That Old Issue, 'Character,' Keeps Popping Up

It must have been tempting to answer yes and introduce into the debate the "character issues" others have raised about Mr. Kerry. Certainly the senator, a skilled debater with an instinct for the jugular, was sparing no opportunity to take cheap shots at the president.

But the president deflected this "loaded question," as he called it, praising Mr. Kerry for his "service to our country" and being "a great dad" before wandering off into something about how the Kerry daughters had been nice to the Bush girls. Mr. Kerry exhaled and responded with a compliment, calling first lady Laura Bush "a terrific person."

But of course Mr. Bush knows, along with almost everyone else in the U.S. who hasn't been vacationing on Mars, that there is a character issue that has firmly attached itself to the Massachusetts senator. An open letter to Mr. Kerry signed by 197 officers and men who served with him in Vietnam -- the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- charges that, "you have deceived the public, and in the process have betrayed honorable men, to further your personal political career." It is not nothing to have almost 200 men you served with, of various political persuasions, call you a liar. The Swifties still are incensed, 33 years on, at Mr. Kerry's claims before a Senate committee in 1971 that he and his fellow soldiers routinely committed "war crimes."

"Unfit for Command," a book principally authored by Swifties leader John E. O'Neill that charges the senator with unprincipled fakery about his Vietnam record, has been flying off the bookshelves. Judicial Watch, a non-partisan Washington gadfly group, has requested that in light of the Swifties charges, the U.S. Navy and Justice Department launch an official investigation of Mr. Kerry's war record. Judicial Watch cites as possible illegalities the private negotiations Mr. Kerry had with a North Vietnam/Viet Cong delegation in Paris while he was still an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve.

Mr. Kerry responds that he may have been guilty of some youthful indiscretions back then, although at 27 he was in no danger of being asked for his ID by a bartender. His supporters praise him for being willing to stand up for his principles, unpopular as they may have been. But in the torrid antiwar climate of 1971, when President Richard Nixon was under intense political pressure to pull out of Vietnam, Mr. Kerry was hardly risking unpopularity. Certainly, his "principles" didn't block him from eventually winning a Senate seat.

Mr. Kerry's 20-year Senate record has shown him to be frequently squishy on questions involving American efforts to combat aggression. He opposed resistance to the Castro-backed Sandinistas in Central America. He opposed Desert Storm, the Gulf War provoked by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. And he voted against funding the Iraq war after voting in support of it.

It can be argued that the senator's record represents nothing more than political positions that are no reflection on his "character." That's a legitimate argument as far as it goes. But if the senator did in fact lie about his performance in Vietnam, as 197 of his former comrades claim, that is a character issue.

It evokes the memory of Bill Clinton, who lied under oath about his extramarital peccadilloes while occupying the nation's highest office and got himself impeached for his troubles. Some would argue that Mr. Clinton had a successful presidency despite his personal misbehavior. Their claim can be backed by the fact that he was re-elected in 1996 and ended his eight years in office with a federal budget surplus. It is argued as well that, unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton maintained good relations with our allies in Europe.

Well, certainly the French were tolerant of a president who enjoyed female company, given that their own president at the time, Francois Mitterrand, had an equivalent taste. But while Mr. Clinton was making himself liked by foreign leaders and fighting off critics of his personal behavior, there were a lot of things going wrong in the world. North Korea's Kim Jong Il was cheating on a solemn agreement with the U.S. by continuing to build nuclear weapons. Terrorists were attacking U.S. embassies in Africa and a U.S. warship docked in a Yemeni port, to name a few.

In short, the character issue with Mr. Clinton involved not only his sexual habits but his toughness in standing up for American interests. He was better liked overseas than Mr. Bush partly because he was more pliable and risk averse.

In last week's debate Mr. Kerry signaled similar instincts. He would call a "summit of all our allies on Iraq," which seems to be shorthand for dumping the remaining problems in that country on the United Nations. It is not clear what he thinks the "international community" would be capable of doing that is not being done already by the combination of a resolute U.S. and Iraqi forces that are being trained to deal with the continuing security problems. Those forces have already subdued the al Sadr militia and are now taking on the insurgents in Samarra.

The international community doesn't have an impressive record in dealing with matters like the drive by both North Korea and Iran to build nuclear weapons and use them to blackmail neighboring countries. If an American president doesn't find ways to deal with such misbehavior, it is a safe bet that no one else will. Would anyone really want to put the fate of the world in the hands of Kofi Annan?

After the debate last week, a Gallup Poll showed that Mr. Kerry was thought to be the better debater. But this wasn't a college match-up with the winner being the one who scored the most points. One of these two men will be the next leader of the free world. When Gallup asked which man was "tough enough" to be president, Mr. Bush won by a landslide, 54 to 37. Character does count.

This article was published by The Wall Street Journal.

34 comments

http://horse.he.net/~swiftpow/article.php?story=20041008071335581