John Kerry and
An Historian’s View
© Peter W. Dunn, 4 Sept 2004
As the debate of regarding John Kerry’s
Historians are supposed to be even-handed, but because history is not an exact
science, historical studies often reveal as much the predisposition of
the historian as it does about the object of the study. There is no such thing
as pure objectivity. There is little ability to “prove” a point of view,
only to create and test hypotheses. Nevertheless, a good historian tries to
overcome his or her own prejudices and the biases of contemporary culture to
assess and judge critically events in the past. Good historians in the
classic discipline abide by certain rules of historiography--in the light of
these rules, I wish to discuss John Kerry’s
While there are many sub-rules, there are two chief criteria for the creation
and evaluation of hypotheses which I value the most. The first is the
question of evidence: Does the hypothesis take into account all of
the data which is pertinent to the historical event in question? Does the
historian seem to be ignorant of or intentionally ignore certain data?
The second is Ockham’s razor: hypotheses should not unnecessarily be
built upon hypotheses; thus, the simplest solution is to be preferred.
But a caveat is in order: An hypothesis may be too simple if it does not
take into account all of the relevant data. Finally, a word should be
said about the reliability of sources. Historical sources are almost
always of human origin and are therefore fallible to varying degrees. If
reliable evidence external corroborates your source, then your source is
probably reliable and can be trusted where corroborating evidence is
unavailable. The opposite is also true. If reliable external
evidence shows your source to be in error, your source may not be trusted when
there is no corroborating evidence.
John
Kerry as a source
I will take two examples of where we
can test Kerry: The first is the throwing of medals over the fence in
protest. Kerry is on the record as saying that he threw his own medals over
the wall, including the bronze star, the silver star and three purple hearts.
He is also on the record saying that they were not his medals but someone
else’s (e.g., Slate, Boston
Globe). Historically, both versions of the story can’t be true.
It is easy to see why he would lie about this issue. He has recently
tried to portray himself as a war hero, and for that medals are
necessary. He has also tried to portray himself as the noble anti-war
protestor, who was compelled to return awards given to him for the mistake of
the Viet Nam War. Thus, his desire to sketch two seemingly antithetical
portraits of himself has caused him to create two versions of the same story.
The second is the Christmas Eve account in
These are two examples of Kerry’s unreliability as an
historical witness; there are many more, some even more ridiculous--such as his
recent fib about a beloved dog named of all things “VC” which accompanied him
on his Swiftboat.[1]
But these two examples are illustrative and they compel me to conclude that he
is an unreliable and tendentious source. He heaps historical inaccuracies
upon his recollection of false events. If we apply the rule regarding the
reliability of sources, we are forced to conclude that we can only trust Kerry
where reliable corroborating evidence is available. If Kerry is the sole
source, he cannot be trusted on face value. This is why it is
necessary for Kerry to have all his military records released, since historians
would be unable to evaluate the accuracy of his testimony regarding events
leading to his receiving medals and awards without first seeing how those
medals were awarded, who signed off on them, and upon whose testimony they were
given in the first place. If Kerry’s own field reports were the main
source for the citations for his own medals, then their merit is deeply
suspect.
Swiftvets
as sources
It would be impossible without
thousands of dollars in research funds to evaluate each of nearly 300 Swiftvets
who have made statements for and against Kerry. Undoubtedly, whenever
dealing with so many eye-witnesses, the individuals are of varying historical
reliability: some will be good and others not. But the cumulative
weight of the number of witnesses suggests that their combined testimony may
not be discounted without some compelling reason.
The Swiftvet testimony is worthy of our attention if
only because Kerry himself is not a reliable source. But there are
reasons to see bias playing a role amongst the Swiftvets too. In the case
of Rassman, he evidently believes that he owes his life to Kerry. Perhaps
out of gratitude alone, he would not contradict Kerry; and we should not forget
that the role that his friendship would play in creating bias in Kerry’s
favor. In the case of the 264 Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, they are
clearly angry at Kerry for his testimony upon returning from
As a result of Swiftvet TV ads, John Kerry has also
recently accused these 264 men of being liars and lackeys for the Republican
party. Kerry’s further claim that they did not serve on his boat suggests
that only the testimony of those who served directly under Kerry’s command and
on his boat is germane, and all these vets consider Kerry a war hero. An
historian must reject this claim. Other swiftboats served in direct
proximaty to Kerry’s boat, and therefore their crews were also eye-witnesses of
the historical events in question. They are also primary sources to the
events and their testimony cannot be so easily dismissed. Kerry once
again proves his unreliability as an historical source, when he implies that
these swiftvets were not eye-witnesses of his service in
As an officer, Kerry may have also exerted an
influence over his crew which could have clouded their judgment or inhibited
their willingness to speak against him. Those outside that influence also
have great value if only because of their greater objectivity: Suppose a
father beats his wife and children. Do you expect that family to bear
testimony against him? It is possible, but as likely as not, the family
will hesitate to put their dirty laundry in public. If Kerry himself is
guilty of war crimes as he once claimed in testimony before the Senate, then
members of his crew are accomplices and would therefore wish to protect Kerry.
An historian must seek different kinds of evidence--not only those under his
command, but those who were outside that command and particularly those under
whom Kerry served.
