicited interview
attacking Bush's record, going so far as to claim Bush had gone
"AWOL." The Globe quoted Kerrey as saying that Bush
had a "moral obligation of his own to search his conscience
and answer questions" about his service record.
Three days later, on Friday, November 3, Kerrey organized a press
conference with fellow Medal of Honor winner Senator Daniel Inouye
and called for Bush to make all of his military records public,
again insinuating some sort of dereliction of duty. Nevermind
that Kerrey's demand, issued as it was on the Friday before Election
Day, couldn't possibly be completed in time to make the print
deadline for the Monday papers. Even the New York Times reported
after the press conference that its own review of Bush's record
showed him serving during the time in question and that Kerrey's
charges against Bush were "unfounded."
On Sunday, November 5, Kerrey appeared on Meet the Press where
Tim Russert questioned him on whether his recent comments about
Governor Bush were "way out of bounds." Kerrey responded,
"They're not way out of bounds. Certainly, if -- I mean,
if I'd gone over the line and implied that he didn't serve honorably,
I apologize. He did serve honorably. But I don't think he understands
that when you come forward and represent your military service,
you've got to represent it right, and he didn't."
And now it turns out that Mr. Kerrey's own service record has
been misrepresented. At worst, Kerrey committed acts that some
would say qualify him as a war criminal. At best, he knowingly
accepted a Bronze Star under dubious pretenses and failed for
thirty-two years - including a race for Governor, two races for
Senator, and a run for the Presidency - to correct the record.
To be sure, serving in the Texas Air National Guard is not the
equivalent of losing a leg in Vietnam. Still, Senator Kerrey,
knowing the truth of his own service record and knowing (as he
must have) that the press had been sitting on the story for more
than a year, showed a disturbing willingness to use an unsubstantiated
rumor as a vehicle to leverage his patriotism against another
man's for partisan political advantage.
Perhaps Kerrey was truly outraged by the idea that a candidate
for president would try to avoid service. If so, where was Kerrey's
outrage over Bill Clinton's service record - a man confirmed of
dodging his duty in Vietnam while trying to maintain "political
viability within the system?"
The more likely scenario, however, is that Kerrey saw an opportunity
to score political points by using his stature as a Vietnam veteran
to elevate questionable charges against Bush to national prominence
one week before a presidential election.
Bob Kerrey is a hero and his service to our country should be
honored and respected. But Kerrey's admission shows that he is
a politician driven by ambition, marked with hypocrisy and, in
the case of George Bush's service record, willing to stoop as
low as necessary to tarnish an opponent and curry favor within
his party. This is neither honorable nor respectable.
Tom Bevan writes for RealClearPolitics
