Three decades ago John Kerry returned to the shores of his homeland from the jungles of Vietnam, where he had fought valiantly alongside his fellow Americans. The young soldier had a reputation for inspiring those under his command and often earned their respect by demonstrating a sense of compassion and loyalty. Perhaps it was destiny that Kerry would one day be a candidate for the presidency of the United States.
A poet once said, "To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of men." Upon his return from Vietnam, Kerry had the courage to break his silence and protest a war that he believed was demoralizing the greatness of America.
As the young soldier made his way back into "the world," he could not forget the faces of his brothers who perished beside him in Asia. He could not forget the sorrow and pain of a people who suffered in the midst of war. It was only a matter of time before Kerry spoke out publicly against what his own country had done in Vietnam.
Many of Kerry's critics would like for Americans to believe that his actions against the war make him unpatriotic. Their rationale stems from centuries of hard-line conviction that defines patriotism as blindly supporting government and majority rule - a belief that doesn't even come close to the true meaning of patriotism in America.
Certainly, Kerry's heroism in Vietnam cannot be legitimately challenged. While in uniform, Kerry received Silver and Bronze stars for gallantry, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal and three Purple Hearts for wounds he sustained in battle. Kerry was awarded his Bronze Star for rescuing a Green Beret who was drowning in a nameless river off the Mekong Delta. Del Sandusky, a crewmate who served under Kerry, recalled the incident in a telephone interview:
"We didn't even know he was in the water for at least two minutes. He was a Green Beret loaded down with weapons and boots and everything else you can think of. He had been hiding underwater and only coming up for air every 30 seconds so he wouldn't get shot, because we were in the middle of a firefight with Charlie [the Viet Cong]. John had been injured in the arm and was bleeding all over the damn place. As soon as John realized he was in the water, he ordered us to turn the boat around to go back. Most of us were shooting because we were being shot at, so John ran up to the bow ... and when he got there he just laid down on his wounded arm and pulled our man out. Once we had him, John gave us the hand signal to go back and finish the firefight ... and then he picked up a gun too and started shooting back at Charlie. That picture still stays in my mind - John Kerry bleeding all over the bow and picking a Green Beret up out of the water. I'll never forget it. I'll never forget it as long as I live."
This is the kind of man that Kerry's critics accuse of being unpatriotic: a man who risked his life to save his fellow soldiers. A man who has fought fearlessly and heroically in the battlefield - a landscape that many of his critics have never seen nor treaded upon.
Most of the controversy surrounding Kerry involves what he did off the battlefield, however. Kerry's critics believe his comments about the Vietnam War were unfounded. They believe that his decision to speak out against the war was a traitorous display of disloyalty to the principles for which our nation stands.
"John Kerry and his antiwar movement tried to slander and mislead the American public about their soldiers by saying that they were in Vietnam to kill women and children and that they had no business being over there," said Dan Tran, president of the Vietnam Human Project, an organization dedicated to improving human-rights conditions in the embattled country. "That was wrong."
What Tran is referring to is a lengthy testimony Kerry delivered to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. During his testimony Kerry reported the results of an independent investigation conducted by 150 other highly decorated war veterans who revealed their actions in Vietnam. Kerry relayed stories told to them by his fellow veterans about soldiers who raped women, shot civilians and tortured the enemy. He since has been criticized for those comments and the passionate emotion he expressed that day in our nation's capital.
The day after he testified, Kerry discarded his ribbons at an antiwar protest in Washington, where he says he simply "threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through." According to Sandusky, Kerry did not throw away his own medals - he simply threw his ribbons and the medals of other veterans who were paralyzed or injured and had asked him to do so because they could not attend themselves.
Nonetheless, recently a story developed on ABC News, whose reporters decided to follow up on what Kerry has referred to as a "phony controversy" instigated by the Republican Party. The network apparently felt its reporters had stumbled upon a breaking news story when they found video footage of Kerry saying he actually threw away some medals. ABC thought it had an angle, since Kerry has professed throughout his campaign that he did not discard his medals. The disparity wasn't capitalized upon directly by the Bush campaign, but that didn't stop one former White House official from commenting. During an interview with CNN, Karen Hughes, a former Bush adviser, criticized Kerry's antiwar efforts by calling them "very revealing."
Perhaps what is most revealing is that the attacks on Kerry's antiwar efforts are political and are being used to try to discredit him when, in fact, they are unwarranted and unjustified.
How can one question the honor of a man simply because he may or may not have thrown his war decorations at a protest when he didn't think twice to do what it took to earn them on the battlefield? The true dishonor comes from those who attack war veterans who have risked their lives for their country, especially when it's for political reasons. Nothing is more hypocritical and cowardly than attacking the integrity of a soldier for expressing his contempt for the evils of war - especially for those accusers who have never faced the perils of war themselves.
Instead of focusing on what Kerry did with his war decorations, the media should instead shine a light on the courage Kerry has shown off the battlefield since he returned to the United States. Americans should celebrate Kerry's antiwar efforts as bravery because they are a testament to the very spirit for which our nation stands. Kerry felt what his country did in Vietnam was wrong, and he had the courage to speak out for what he believed in.
While many Americans simply expressed their outrage against the war or criticized those who protested it, Kerry acted. After being honorably discharged from the Navy, Kerry continued his mission in another war that was fought on our own soil to compel our nation's leaders to change their foreign policy. Renowned journalist Morley Safer described him as "a veteran whose articulate call to reason rather than anarchy seemed to bridge the gap between Abbie Hoffman and Mr. [Spiro] Agnew's so-called Silent Majority."
Upon his return home, Kerry cofounded the Vietnam Veterans of America, became a spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War and committed himself to a cause from which he never walked away. The kind of political activism Kerry displayed in his postwar days is an example of the finest and most responsible citizen participation and freedom of expression our nation has to offer. To criticize Kerry for organizing peaceful and effective antiwar efforts is to criticize the very fabric of our Constitution and the political debate our democratic principles encourage.
Recently both the American and British press published photographs of coalition soldiers from both countries humiliating and abusing Iraqi prisoners. Some of the acts, such as electrocution torture, were strikingly similar to the very acts Kerry accused American troops of committing during Vietnam. It will be interesting to see whether those who criticized Kerry for exposing such actions during Vietnam will now criticize those who take a stand against our soldiers' current war crimes in Iraq.
Among the critics of such un-American conduct was the president himself, who stepped up to the plate and said, "This is not the way we do things in America." President George W. Bush is right. It's not the way we do things in America and it's not the way we should do them in Iraq or Vietnam, either. Will those critics who attacked Kerry now slander Bush, as well? Probably not. Maybe that's because the attacks on Kerry are more political than legitimate.
The fact of the matter is, Kerry is exactly what every conservative in America fears most - a war hero with an impeccable military record who has the credibility to challenge the current strategies being employed in Iraq. It's no surprise that media reports and conservative pundits suddenly have attacked the most frivolous of Kerry's actions and comments, none of which takes away from the heroism he achieved in combat.
John Kerry had the courage to break his silence and tell the truth about what happened in Vietnam. He has fought for what he believes in his heart is right and what he believes is best for humanity, both then and now. Much to the dismay of those who seek to discredit him, Kerry's opponents will find that it takes more than a handful of lost ribbons to tarnish the honor of a true American hero.
Shapiro is an investigative journalist and a law student at the University of Florida. He worked for the Globe tabloid from 1997 to 1999, when he reported his employers to the FBI for criminal violations. He now specializes in analyzing media imbalance and unfairness.
Originally published in Insight, A Washington Times owned magazine - May 17, 2004
