Warrior For the Anti-War Cause
by Bill Howard

In April 23, 1971, John Kerry appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). He testified about their Vietnam experiences. Toward the end of his remarks, he stated “We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our memories of service.” He was ashamed of Vietnam and wanted to forget.

Apparently, Kerry no longer holds that sentiment. His Vietnam service now plays a prominent role in his presidential campaign. He mentions it at practically every event and he made it the centerpiece of the Democratic National Convention. At the convention, he showed film clips of his time in Vietnam. He surrounded himself with vets and military officers. He saluted the conventioneers, reporting for duty. It was one grand patriotic display, complete with militaristic, even bellicose, rhetoric. And flag-waving. Yes, flag-waving, literally—thousands of conventioneers waving American flags.

This was Kerry’s biggest flip-flop of all—from anti-war activist to pro-military candidate. The Convention’s patriotic excess caused me to reflect. What happened to the anti-war crowd? They must find this chauvinistic display unsettling. But, they appeared to go along with it. Certainly the big names in the left-wing kook-fringe went along with the display. The Howard Deans, the Michael Moores, the George Soroses—they were all reassured that the patriotic celebration was done for political expediency; Kerry had to appeal to “the undecideds.” But, what about the Democratic little guys? What about the true-believing anti-war, anti-Bush base? Wouldn’t they find this celebration of American military might a bit unnerving? Wouldn’t they begin to doubt Kerry’s anti-war credentials, his left-wing bona fides?
At that point, it occurred to me. Perhaps I could be of help. Perhaps I could provide a needed service for the Democrats. With a simple review of Kerry’s record, I could provide the necessary evidence to reassure the kook-fringe and help the Democrats shore up their base.

Warrior For the Anti-War Cause

John Kerry entered public life as the poster boy for the anti-war left. He returned from Vietnam and became involved with the group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). He quickly became one of its leaders. He participated in the Winter Soldier Investigations, in which veterans gathered to testify regarding their experience in Vietnam. They outlined alleged atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers.

When John Kerry appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee, he recounted such stories. He reported that American soldiers had “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”

John Kerry also referred to himself as having committed atrocities. On NBC’s Meet the Press, he was challenged on his statements. In reply, he stated, “I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I shot in free-fire zones, fired 50-caliber machine [gun] bullets, used harass-and-interdiction fire, served in search-and-destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts are contrary to the laws of the Geneva Convention, and all were ordered as written, established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals.”

These are damning charges. If the events John Kerry described actually occurred, it is incumbent upon him to provide evidence. With evidence, appropriate action could be taken. Appropriate action could include indicting John Kerry for war crimes. “The men who ordered this are war criminals.” He could easily have added, “and so are the men who carried out those orders.”

It is unlikely that John Kerry has any evidence of Vietnam atrocities. To date, there is no indication that wide-spread atrocities were committed by American soldiers in Vietnam.

Furthermore, John Kerry apparently did not actually witness many of the alleged atrocities. He was only repeating rumors. In that case, John Kerry perpetuated false claims to advance his anti-war goals (if done knowingly, he lied). In any case, John Kerry was willing, under oath, to slander the men and women serving in Vietnam.

There is another Vietnam incident that played a significant role in Kerry’s anti-war efforts. In an article for the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979, he stated, “I remember spending Christmas eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas.” He referred to this recollection as being seared in his memory, and repeated it on numerous occasions. At least once, on March 27, 1986, he included it in the congressional record. He said, “I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia.”

This “memory” was used to strong effect. Kerry used it to undermine the war effort in Vietnam. If he had been in Cambodia, that would have been against international law. In addition, it contradicted what American leaders were saying at the time. The claim about being in Cambodia damaged our government’s credibility and advanced the anti-war argument that the U.S. was expanding the war.

Kerry’s oft-repeated “memory” would have stood as fact, except that there were other sailors serving with John Kerry over Christmas of 1968, most notably his fellow Swift Boat commanders. These sailors challenged Kerry on this “memory.” Due to their challenge, this event, though it was “seared into his memory,” was shown to be demonstrably false. As a result, the Kerry campaign recanted and claimed that the events occurred on a different occasion.

Since this “memory” was supposedly a pivotal event in John Kerry’s life, and since it was anchored to the Christmas holiday, these false statements must have been made knowingly. In this case, John Kerry was indeed willing to lie to advance the anti-war cause.

Kerry’s anti-war attitudes did not disappear following the Vietnam War. He returned to Massachusetts and ran in the Democratic primary for a congressional seat. He campaigned as an anti-war candidate. During that campaign, he expressed his views in an interview with the Harvard Crimson (2/13/70). He said that he wanted “to almost eliminate CIA activity.” He also stated, “I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

That campaign was unsuccessful, but Kerry continued to espouse anti-war views in his public life. For example, he became one of the main proponents for the Nuclear Freeze movement. At a time when the Soviet Union had achieved some advantage in troop strength and weapon systems, Kerry aligned himself with the movement that called for freezing that advantage in place. While President Reagan called for challenging the Soviets, even ramping up the arms race if necessary; Kerry called for ending the arms race entirely, even ending it unilaterally if necessary.

In Congress, Kerry generally opposed military options for advancing American interests. There are numerous examples. He criticized the Grenada invasion as “a bully’s show of force.” He voted against lifting the arms embargo to Bosnia (Clinton did not go to Congress for a vote on military action in Bosnia, so there was no other vote). Kerry also voted against the first Gulf War.

