April 27, 2006
Questioning John Kerry's Priorities
By Anil Adyanthaya
On Saturday, John Kerry celebrated the thirty-fifth anniversary of his Vietnam War testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He marked the occasion by giving a speech in Boston's Faneuil Hall and by penning an op-ed in The Boston Globe. The theme of both the speech and the op-ed was the value of dissent. Kerry's op-ed is noteworthy, both for what it said and what it did not say.
First, what it did say. Kerry was particularly incensed by criticism of the generals who recently called for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's firing. "We have even heard accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That line of attack is shameful, especially coming from those who have never worn the uniform." It is disturbing to hear a Democrat express a view as undemocratic as one arguing that certain arguments are off limits to "those who have never worn the uniform." But Kerry goes even further astray in his view of patriotism: "Patriotism does not belong to those who defend a president's position -- it belongs to those who defend our country, in battle and in dissent."
What a strange and self-serving statement. Defining the military as patriotic almost goes without saying. However, Kerry gives dissenters the same status, providing that they also "defend our country." Equating the patriotism of dissent and military service undoubtedly reflects Kerry's anti-establishment bias but is not an indefensible position. However, what to make of Kerry's refusal to acknowledge patriotism in those who support a president's policy but who have not served in the military? While Kerry's definition of patriotism conveniently excludes most civilian Republicans, it is still a curious statement for someone who is now in year four of his presidential campaign.
What Kerry left out of his op-ed is just as interesting. Kerry devotes a whole paragraph to listing the horrors he exposed through his Senate testimony: "I felt compelled to speak out about what was happening in Vietnam, where the children of America were pulled from front porches and living rooms and plunged almost overnight into a world of sniper fire, ambushes, rockets, booby traps, body bags, explosions, sleeplessness, and the confusion created by an enemy who was sometimes invisible and firing at us, and sometimes right next to us and smiling."
Yet he neglects to mention the most noteworthy parts of what he said about our military and this country in 1971:
Why did he leave these accusations out? Perhaps it is because even he realizes that there is certain dissent that is unpatriotic.
Massachusetts's other senator, Ted Kennedy, has also been very vocal in his opposition to the war. Saturday would have been a good occasion for Kerry to honor his colleague's dissent. But given the following Kennedy statements on the war, it is probably best for Kerry that he passed on the opportunity:
I do not doubt that Senators Kerry and Kennedy love this country. For example, both served in the military. But it seems that for Kerry and Kennedy, their patriotism is at times overshadowed by other priorities. One such priority is retaking Congress and the White House. As the above quotes suggest, at times they seem more focused on attacking the Bush Administration than doing what is best for the country. None of these quotes represent positive contributions to national debate on the war. In such instances, it seems perfectly fair to question their priorities and their judgment if not their patriotism.
Where Kerry and Kennedy go wrong is that they do not seem to understand that there is a clear line between pointing out specific wrongs and the hyperbolic, generalized slander they have grown too fond of. There is a difference between exposing the criminal behavior undertaken by a few soldiers at Abu Ghraib and maligning the entire military by saying it now manages torture chambers. There is a difference between exposing abuses committed by individual soldiers and claiming that American soldiers, as a matter of course, terrorize Iraqi women and children. And there is certainly a difference between disagreeing with military strategy and claiming, without proof, that that strategy was chosen because of fraud and advanced through bribery.
To paraphrase Kerry: those lines of attack are shameful, especially coming from men who wore the uniform.
Anil Adyanthaya is a lawyer and writer who lives in Brookline, Massachusetts
Questioning John Kerry's Priorities
By Anil Adyanthaya
On Saturday, John Kerry celebrated the thirty-fifth anniversary of his Vietnam War testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He marked the occasion by giving a speech in Boston's Faneuil Hall and by penning an op-ed in The Boston Globe. The theme of both the speech and the op-ed was the value of dissent. Kerry's op-ed is noteworthy, both for what it said and what it did not say.
First, what it did say. Kerry was particularly incensed by criticism of the generals who recently called for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's firing. "We have even heard accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That line of attack is shameful, especially coming from those who have never worn the uniform." It is disturbing to hear a Democrat express a view as undemocratic as one arguing that certain arguments are off limits to "those who have never worn the uniform." But Kerry goes even further astray in his view of patriotism: "Patriotism does not belong to those who defend a president's position -- it belongs to those who defend our country, in battle and in dissent."
What a strange and self-serving statement. Defining the military as patriotic almost goes without saying. However, Kerry gives dissenters the same status, providing that they also "defend our country." Equating the patriotism of dissent and military service undoubtedly reflects Kerry's anti-establishment bias but is not an indefensible position. However, what to make of Kerry's refusal to acknowledge patriotism in those who support a president's policy but who have not served in the military? While Kerry's definition of patriotism conveniently excludes most civilian Republicans, it is still a curious statement for someone who is now in year four of his presidential campaign.
What Kerry left out of his op-ed is just as interesting. Kerry devotes a whole paragraph to listing the horrors he exposed through his Senate testimony: "I felt compelled to speak out about what was happening in Vietnam, where the children of America were pulled from front porches and living rooms and plunged almost overnight into a world of sniper fire, ambushes, rockets, booby traps, body bags, explosions, sleeplessness, and the confusion created by an enemy who was sometimes invisible and firing at us, and sometimes right next to us and smiling."
Yet he neglects to mention the most noteworthy parts of what he said about our military and this country in 1971:
* "They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
* "We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum."
* "We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals."
* "We watched the U.S. falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts."
Kerry has made similar accusations with respect to the Iraq War. In a December appearance on CBS News Face the Nation, he stated that "there is no reason . . . that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs." This dissent did not make it into Kerry's op-ed either.* "We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum."
* "We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals."
* "We watched the U.S. falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts."
Why did he leave these accusations out? Perhaps it is because even he realizes that there is certain dissent that is unpatriotic.
Massachusetts's other senator, Ted Kennedy, has also been very vocal in his opposition to the war. Saturday would have been a good occasion for Kerry to honor his colleague's dissent. But given the following Kennedy statements on the war, it is probably best for Kerry that he passed on the opportunity:
* "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."
* "This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."
* "My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops,"
Can anyone seriously argue that any of these statements show a love or devotion to the United States? * "This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."
* "My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops,"
I do not doubt that Senators Kerry and Kennedy love this country. For example, both served in the military. But it seems that for Kerry and Kennedy, their patriotism is at times overshadowed by other priorities. One such priority is retaking Congress and the White House. As the above quotes suggest, at times they seem more focused on attacking the Bush Administration than doing what is best for the country. None of these quotes represent positive contributions to national debate on the war. In such instances, it seems perfectly fair to question their priorities and their judgment if not their patriotism.
Where Kerry and Kennedy go wrong is that they do not seem to understand that there is a clear line between pointing out specific wrongs and the hyperbolic, generalized slander they have grown too fond of. There is a difference between exposing the criminal behavior undertaken by a few soldiers at Abu Ghraib and maligning the entire military by saying it now manages torture chambers. There is a difference between exposing abuses committed by individual soldiers and claiming that American soldiers, as a matter of course, terrorize Iraqi women and children. And there is certainly a difference between disagreeing with military strategy and claiming, without proof, that that strategy was chosen because of fraud and advanced through bribery.
To paraphrase Kerry: those lines of attack are shameful, especially coming from men who wore the uniform.
Anil Adyanthaya is a lawyer and writer who lives in Brookline, Massachusetts