It is therefore telling that a significant majority of
the surviving officers under whom Kerry served have denounced his service. To
my knowledge, the thirteen veterans taking his side served under him or equal
to him and would therefore see only one side of Kerry, and one might be able to
conclude from this that as a leader Kerry is likable and able to inspire
loyalty. But Kerry’s own officers say that he was lazy, disloyal,
self-serving and often unwilling to follow orders. This seems to contradict the
meritorious service records signed by some of these same gentlemen. These
officers now claim that the signing of service reports recommending an officer
for promotion is not the same as saying that this person is qualified to be
President of the
Finally, these Swiftvets have repeatedly challenged
Kerry to sign the Form 180 which would permit the Navy to release all of his
service and medical records. They apparently do not fear that such
evidence would contradict their version of the events. Kerry has not
released all of his service records. One may only conclude that he is
hiding something. From an historian’s point of view it is necessary for
all the records to be released to see if the accusations of the Swiftvets
should be corroborated or dismissed on their basis.
Two
Competing Hypotheses Tested
The first hypothesis regarding the historical event of John Kerry’s
The second hypothesis regarding the historical event of John Kerry’s
Perhaps on the surface of it, the first hypothesis seems to conform to Ockham’s
razor the best. It is after all the simplest solution to the evidence of
Kerry’s honorable discharge from the Navy and his numerous medals and
citations. But those who hold this hypothesis must either ignore or dismiss the
evidence of the Swiftvets. This leads to a new, untested hypotheses upon
which the first must stand: namely that the Swiftvets are lying and that they
are lackeys for the Republicans. We can’t take Kerry’s word that they are
lying about
The second hypothesis rests upon the testimony of 264 Swiftvets whose
credibility is at least equal to that of John Kerry and therefore are worthy of
at least the same kind of attention that Kerry’s hypothesis enjoys. It
rests upon the further hypothesis of John Kerry’s unscrupulous ambition to
exalt himself to the office of President. John Kerry proves to be an unreliable
and tendentious witness about his own
Moreover, there is corroborating evidence for the
hypothesis that Kerry was even 30 years ago thinking about the office of
President: the 8mm film that Kerry took with him to re-enact the events of his
heroism. This film has been used in the propoganda of the Kerry Campaign
to portray Kerry as a war hero. Thus, an historian would connect the
dots: Kerry’s detractors say that Kerry filmed himself as a hero during
his Vietnam days in order to use the film one day in his campaign. Since
Kerry has used the footage in his campaign, it is hard to escape the conclusion
that the Swiftvets are telling the truth about their observation of Kerry’s
ambition.
Full disclosure of Kerry’s military records will tend to confirm one or another
of the two hypotheses: Kerry’s promise to disclose his records and yet
his tacit refusal to do so tends to swing the balance towards the hypothesis of
the 264 Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. I mentioned Kerry’s refusal to
release his records to a young friend who said to me, “If you are stopped by
the police you don’t ask them to search the bag that has your stash of
marijuana in it.”
Conclusion
Let us try to consider how good historians fifty years from now will view the
John Kerry’s Viet Nam record. They would be emotionally unattached to the
presidential race of 2004. How would they evaluate John Kerry’s service
in Viet Nam and his subsequent anti-Viet Nam protests? I think that
future historians will be forced to conclude that Kerry was an unrealiable witness
from the start and that even while in Viet Nam had the ambition of becoming
president. In addition, they would not be able easily to discount the
testimony of so many of his fellow swiftboat veterans who served with him, 264
who believe that Kerry is unfit for office while thirteen say that he is.
Finally, I think historians will regard as specious John Kerry’s attempt to say
that his four month service in Viet Nam affords him special attention for the
office of President of the United States. He has, after all, claimed that
Viet Nam veterans, himself included, were commiting war atrocities as a matter
of course. The incoherence of John Kerry’s competing claims is
astonishing. Above all, a young officer who served on the front line is
not thereby qualifed to be president. Futher historians will probably
have to conclude that Kerry’s attempt to portray himself the intrepid warrior
was a smokescreen to hide his voting record as a Senator, which shows him to be
weak on defense issues at a time when anxiety over terrorism was arguably the
most important issue to voters.
Finally, I think historians will need to admit that the major media sources,
with a few exceptions (e.g., Fox News, conservative talk-radio, Wall Street
Journal, Washington Times), did not wish to examine the evidence of the
Swiftvets and denounced it out of hand, by trying to associate them with the
Bush campaign. But this begs the question of Kerry’s own
reliability: even if the Swiftvets were helped and encouraged by the Bush
campaign, however, their testimony is not of no worth to the historian: we
cannot dismiss them because Kerry says they are liars. And they are no
more discredited because of alleged association with the Republicans than
Kerry’s “Band of Brothers” can be because they campaigned in favor of
Kerry. John Kerry’s own claim to be a war hero must be examined against
Swiftvets claims and against the official Navy records, if only because Kerry
is an unreliable historical source. Journalists, according to surveys, are overwhelmingly
in favor of Kerry for President and are thus trying to silence the Swiftvets to
protect their preferred candidate. But in ignoring the evidence of the
Swiftvets while doing Kerry’s dirty work by attempting to discredit them, the
“mainstream” media has shown unhealthy partisanship and has discredited its own
reliability as a news source. We can thus say that if the mainstream
media is your only source of information, you cannot trust it.
[1] Kerry wrote: “When I was serving on a Swift
Boat in Vietnam, my crewmates and I had a dog we called VC. One day as
our Swift Boat was heading up a river, a mine exploded hard under our boat.
After picking ourselves up, we discovered VC was MIA (missing in action).
Several minutes of frantic search followed, after which we thought we'd lost
him. We were relieved when another boat called asking if we were missing a
dog.” There is no corroborating evidence of this story, neither of the mine
that blew up or of the existence of the dog. It appears to be complete
fabrication to win the sympathy of animal-loving voters. See http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040825-120324-7732r
(article no longer available—pwd 8 Nov 2007).