What Did You Do in the War, Lanky?

In the abstract, I don't especially care what either Bush or Kerry was doing 35 years ago. If Bush joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid combat is that a mark against his character? Sure. Ditto if he went AWOL while in the Guard. But surely what we've learned about Bush's character in the last four years overshadows whatever we might learn from the Viet Nam era. The same is true of John Kerry. It seems to me irrelevant whether he sought out hazardous duty or sought to stay as far from trouble as possible (depending on how you look at it, volunteering for the swift boats could be either). Likewise, whether or not Kerry deserved his three purple hearts just doesn't matter that much to me. John Kerry circa 1969 is not running for president, John Kerry circa 2004 is.

That said, I think this story about the swift boat vets who challenge Kerry's account of his tour in Viet Nam is a big deal. Not just because of the ham-handed way in which the Kerry campaign and the DNC have reacted to it. The substance of their charges is a big deal. Kerry's made his four months in Viet Nam the centerpiece of his campaign; his bronze star and purple hearts are a major part of that story. If, as the swift boat vets are alleging, the purple hearts emerged out of minor, self-inflicted wounds and the incident that lead to the bronze star was largely a fabrication, then Kerry's a fraud, as well as a schmuck. If those allegations are false, then the people making them are, to quote our president, major-league assholes, and Kerry deserves, at the least, an apology.

Since I wasn't there, I have no idea which side is telling the truth. Maybe these vets are just a bunch of right wing stooges; maybe they are just disinterested patriots trying to set the record straight. Probably they're something in between. I think we ought to sort this thing out. The issue isn't whether John Kerry was a hero or a knave in Viet Nam 35 years ago; it's whether or not he's a fraud today.