Dem's "Swiftboating" Charge is Part of 2006 Campaign

Those who know me know that I led in 1971 and in 2004 the Vietnam veterans’ spontaneous uprising against John Kerry’s lies and slander against us and America’s mission in Vietnam.

John Kerry’s self-hagiography as a selfless, discouraged war hero would likely have succeeded more than it did in 1971 and 2004, if not for his fellow Vietnam veterans – especially including the Swiftees who served alongside him – exposing his fabrications. None that I know wanted to battle Kerry, except that he claimed his questionable, short service 35-years before as his primary qualification to lead in these perilous times.

Most Americans, rightfully, respect those who served, regardless of the extremism of those who seek to denigrate. And, most Americans, rightfully, don’t look kindly upon those who nitpick about gray-area decisions that must be made under mortal danger. Honorable military service will motivate many voters, in some cases perhaps providing the margin of victory.

The Democrat Party in February 2005 created an Office of Military and Veterans Outreach, to increase the Party’s standing with veterans, 18% of the electorate of which only 41% voted for Kerry. The Democratic Party has been actively seeking veterans as Congressional candidates for 2006, and has about 35, all of whose military service appears honorable. Calling themselves Veterans for a Secure America, they plan to rebut President Bush’s State of the Union speech.

The radical Left is joining in, with a Kos-acolyte led “Band of Brothers” PAC with the object of raising $10-million to support them. See their Mission Statement.

The CNS article raising questions about John Murtha’s Purple Hearts in Vietnam has led to an outpouring of indignation among many Democrats, particularly those who are avidly anti-Iraq War and those who refuse to admit that John Kerry was caught in his exaggerations and lies. They claim the CNS article is part of a Republican smear campaign, although they cannot point at any Republican supporting the CNS article.

Indeed, every leader I know from the anti-Kerry Vietnam veteran coalition has not been involved, and doesn’t want to be.

Jack Kelly (bio), one of us, is National Security Writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and a nationally syndicated columnist. A former Marine and Green Beret, he was a deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force during the Reagan administration.

I will let Kelly speak for me:

Another story which frosted me today was Howard Kurtz's column in the Washington Post on a story by the Cybercast News Service about Rep. John Murtha's military record.
I was especially incensed about the headline: A Swift-Moving Story. The implication, which Kurtz makes explicit:
Is Jack Murtha being unfairly Swift-boated?
is that Jack Murtha is being smeared as poor John Kerry was by those nasty Swift Boat veterans.
There are a few differences. The accusations against Murtha are brought by two political opponents (both of the Democrats in primary campaigns) who had no direct knowledge of what Murtha did or did not do in his service in Vietnam. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth all served with John Kerry in Vietnam. Indeed, most of those who did serve with Kerry joined the organization. They were in a position to speak with authority.
To my mind, the Swift Boat Veterans:
1. Demonstrated beyond doubt that Kerry lied about spending Christmas in Cambodia.
2. Demonstrated pretty convincingly that the "wound" for which Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart was not the result of combat.
3. Overreached in casting suspicion on Kerry's performance in which he was awarded his Silver Star. (This was the one mission in controversy on which no Swift Boat Veterans for Truth members were present.)
4. Made a reasonable case that Kerry deserved neither his third purple heart or his bronze star. (For some details, see here.
I don't know if the CNS story about Murtha's purple hearts is true, and I don't care. I wish the story hadn't been written. Murtha hasn't made his military record the centerpiece of his campaign for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as John Kerry (foolishly) made his military record the centerpiece of his campaign for president, and neither CNS nor its sources were smeared by Murtha in the way the Swifties were smeared by John Kerry.
The CNS story about Murtha's medals might be true. There was a great deal of medal inflation in Vietnam, though less in the Marine Corps (Murtha's service) than in the Army or Navy. But it's a political hit piece that has no relevance to whether it's a good or bad idea to withdraw from Iraq immediately. I hope President Bush criticizes it.
Navy Cross winner Jim Webb, a man I greatly respect, has an op-ed criticizing CNS in the New York Times today.
Webb is powerfully opposed to the Iraq war, and gilds the lily by implying the CNS story is part of a Republican plot (doubtless directed by the Evil Rove) to smear antiwar vets:
"The political tactic of playing up the soldiers on the battlefield while tearing down the reputations of veterans who oppose them could eventually cost the Republicans dearly. It may be one reason that a preponderance of the Iraq war veterans who thus far have decided to run for office are doing so as Democrats.
"A young American now serving in Iraq might rightly wonder whether his or her service will be deliberately misconstrued 20 years from now, in the next rendition of politically motivated spinmeisters who never had the courage to step forward and put their own lives on the line."

Because of insinuations like this -- and because it is the right thing to do -- Bush and the Republicans must be firm in their condemnation of what CNS has done. Mack Owens, a retired Marine colonel who is a friend of Webb's, and of mine, warns:
I see signs of disaffection among military supporters of the president because of seemingly minor things like this. I remember cringing during the Republican convention when delegates were sporting the "purple heart band aids." No matter that it was designed to mock Kerry's alleged minor wounds, people who had received the award didn't think. It conveyed the impression that people who were running this show didn't understand that soldiers might believe they were mocking them.
But journalists should get their facts straight. The Swifties have nothing in common with the CNS story.