The Winter Soldier Candidate

The Winter Soldier Candidate
By P. Scott Cummins © 2004 The Urbane R

“He’s an equivocator. He’s a liberal. He’s a politician. He was liberal, he was rich, he was from Massachusetts, he talked like a Kennedy, he had people cleaning his house that could have been our parents… (T)hey were viewing John Kerry as some kind of elitist.”

What’s this, another Republican attack? Actually, it is reflections on John Kerry from men who helped him run Vietnam Veterans Against The War (VVAW), as interviewed by Richard Stacewicz in his book Winter Soldiers: An Oral History of the Vietnam Veterans Against The War. Ironically, this discussion by VVAW insiders came in discussion of their meeting in the autumn of 1971 in Kansas City, where John Kerry resigned from the steering committee of the organization. Why would he do that? Perhaps this revelation from VVAW leader Terry DuBose had something to do with it:

“That was also where there was actually some discussion of assassinating some senators during the Christmas holidays… They had a list of six senators… Helms, John Tower, and I can’t remember the others, who they wanted to assassinate when they adjourned for Christmas. They were the ones voting to fund the war. They approached me about assassinating John Tower because he was from Texas. The logic made a certain amount of sense because there’s (sic) thousands of people dying in southeast Asia. We can shoot these six people and probably stop it.” Even though he remained with VVAW, DuBose went on to say that after this “I couldn’t get up the enthusiasm any more.”

The question must be asked: was John Kerry present during this discussion? If not, did he know about it? The author doesn’t ask, but goes into great detail about Kerry’s upset at so many of his VVAW colleagues who inflated, or outright fabricated, their Vietnam credentials. So Kerry was asking questions, and apparently knew the true motivations behind the movement he helped run – and for which he was national spokesperson. As the VVAW’s most prominent war hero, and the contact for much of the fundraising which maintained the organization – it might be presumed that Kerry had more influence than was actually the case. He apparently had great misgivings about the organization being “used” for propaganda purposes by the Soviets and North Vietnamese. But VVAW insiders wore their communist-affiliated medals and ribbons with pride – and even went to Paris to convivially meet with North Vietnamese in a propaganda coup of epic proportions. Did the VVAW ask to meet with Hanoi Hilton POWs? Yeah, right.

So what were VVAW activities that Kerry and his cohorts conducted? Stacewicz’ book is replete with examples. One, from 1969, was something they called “Guerilla Theater” at a California shopping mall near San Bernardino. “All of us vets came in wearing fatigues and carrying toy guns and stuff. It was incredible. We started grabbing people out of the crowds and started pushing them, shoving them, and calling them names. We drug them all down and threw them in a big group and pretended to machine-gun them. We threw fake blood all over the place… We wanted to show Americans what it was like to be Vietnamese… We made definite gains… Our line was: Veterans have done a lot of stuff in Vietnam, and this is what we have to do to pay back for what we did.”

Was Kerry actually involved in the planning of such activities? The details on that are murky, and Kerry isn’t talking. But in comparison to years of steadfast service by his fellow Yalie in the Texas and Alabama National Guard, Kerry’s choices are, well, what they are. Political scientists can analyze away, but the propaganda outreach and meetings with Soviets and North Vietnamese (which Kerry opposed, it appears – and again, he should talk about this) clearly hardened communist resolve on the war – and prolonged it. In later years, even the VVAW insiders who conducted the strategies which brought shame on soldiers (such as the now famous video clip of Kerry’s speech about everyday atrocities, which runs right along the edge between rhetorical overstatement and outright fabrication), complained about the lack of celebration for Vietnam veterans – but refuse to own up to their pivotal role in bringing that shame upon their comrades.

What of atrocities? VVAW made the specter of Americans-as-criminals the centerpiece of their organization. While atrocities did occur - and were reported, investigated and prosecuted whenever uncovered – where they the everyday experience? If Kerry’s viewpoint is credible, then why no investigation of his own statements and experiences? There seems to be a double-standard when viewing the war era experiences of the two candidates.

What is the reality of this situation? In their book Stolen Valor, B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley uncover many of the inconsistencies and outright lies about America in Vietnam – particularly the fabrications concocted by VVAW. Kerry’s now-famous impassioned speech to the Senate was written for him and coached by a Kennedy family media handler. Even then, Kerry’s political aspirations were being managed. If one candidate must produce war-era records in corroboration, then Candidate Kerry must produce records which demonstrate he rebuked many of the tactics and activities of his own organization. Because if he did not, he is not fit to be president.