Kerry’s anti-war efforts were most extreme when it came to opposing support for the Contras, the Nicaraguan insurgents that Reagan referred to as “freedom fighters.” When Congress was considering a vote on aid to the Contras, Kerry accompanied Iowa Senator, Tom Harkin, on a trip to Managua. They negotiated with the Sandinista Communist leader, Daniel Ortega. Since actual “negotiations” would have circumvented normal diplomatic channels and therefore would have been very inappropriate, Harkin and Kerry referred to their venture as a fact-finding trip. The purpose of Kerry’s foray into diplomacy was to undermine our government’s efforts to help the Contras and thereby undermine the Contras’ struggle against Communist tyranny. Kerry, on the other hand, claimed he did it to “give peace a chance.”

Against Our Warriors

In Kerry’s political life, his anti-war sentiments translated into a general distrust of the military. He quite regularly voted against military pay raises and against military expenditures in general. Of all the Senators from both parties, Kerry has been the most consistent in voting against military funding. The following are a few choice examples:

In 1993, he voted to reduce defense spending for weaponry development by $8.8 billion (S. RES 106).

In February 1994, Kerry proposed an amendment to an appropriations bill (S. Amend 1452). It became known as the “Kerry Amendment.” Defense and Intelligence were already being cut, and the “Kerry Amendment” would have cut an additional 4 billion dollars from the defense budget.

In 1996, Kerry introduced a bill to cut Department of Defense funding by $6.5 billion (S. 1580).

Also in 1996, he voted for an amendment proposed by Senator Harkin, which froze defense spending for seven years, amounting to a $35 billion cut (S. Amend 1126). Here is the amendment’s “Statement of Purpose”: “To reduce unnecessary military spending, holding military spending to a freeze in the overall spending over seven years, protecting readiness and modernization activities and shifting the savings to education and job training.” This statement quite clearly defines Kerry’s priorities.

In the February 23, 2004 edition of the Washington Post, Joshua Muravchik recounted the weapons systems Kerry has voted against: “The litany of weapons systems that Kerry opposed included conventional as well as nuclear equipment: the B-1 bomber, the B-2, the F-15, the F-14A, the F-14D, the AH-64 Apache helicopter, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Patriot missile, the Aegis air-defense cruiser and the Trident missile. And he sought to reduce procurement of the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile and they F-16 jet. Time and again, Kerry fought against what he called ‘the military-industrial corporate-welfare complex that has relentlessly chewed up taxpayers’ dollars.’”

That’s quite a list. Elimination of these weapons would have decimated our military.

Of all defense-related spending, intelligence spending is probably most salient in this post-9/11 world. During the 1990s, John Kerry was on the Intelligence Committee for eight years. While on the committee, he proposed at least three reductions in the intelligence budget. During the same period of time, he proposed no increases in the Intelligence budget.

In 1997, Kerry revealed his skepticism about our intelligence agencies. On the Senate floor, he queried “why is it the vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary?” (Reported in New York Times, 1/25/04). According to the Times, Kerry then proposed a series of measures cutting intelligence spending.

In 1995, Kerry proposed a bill with a list of expenditures to be cut, including $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget (S. 1290). This was after the first attack on the World Trade Center had already occurred. At that time, Kerry referred to the items on his list as “pointless, wasteful, antiquated, or just plain silly.” He didn’t say which of these terms applied to intelligence spending.

Some might argue that Kerry’s animus against the military has been in the past, limited to the time before 9/11. After all, the Democratic Convention was full of tough, even militaristic, rhetoric. But upon closer examination, the tough rhetoric was more tone than substance.
In his speech, Kerry issued two particularly firm and decisive statements. In one, he said, “Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.” This statement, though tough-sounding, implies that Kerry would wait for the next attack before going after terrorism. It certainly does not describe any preemptive action. Following 9/11, George W. Bush defined a “War on Terrorism” that goes after terrorists and the states that support and harbor them. Kerry’s position sounds as though he would simply track down terrorists after the fact. He is proposing a “Police Investigation against Terrorism,” rather than a “War on Terrorism.”

If this assessment sounds a bit harsh, consider the fact that Kerry himself described the fight against terror as “primarily a law-enforcement and intelligence operation.” Now, that, my friends, is (as he has also said) a more “sensitive” war on terror.

At the Convention, Kerry also referred to America’s “time-honored tradition.” He explained, “The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to.” This statement sounds reasonable, even prudent. But again, upon reflection, it unravels. The principle enunciated in the statement rules out the following military interventions: Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, the first Gulf War, Grenada, going into Panama after Noriega, the Vietnam War, and the Korean War. My goodness, it even eliminates World War I and the Spanish American War. Perhaps in World War II, Kerry would have thrown out a police dragnet to track down those specific Japanese pilots that bombed Pearl Harbor.

Message To The Democrat Left

Although the Democratic Convention presented Kerry as a pro-military patriotic hawk, his career in politics presents a radically different picture. He has been the anti-warrior throughout his political career. Kerry first showed his disdain for the military when he threw his Vietnam medals away (OK, maybe they weren’t his medals. He threw his medals away before he didn’t throw his medals away.) His most recent show of contempt came when, purely for political expediency, he voted against the $87 billion to fund the military operations in Iraq. Apparently, an anti-war fervor was seared into Kerry’s personality and has persisted since the early 1970s.

So, the message for Howard, Michael, George and all the little guys on the kook-fringe: Don’t worry about John Kerry. He’s one of your own.

–From the October 2004 Austin Review